Transboundary Water Sharing: Risk Perceptions Held by Texas Border Decision Makers
Vol. 10 No. 1 (2019). Cover Photo: Painted bunting at Madla Park, Grey Forest, Texas. ©2018 Grace Hardy.


transboundary water sharing
risk perceptions

How to Cite

Sansom, L. C. (2019). Transboundary Water Sharing: Risk Perceptions Held by Texas Border Decision Makers. Texas Water Journal, 10(1), 101–111.


Despite transboundary water resource management issues being a source of tension between neighboring states, little research has addressed what causes cooperation or conflict between differing governments along borders. For the most part, natural hydrological boundaries do not fall easily within political boundary delineations, so governance structures and management approaches are often very different once political jurisdictions are crossed, underscoring the importance of proper management of transboundary water resources. In order to better understand what drives cooperative or conflictual behavior among transboundary stakeholders, a cross-sectional study was conducted along the Texas-Mexico border. Questionnaires were collected (N=168) from Texas water managers along the southern border on issues related to their Mexican counterparts. The results revealed that a lack of trust for binational counterparts is correlated (p<0.001) with a decrease in willingness to cooperate; likewise, as trust decreased, perceptions of risk increased. This approach can help identify a plausible intervention strategy that could target activities that build trust between individuals on both sides of the border to mitigate individuals’ perceptions of risk.

Citation: Sansom L. 2019. Transboundary water sharing: risk perceptions held by Texas border decision makers. Texas Water Journal. 10(1):101-111. Available from:


Alamdari N. 2018 June 21. South Texas — already ground zero for immigrant family separations — hit with disaster-level flooding. The Texas Tribune. Available from:¬ter-declaration-immigrant-family-separations/.

Berardo R, Gerlak AK. 2012. Conflict and cooperation along international rivers: crafting a model of institutional effec¬tiveness. Global Environmental Politics. 12(1):101-120. Available from:

Conti K. 2014. Factors enabling transboundary aquifer coop¬eration: a global analysis. Delft (The Netherlands): Inter¬national Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre. Available from: files/resources/files/Factors%20Enabling%20Transboundary%20Aquifer%20Cooperation.pdf.

Dillman D, Smyth J, Christian L. 2009. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 3rd edi¬tion. Hoboken (New Jersey): John Wiley & Sons. p. 234- 299.

Earle T, Siegrist M. 2008. Trust, confidence and coopera¬tion model: a framework for understanding the relation between trust and risk perception. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues. 8(1-2):17-29. Available from:

Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H, editors. 2010. Trust in risk management: uncertainty and skepticism in the public mind. London (United Kingdom): Earthscan. Chapter 1, Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation; p. 1-50.

Eckstein GE. 2012. Rethinking transboundary ground water resources management: a local approach along the Mexi¬co-U.S. border. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review. 25(1):95-128. Available from:

Fleischman FD, Ban NC, Evans LS, Epstein G, Garcia-Lo¬pez G, Villamayor-Tomas S. 2014. Governing large-scale social-ecological systems: lessons from five cases. Interna¬tional Journal of the Commons. 8(2):428-456. Available from:

Garrick DE, Schlager E, De Stefano L, Villamayor‐Tomas S. 2018. Managing the cascading risks of droughts: institu¬tional adaptation in transboundary river basins. Earth's Future. 6(6):809-827. Available from:

Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science. 162(3859):1243-1248. Available from:

LaFranchi H. 2017 January 27. Trump reawakens Mexican fears of Yankee aggression. Christian Science Monitor. Available from:¬cy/2017/0127/Trump-reawakens-Mexican-fears-of-Yan¬kee-aggression.

Lopes LL. 1994. Psychology and economics: perspectives on risk, cooperation, and the marketplace. Annual Review of Psychology. 45:197-227. Available from:

Milman A, Scott CA. 2010. Beneath the surface: intranational institutions and management of the United States-Mexico transboundary Santa Cruz aquifer. Environment and Plan¬ning: Government and Policy. 28(3):528-551. Available from:

Nava LF, Sandoval Solis S. 2014. Multi-tiered governance of the Rio Grande/Bravo basin: the fragmented water resourc¬es management model of the United States and Mexico. International Journal of Water Governance. 2:85-106.

Rogers K. 2018 June 22. Trump highlights immigrant crime to defend his border policy. Statistics don’t back him up. The New York Times. Available from:¬ders-family-separation.html.

Rowland M. 2005. A framework for resolving the transbound¬ary water allocation conflict conundrum. Groundwater. 43(5):700-705. Available from:

Sanchez R, Eckstein G. 2017. Aquifers shared between Mex¬ico and the United States: management perspectives and their transboundary nature. Groundwater. 55(4):495-505. Available from:

Sanchez R, Lopez V, Eckstein G. 2016. Identifying and char¬acterizing transboundary aquifers along the Mexico– US border: an initial assessment. Journal of Hydrology. 535:101-119. Available from:

Seelke C. 2019. Mexico: background and US relations. Wash¬ington (District of Columbia): Congressional Research Service. R42917. Available from: https://crsreports.con¬

Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. 2000. Salient value sim¬ilarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20(3):353-362. Available from:

Siegrist M, Gutscher H, Earle TC. 2005. Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research. 8(2):145-156. Available from:

Subramanian A, Brown B, Wolf A. 2012. Reaching across the waters: facing the risks of cooperation in international waters. Washington (District of Columbia): The World Bank. Available from:

Subramanian A, Brown B, Wolf A. 2014. Understanding and overcoming risks to cooperation along transboundary riv¬ers. Water Policy. 16(5):824-843. Available from:

UN Water. 2018. Scarcity. Geneva (Switzerland): UN-Water. Available from:¬city/.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2010. United States of America-Mexico bi-national criminal proceeds study. Washington (District of Columbia): U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Available from:

U.S. Department of State. 2008. Joint statement of the Méri¬da Initiative High-Level Consultative Group. Washing¬ton (District of Columbia): U.S. Department of State Archives. Available from: pa/prs/ps/2008/dec/113368.htm.

Villamayor-Tomas S, Fleischman FD, Perez Ibarra I, Thiel A, van Laerhoven F. 2014. From Sandoz to Salmon: concep¬tualizing resource and institutional dynamics in the Rhine watershed through the SES framework. International Journal of the Commons. 8(2):361-395. Available from:

Villareal MA, Fergusson IF. 2017. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Washington (District of Columbia): Congressional Research Service. R42965. Available from:

Wolf AT. 2007. Shared waters: conflict and cooperation. Annu¬al Review of Environment and Resources. 32(1):241-269. Available from:¬gy.32.041006.101434.

Zeitoun M, Warner J. 2006. Hydro-hegemony — a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts. Water Poli¬cy. 8(5):435-460. Available from:

Zeitoun M, Mirumachi N. 2008. Transboundary water interaction I: reconsidering conflict and cooperation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 8(4):297. Available from:

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2019 Lindsay Catherine Sansom