Water Law Changes Spark Concerns for Mining Companies

CAMIMEX has warned that the proposed amendment to Art. 118 of the National Water Law, currently under discussion in Congress, could seriously impact mining operations and national security by restricting the construction of essential infrastructure, particularly in mountainous regions where most formal mining takes place.

The chamber emphasized that the mining industry does not, and has no intention to, discharge toxic waste into rivers, reservoirs, or other federal water bodies. Mineral processing waste is managed through specialized infrastructure that complies with national regulations and strict international standards. CAMIMEX stressed that constructing tailings facilities and wastewater management systems is essential for safe and responsible operations, and these authorizations are strictly supervised and do not involve discharges into water bodies.

CAMIMEX warned that the proposed ban in Art. 118 threatens the sector’s operational continuity, production of critical metals and minerals, and the livelihoods of more than 3 million people who depend directly or indirectly on mining. The organization called for legislation that clearly ensures mining waste is securely contained, accounts for the country’s complex geography, and maintains permanent authorization and oversight of infrastructure in federal zones.

The chamber reiterated its readiness to work with the federal government to create an effective, sustainable, and nationally aligned regulatory framework. 

Santiago Suarez, Partner, SLM, emphasized that the upcoming issuance of the regulations should not negatively affect concession holders. “It is crucial for stakeholders in the mining sector to stay informed and closely monitor regulatory developments. Conducting thorough due diligence and having a comprehensive understanding of one’s operations will be essential for ensuring a smooth transition to the new regulatory framework.”

He emphasized that focus should extend beyond concessionaires. The new regulations are likely to establish and broaden the roles and responsibilities of several government agencies. “This means that not only individuals, but also experts, authorities, and other stakeholders in the sector must stay informed and prepared for the upcoming regulatory adjustments.”

Mexican Congress Prepares Revised Water Law Amid Agricultural Concerns

The Chamber of Deputies is set to review the presidential initiative to enact the General Water Law and amend the National Water Law, which was recently revised following demands from agricultural organizations. The draft, expected to be examined by the Hydraulic Resources, Drinking Water, and Sanitation Commission on Dec. 3 and by the full chamber on Dec. 4, includes at least 50 key modifications to the original proposal submitted by President Claudia Sheinbaum.

The changes aim to address agricultural sector concerns, including inheritance of water rights and use of water for farming. Notable revisions include defining “Family Agricultural Use” for small-scale crop and livestock production and ensuring that water rights remain with properties when land is transferred, sold, inherited, or exchanged, preserving continuity of agricultural activities.

Deadlines for requesting extensions have been extended from one to two and a half years, and the National Water Commission (CONAGUA) will handle reassignments within 20 business days in cases of succession or property transfers. The public registry of water rights will be replaced by a National Water Registry (REPNA) to provide clearer information and legal certainty.

Additional changes promote rainwater harvesting for personal, domestic, and family agricultural use, prohibit granting water concessions for mining waste disposal, maintain the authority of Basin Agencies, and reduce penalties for water diversion or obstruction from 10 to 5 years of imprisonment and fines from 4,000 to 2,000 UMAs.

Opposition parties PRI and PAN criticized the reforms as insufficient, ambiguous, and potentially punitive, arguing that the changes mainly serve as cosmetic adjustments that fail to protect agricultural producers and centralize power in the federal government.