Guatemala, a Central American nation with a young and growing population of about 20 million, shares borders with Mexico, Belize, and El Salvador. Its economy is heavily centralized, with the capital city and its metropolitan area contributing over 50% of the country’s GDP. Meanwhile, rural economic development lags significantly behind urban areas, leading to a steady rural-to-urban migration. This ongoing exodus has resulted in labor shortages in the agriculture sector and left rural areas struggling with inadequate investments and basic services. As a result, around 1.5–2 million people form a “floating population,” commuting daily or weekly from surrounding rural regions to the Guatemala City Metropolitan Area. Informal settlements around the city’s outskirts are common, often lacking access to clean water and proper sanitation.
Guatemala does not have a comprehensive water law to regulate and oversee water management and sanitation. The sector is highly fragmented, with various actors operating independently and with limited financial resources. There is no sewage system or wastewater treatment, and much of the wastewater ends up in Lake Amatitlán, located south of Guatemala City. High-income households and private companies often rely on their own water wells, extracting and disposing of water without restriction. With no regulations on underground water extraction, anyone owning private land can technically extract unlimited amounts, further straining the resource.
The main company responsible for supplying water to the Metropolitan Area, which has an estimated population of 4 million, faces severe financial challenges. It charges users an extremely low rate (around $1.20 USD per household per cubic meter), which is insufficient to cover operating expenses, let alone fund renovations or new infrastructure. Potabilization plants and sanitation systems are critically needed to treat and process wastewater, but the lack of financial capacity and investment hampers progress.
Over the past 30 years, Guatemala has shifted from relying primarily on surface water reservoirs to depending on aquifers for up to 70% of its water supply. However, aquifers are being overexploited, with extraction rates exceeding natural recharge rates. Contamination of underground water has become a pressing issue for households and agricultural businesses alike. Hydrologists suggest affordable solutions, such as installing impermeable barriers to prevent contamination, but these measures cannot be widely implemented without a clear regulatory framework that either incentivizes or enforces such actions.
While Guatemala’s constitution declares water as state property, the lack of legislative clarity makes it nearly impossible for municipal water companies to prevent its misuse and overexploitation. Access to clean water remains a privilege dictated by one’s wealth, power, and influence, leaving millions vulnerable and underscoring the urgent need for regulatory reform.
What’s the dilemma then?
The right to safe water and sanitation has been enshrined in the Guatemalan Constitution since 1985. Yet, significant gaps in national regulation for water, sanitation, and hygiene services persist. Legal voids and ambiguity have created a state of lawlessness, disempowering municipalities and local authorities—even when they have good intentions and plans in place. With no clear accountability mechanisms, the result is a glaring case of market failure. Water can be extracted by anyone without legal consequences, leading to overexploitation, contamination, and widespread misuse.
The roots of this crisis go far deeper than water alone. Political distrust, lack of coordination, and the lingering effects of a 36-year armed conflict that ended in 1996 continue to divide Guatemala ideologically and socially. Corruption is rampant, favoring those with financial power and independence. Even the basic separation of duties across public functions is not effectively practiced, creating conflicts of interest, ongoing political crises, and a lack of checks and balances. Cases of high-ranking government officials being detained and extradited to the United States for involvement in drug cartels and other illicit activities illustrate the severity of the problem.
It’s clear: a coherent national water law cannot be implemented without first addressing the political landscape threatening the nation’s stability.
In my view, the dilemma is simple: prioritize short-term needs, like building a wastewater plant, and risk falling back into mismanagement and funding issues—or tackle the core issue: the lack of political will to eliminate corruption. Guatemala must establish an independent government bureau tasked with investigating and monitoring the integrity of political and business leaders at a national level, especially those involved in the lawmaking process. This bureau must have full authority and independence, with members unaffiliated with any political group, working in collaboration with different branches of government.
Political will must include a zero-tolerance approach to corruption and promote a new narrative about public service in Guatemala. Being a politician should be seen as an honor, a role dedicated to serving the nation with honesty and accountability. This shift in perspective could trickle down through all levels of government, encouraging integrity among public officials and private enterprises, including semi-public companies and ventures.
How would you solve this?
To begin, I would engage key stakeholders within the municipality of Guatemala, including the Water Utility Company, research universities, and private consultants, to build a strong, data-backed case. This case would highlight the causes of the current water deficit in Guatemala City and serve as a foundation for reform.
The case would include:
- Business and financial modeling showcasing why the current revenue model is failing and how it can be improved.
- Environmental analysis demonstrating the long-term threats to the city and country’s water sustainability.
- Cost-benefit projections outlining the potential savings for all stakeholders—government, private-public partnerships, and communities—if a law regulating municipal jurisdiction is enacted. This would include measures like taxing private aquifer exploitation and imposing penalties for non-compliance with water regulations.
Acknowledging potential business opposition, we could offer tax breaks for a five-year period to companies that update their processes and agree to independent audits of their water management practices against international standards. Creating a system where private sectors and agriculture also benefit from government support could reduce resistance and foster collaboration. The key is understanding everyone’s concerns, even unreasonable ones, and finding ways to unite stakeholders by demonstrating the mutual benefits of working together. This approach mirrors real-world scenarios where economies of scale lead to greater financial advantages for all parties involved.
By fostering transparency, accountability, and collaboration, Guatemala can address its water crisis while laying the groundwork for broader political and social reform.
Why is this a wicked problem?
This issue qualifies as a wicked problem because there is no clear or universally agreed-upon problem statement. A water company manager might argue that the core issue is funding. A politician involved in allocating resources for water management might oppose charging users, fearing social unrest. Meanwhile, a business owner might resist regulation, concerned about increased production costs. Ultimately, everyone seeks to maximize their own benefits, but this lack of shared vision and self-interest leads to a decline in overall welfare.
To address this, we must create a platform where stakeholders can openly articulate their challenges, share insights into their daily realities, and clearly define what they need to overcome these obstacles. Without open dialogue, competing interests will continue to diverge, further dividing society.
One promising approach is adopting the Polder model for decision-making, complemented by active citizen participation. By involving residents from various parts of the city, we can contrast their lived experiences with water access. For some, water may only be available two days a week, while others enjoy unlimited access at remarkably low costs. Showcasing these disparities in a respectful forum can raise public awareness and inspire meaningful action plans.
Ultimately, it is crucial to craft a unifying narrative—one that bridges individual interests and fosters collective understanding, rather than deepening divisions. Encouraging open dialogue and inclusive participation is key to addressing this complex issue.
