Many American nations, shaped by centuries of European domination over Indigenous Peoples, struggle to establish holistic water policies that accommodate everyone’s interests. There are fundamental differences between how governments and the private sector perceive and manage land and water compared to the perspectives of various Indigenous Peoples across America. Governments and corporations often favor neoliberal policies aimed at improving metrics like GDP, industrial output, and poverty reduction. While these goals are viewed as “positive” by many national and international institutions, the concept of “poverty” is multidimensional and ambiguous. Policies purely driven by economic growth frequently ignore societal, environmental, and other externalities that lack immediate material output—such as mining activities and forced displacements in protected areas and Indigenous lands.
For example, in Guatemala, where 44% of the population is Indigenous, and Mexico, with 20% Indigenous population, government interference and the imposition of non-Indigenous customs and economic paradigms have led to a massive rural exodus. This often drives individuals to large cities, such as Guatemala City or Mexico City, or even to illegal crossings into the US. Contributing factors include overexploitation of water resources, poor agricultural practices that have resulted in soil degradation, and the introduction of subsidized agricultural products from the US under the North American Free Trade Agreement. In Mexico, this has been particularly damaging, as traditional self-sustaining agricultural methods cannot compete with mechanized farming that relies on GMOs and other controversial practices, prioritizing crop output over soil health and human well-being.
These practices have ultimately increased poverty rather than alleviating it. For instance, when a corporation like Coca-Cola drains rivers thanks to lax water policies and unrestricted groundwater pumping, this cannot be considered growth or sustainable employment.
Guatemala’s water policy has largely followed a centralized approach with a predominantly urban focus, prioritizing basic water and sanitation services for Guatemala City, nearby municipalities, and other key urban areas. However, rural areas have been left behind. According to the National Survey of Living Conditions (ENCOVI) in 2012, sanitation services had a coverage deficit of nearly 83% in rural areas, compared to just 24% in urban areas—a stark and troubling divide. The same survey revealed that only 4% of wastewater underwent treatment, while the rest was discharged untreated into rivers and lakes.
Water policy needs to be addressed holistically and equitably to serve all citizens. Voices must be heard in a transparent and inclusive manner to ensure fair solutions. Water quality remains a critical issue, with 60% of water samples tested in 2014 failing to meet residual chlorine standards and lacking proper disinfection. In many cases, even in urban areas, untreated water captured from rivers or lakes is sent directly to households. This has severe consequences, as acute diarrheal diseases continue to rank among the top five causes of morbidity and mortality in Guatemala.
As Professor Leon Hermans highlights in his lecture “Policy Analysis and Decision-Making: The Textbook Approach,” a linear approach to policymaking that assumes a clear, singular problem will not suffice in Guatemala. The government’s economic-focused objectives and worldview are almost irreconcilable with those of Indigenous Peoples, whose perspectives and needs must be considered to create effective and sustainable water policies. Addressing this disconnect is critical to ensuring long-term solutions that benefit all citizens.
One of the reasons the country endured a devastating 36-year civil war and genocide, spanning from the early 1960s to 1996, lies in the systemic marginalization of the Maya people. Rich in diverse languages and religions, the Maya began protesting against a government that deliberately excluded them from education, economic opportunities, and political participation. The government responded with brutal repression, including mass murders, kidnappings, the destruction of entire villages, and widespread intimidation under what became known as “Operation Sophia.” Reports indicate that the army destroyed up to 626 villages, abducted or kidnapped more than 200,000 people, and displaced over 1.5 million, many of whom fled to other regions or countries such as Mexico.
The government also implemented a “scorched-earth” policy, systematically destroying and burning buildings and crops, slaughtering livestock, contaminating water supplies, and vanishing sacred sites and cultural symbols. Much of this violence was carried out by the army, particularly through elite units known as the Kaibiles, as well as by private death squads often operating under military guidance. Adding to this tragedy, the U.S. government frequently supported these repressive regimes as part of its anti-Communist strategy during the Cold War. The violence inflicted on the Maya people reached its peak between 1978 and 1986.
In 1996, a peace accord between the Guatemalan government and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) led to the establishment of the United Nations-backed Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH). The commission concluded that the army had committed genocide against several Maya groups, including the Ixil, Q’anjob’al, Chuj, K’iche’ (from communities such as Joyabaj, Zacualpa, and Chiché), and Achi Mayas.
The deeper historical roots of Guatemala’s governance failures, including its inability to ensure safe, quality drinking water and fair resource management, trace back to the colonial era. During the 1600s and 1700s, agreements and treaties between the Kingdom of Spain and the Maya people recognized Indigenous lands, territories, and natural resources, while respecting their self-governance and communal organizational structures. Under international law, these agreements remain valid today, yet the Guatemalan state, established in 1821, disregarded these documents and the communal property systems fundamental to Indigenous societies.
For many Indigenous communities, the land is not merely an economic resource; it is an essential part of their worldview, spirituality, and relationship with the natural environment. The loss of access to their territories has directly impacted the practice of fundamental activities crucial for their sustenance and cultural heritage, such as ancestral agriculture. This practice not only provides food but also establishes a spiritual connection to the land through traditional practices and rituals passed down through generations. Similarly, the gathering of medicinal plants, the raising of animals, and community celebrations linked to the cycles of nature have been severely disrupted. This uprooting causes a rupture in the cultural and communal foundations of Indigenous Peoples, weakening their collective identity and pushing them toward external systems that prioritize commercial and individualistic values over the traditional respect and solidarity that characterize their cultures. The imposition of an extractivist economic model not only physically displaces these communities but also destroys their intrinsic bond with the land, leaving a void that is difficult to fill, both materially and in spiritual and cultural terms.
Water Policy needs to be urgently clarified in Guatemala. The Guatemalan Constitution illustrates a clear contradiction in its provisions regarding land and water rights, which leads to a significant legal void in addressing this critical issue. Article 67 affirms the protection of indigenous lands, irrespective of whether they are held communally or collectively, recognizing the historical and cultural significance of these territories to indigenous communities. However, Article 121(b) designates water resources, such as maritime zones, lakes, rivers, and underground waters, as property of the State, outlining their regulation under national law. This disparity highlights a fundamental conflict within the same legal framework. While the Constitution acknowledges indigenous rights to land, it simultaneously centralizes authority over water resources, effectively undermining indigenous autonomy in managing essential natural elements integral to their territories.
Although the Constitutional Court has emphasized the need to balance the rational use of resources with the fundamental rights of marginalized groups, such as indigenous peoples, governmental actions often fail to demonstrate the political will to actualize these measures. This failure directly contravenes Guatemala’s commitments to international treaties like ILO Convention 169, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and other instruments that obligate states to safeguard indigenous rights to their lands and resources. Compounding this issue is the deteriorating quality of water in Guatemala; with 90% of watersheds polluted, access to potable water in indigenous regions such as San Marcos, Huehuetenango, Quiché, and Sololá remains dire. The absence of decisive legislative and preventive measures exacerbates this crisis. Thus, the contradiction in the Constitution, combined with limited political resolve and environmental challenges, underscores the urgent need for comprehensive legal and administrative reforms to reconcile indigenous rights with equitable resource management.
Bibliography
- State of the availability of WATER for human consumption and sanitation in Guatemala, as well as other facts of violation of the rights of the general population and of the Maya, Garifuna and Xinka People by International Indian Treaty Council. (Guatemala, January 19, 2022)
