Problems Facing Chinampas
Today, chinampas cover 10% of the area that they did in precontact times. Although the chinampa region consisted of approximately 20,000 hectares in the 15th century, the actual chinampa zone now measures 2,297 hectares, with only 1,070 hectares actually being used as chinampas (Jimenez-Osornio et al. 1990). Moreover, the six towns which comprise the present chinampa zone (Xochimilco, San Gregorio, San Luis, Tlahuac, Tetelco, and Mixquic) are plagued by pollution, a lowering water table, and an ever-expanding and parasitic Mexico City.
The first strike against the chinampa system came with the Spaniards’ neglect and actual dismantling of the ancient dike system. The Spaniards used the stones from the dikes in the construction of their new city’s buildings and churches (Salas 1986). It is no surprise that the city was soon to be ravaged by flooding. Although, the Spanish Viceroy, perhaps acknowledging Spanish err in judgment, called for the reconstruction of some of the dikes, this measure proved insufficient in settling the flooding problem.
Moreover, additional Spanish activities probably exacerbated the valley’s flooding: the introduction of sheep and subsequent overgrazing in the highlands surrounding the valley and its lakes would have inevitably resulted in the raising of the lake bed as silt accrued (Moriarty 1969).
Environmental change in the Valley reached greater proportions in the 1600s as the Spaniards, through the use of Indian labor, undertook their own drainage and diversion schemes. The first project was the construction of an underground passage connecting the Rio Desague, a canal which stretched twenty-five miles from the northwestern edge of Lake Zumpango to the north end of the Valley, to the Tula River; the effect of this project was to drain the basin. Another project involved the diversion of three rivers, the rivers of Amecameca, which flowed into Lake Chalco. Although this project aroused strong protests from the chinamperos, “the interests of the City overrode the needs of the farmers” (Outerbridge 1987).
Despite these measures, Mexico City continued to flood, and so even more drainage projects were undertaken. By the close of the 19th century, the northern lakes (Zumpango and Texcoco) were completely dry. Interestingly, an additional justification for draining the northern lakes was the belief that the lake beds would provide fertile farmland (Outerbridge 1987). This provided to be completely wrong, as the newly exposed land proved to be too saline for farming; and so rather than “‘acquiring a huge area of exceptionally rich farmland, as was anticipated, the city of Mexico found itself bordered by a vast expanse of empty flats, only the edges of which [could] be utilized].’” To make matters worse, dust from this bare ground exacerbated the city’s air pollution problem (Outerbridge 1987). Eventually, the bare ground was overtaken by a sprawling Mexico City.
According to one source, the water remaining in the Valley’s lacustrine system is merely 1% of its former volume (Salas 1986). Although Lake Xochimilco continues to exist, its size has shrunk. An expanding Mexico City with its growing urban population has resulted in increasing demands for water; and this demand has come at the expense of the Xochimilco chinamperos. As early as 1905, projects were undertaken to pump the water from Xochimilco’s springs to the City. One aqueduct, however, was insufficient in meeting the urban demand, and so by 1930, all of Xochimilco’s principal springs (La Noria, Nativitas, Acalpixa, and Tlaxiatemalco) had been diverted (Outerbridge 1987). As they were seeing their lakes drying up, the chinamperos responded in violent protest. In 1950, after a year of minimum rainfall, Xochimilco’s canals dried. In response to chinampero outrage, the government briefly reduced their rate of pumping and then resolved to deliver partially-treated sewage or “black water” to the chinampas (Outerbridge 1987).
What has all this meant to the chinamperos? Those in the periphery have been most impacted. Because the reduction of moisture has made their land unsuitable for farming, many chinamperos sold their land for residential development. In addition to private selling, there were also “‘official’ expropriations, as in the case of the community of Ejido de Cienega Chica, where only a minimal compensation was paid, or when practically nothing was received for the land expropriated (fraudulently) for the Olympic Rowing Canal of Cuemanco” (Outerbridge 1987).
Present water levels are so low that it is necessary to pump water out of the canals in order to irrigate crops (Jimenez-Osornio et al. 1990). Moreover, the “black water” has proved to be of extremely poor quality. Outerbridge calls the canal which delivers this water to the region, “a dumping ground for the industrial wastes and household garbage of those living near to it.” The water is no longer drinkable, as it was prior to 1950, and has resulted in saline soils which fail to support most crops. Meanwhile, polluted conditions have decimated chinampa wildlife while increasing insect problems. While a 1957 register recorded the presence of carp, trout, ajolote, acocile, mussels, turtles, frogs, and juile, a 1973 record reports none (Outerbridge 1987). Deforestation of the mountains just south of the lake have resulted not only in soil eroding into the canals but the decline in the volume of water in the springs, as “capture and filtration of water has declined” (Outerbridge 1987).
The pumping of ground water since the late 1960s has resulted in the subsidence of the chinampas in the northern section of the lake so that they attain a height no more than 20 to 40 cm above water level. As a result, they chinampas were almost completely flooded during the 1984 rainy season. In stark contrast to the chinampas in the northern section of the lake, the ones in the south, which have not sunk, are too dry. The southern section also happens to be the tourist zone, where bright-colored and canopied canals carry tourists through the chinampas. Because lack of sufficient water inhibits canoe travel, the owners of these tourist canoes have pressured the Agriculture and Water Resources Ministry to block the canal system which adjoins the northern and southern sections so that the water level in the south can rise. The blocking of these passages with sandbags has come at the expense of chinamperos. Because the southern section is also the more polluted and salinated section, the chinamperos of this area travel to the northern section to obtain the mud in which they will grow their seedlings. With the canals blocked off however, this is not possible. As for transporting the requisite mud via land, this is not an economically viable option (Outerbridge 1987).
Image of tourist canoe taken from Moneada (1990).
Another obstacle for chinamperos is the fact that many canals, including the Canal de Viga which connected Xochimilco with Mexico City, have been paved over. As a result, the chinamperos are unable to transport their own produce to markets as they had in the past; now, they must hire trucks or sell their produce at lower process to middlemen (Prutzman 1988). For example, Jimenez-Osornio and del Amo (1986) find that only 10% of the chinamperos that they surveyed sell their produce in local markets; the peasants primarily sell their products to intermediaries in Central de Abastas, the largest market in Mexico City.
A trend among chinamperos has been the shift into floriculture, which involves less risk and yields better prices. Along with the promotion of tourism, floriculture has served as an adaptation to economic problems.
Jimenez-Osornio and
del Amo (1986) surveyed the Mixquic chinamperos with regards to problems that
they cannot solve, and the respondents all reiterated the problems which have
been discussed above. All reported
that water availability is the most pressing problem, while half rated the
increasing soil salinity as being the second most important problem, and 25%
revealed that markets and abandonment of chinampas were also problems.
