Hydrology of the region

The study area is located inside the Hydrologic Region No. 4 Balsas, sub-region Alto Balsas. Most of the surface is part of the Atoyac River Basin, and a smaller part of the Tlapaneco River, inside the sub-basin of the rivers Mixteco, Acatlán, Atoyac-Tehuitzingo and Salado (^{INEGI, 2009}) (Figure 1).

Source: elaborated by Ruíz Barbosa A. E. with information from ^{INEGI, 2013}. Geostatistical framework of the state of Puebla.

Figure 1 Localization of sub-basins, main rivers and municipalities of the study zone in the low Mixteca region of Puebla. 

Through its path, the Atoyac River receives waters from the rivers Mixteco, Acatlán and Tizac. There is a permanent body of water, called Boqueroncitos. The permanent water currents that flow through the territory are rivers Atoyac, Mixteco, Acatlán and Tecoloyan, and the intermittent: El Chilsolote, Laguna Seca, La Trompeta, Tizac, Valiente, Paredón, Tulapa and El Chahuate (^{INEGI, 2009}). There are several temporary tributaries of less importance. However, the region is considered as water deficient, particularly during the months of March, April and May, period when both superficial and underground water resources are scarce.

Sources, property rights, access and uses of water

In the case studied, inside each municipality and community there are different sources of water. The works (infrastructure) for its capture depend on the type of water source, on the location in the territory and on the available resources.

The appropriators of resources of common use self-organize to rule and manage the resource, which is why they design, implement and enforce the set of rules agreed upon for the provision of the local collective good (^{Ostrom, 2011}:81). In the 30 communities with water sources of community or communal property, for water management and works, there are committees in charge of distributing water, watching over the good functioning and conservation of the infrastructure, and managing the economic resources from the service.

In order to maintain the functioning of the source of common property, there are mutual links of obligations and collective participation in which each user is identified with the collective by shared stories about water, myths of origin and belonging, customs, rituals and struggles; most of these rights and rules are not written, they are materialized in the links of mutual obligations (^{Boelens, 2009}).

For the case in study, sources of private property and individual access that do not require social agreements are pinpointed, as well as sources of communal property and collective access that require social agreements in the community and, occasionally, with institutional mediation, as suggested by ^{Cáceres and Rodríguez (2014}), frequently in sources such as: wells with waterwheels, deep wells, community deposits, jagüeyes, bordos, dams and springs.

The findings show that in the municipality of Tehuitzingo the five communities of study have wells with waterwheels (dug by hand) of private property with individual access and communal property for domestic uses and for the livestock. The community of Atopoltitlán has two community deposits to store water from the ravine, both managed by water committees, in charge of the conservation, distribution and good management of water.

In the municipality of Ahuehuetitla the three communities have access to water for domestic uses, and for livestock through wells with waterwheels, deep wells (perforated with machinery), currents (aguaderos), and one jagüey (water pots, water boxes or tanks) of private property (individual) and communal. In Guadalupe Alchipini small areas are used for sowing with irrigation.

There is a very similar situation in the municipality of Chinantla; the three communities have access to water for domestic uses and for livestock through deep wells, wells with waterwheels, and bordos to capture rainwater, both of private property and individual access and of communal property. In the community of Amatepetlán there is a well of salt water that is not used.

Of the three communities in the municipality of San Jerónimo Xayacatlán, Cañada Estaca has access to more water sources by being located near the Acatlán or Tizac River, which allows it to irrigate small agricultural areas, in addition to supplying water for domestic use and for livestock production, in contrast with other communities that only have deep wells, wells with waterwheels, and currents (aguaderos) of private property and communal property.

For water supply for the household and for livestock in San Pablo Anicano, they use deep wells, wells with waterwheels, runoffs, one dam, jagüeyes and bordos to capture rainwater, both of individual property and of communal property.

In the municipality of Tecomatlán the four communities under study have a privileged location on the banks of the Acateco and Mixteco Rivers, which in addition allows good water supply for domestic use, for the livestock and to sow irrigation crops on the banks of both rivers, using wells and gasoline pumps. The wells are of private and communal property, and the rivers are property of the Nation (open access).

For the water supply of domestic and livestock use, the municipality of Chila de la Sal has sources of private and communal property such as wells with waterwheels, runoffs, bordos and one dam. One of the wells is located on the bank of the Mixteco River, approximately at a distance of 15 km from the community. To transport the water, three pumps were installed at different distance. One characteristic is that in the center of the community there is a salt water spring that is used to produce salt.

The municipality of Tulcingo del Valle has sources of private and communal property for its water supply for the household and livestock production, such as wells with waterwheels, bordos, and earth tanks for the harvest of rainwater, one stream and runoffs from ravines. In this municipality there is an ojo de agua (spring) inside the ejido of the neighboring community called Yetla, located approximately two kilometers away. This water source of collective access benefits several communities, among which there are El Progreso, Loma Bonita, Francisco Villa, Los Caracoles, Olomatlán and Yetla.

In the municipality of Piaxtla, the community of Atempa is the best located on the margin of the Mixteco River (property of the Nation), which allows access to water for domestic use, consumption for the livestock, agricultural irrigation on the river bank, fishing and recreation. In addition, there is a well with waterwheel of communal property for domestic use managed by a drinking water committee, in charge of collecting the payment that each family must make for the service, as well as verifying the good functioning of the well and the water distribution in each tap. Loma Bonita and Yetla (and other communities) share the water from runoffs that are stored in a deposit called “La Pila”, where there are intercommunity rights and regulations with mutual obligations, as ^{Boelens (2009}) points out, and Santa María has a deep well, wells with waterwheels, and bordos that allow irrigation farming in small areas.

This shows the diversity of water sources (with small volumes) present in the territory, both superficial and underground, that are used for domestic purposes, for animal drinking troughs, crop farming and, in some cases, for fishing and recreation. The “use” can be seen in the sense of enjoying some sort of benefit (Hunt, 1998, cited in ^{Ribot and Peluso, 2003}).

The right to water use is related to the property of the natural space (family or individual, community or communal, and State) and to the ownership of the water source (private, communal and open access) (Table 2).

The users establish different strategies to gain access water in function of their resources, capacities and internal norms adopted for access to the resource of community or communal property, such as the supervision and conservation of the water source, access for all inhabitants, collective work, economic cooperation, in the necessary case, defense of the source and water, negotiation with institutional actors, money administration, performance of duties, attendance to meetings, etc.

For community works with participation of the State (public resources), the conformation of a works committee is agreed upon, which is in charge of the management, supervision of construction, organization of work, administration of economic resources, mediation of conflicts, etc., until the culmination of the work. In this case, this committee continues for some time until the work is functioning.

For water management of the public service, water committees are also formed with functions such as: vigilance of the source and infrastructure, administration of economic resources, distribution of water, charges, allocation of tasks, etc. This is more common in works such as deep wells and deposits for the extraction of water from the river or ravines.

Strategies of water appropriation

In communities that do not have water service in households (public network), the families, particularly women and children, have to carry it in containers from a source, or from cistern trucks, making several rounds per day, devoting hours to this daily task, causing children to lose school classes, and men and women to neglect other activities (^{Antón, 1996}).

Facing water scarcity problems for all uses, the population gains access to water resources from hills, ravines, rivers, streams, springs, runoffs, and by harvesting rainwater; and for its storage and appropriation they build different works of family and collective use: deep wells, wells with waterwheels, bordos, dams and jagüeyes. These different ways of management imply family, community and regional agreements, as ^{Toledo and Argueta (1993}) point out, and are common in different rural regions and communities.

Water supply is based on traditional and autochthonous practices to raise and maintain social participation (^{CNUMAD, 1998}). In the low Mixteca region of Puebla, in order to obtain water for the household, families use different means of transportation; 76.5 % (169) of the families carry water and only 23.5 % (52) mentioned that they do not, since they have access to the public network or are close to a water source (river, stream or well). The main means used are: human strength (walking), animal traction (donkey), motor traction (by van and cistern truck -purchasing-), and a combination of all these (^{Ocampo and Villarreal, 2014}). The principal means of transportation are the donkey and carrying on foot.

The water to drink and cook is supplied by the following means: bottled water, piped water (public network), deep well or waterwheel, river and stream, and rainwater. The strategy is using a source or a combination of many, both of individual property and access (family) and of communal and collective property and access, as described next:

Drinking water from the public network (piped water)

Of the total families, 59.7 % (132) has piped water. Half of the families (50.8 %) have deep wells as sources of water, and the other half (49.2 %) receives water from wells with waterwheels and river or streams. According to the ^{UNICEF and WHO (2004)} classification, they are unsanitized drinking water supply sources. They do not ensure a level of quality and functionality of the services (primarily household connections) (^{Jouravlev, 2004}).

Water from the public network is distributed by time. In average, families receive 1.4 hours every 3.9 days. Access is quite irregular; 90.2 % (119) has water all year long, while 9.8 % (13) only has it part of the year; the time of greatest scarcity is between January and May.

Piped water that reaches each household has different uses, depending on the needs of the family and the volume available. The uses assigned are: human consumption (drinking and cooking), personal washing (bath), washing clothes, washing dishes, plant irrigation (pots and small spaces), animal consumption and cheese elaboration; 8.3o% (11 families) use water in the seven activities; 100.0o% (132) takes advantage of water in six (with the exception of cheese elaboration); 37.9o% (50) use it in five activities (except for human consumption and cheese elaboration); and 5.3 % (7) to wash clothes, wash dishes, personal washing and plant irrigation. Those that do not use water for human consumption are supplied by water that they purchase bottled.

Purchasing bottled water

A percentage of 38.1 % of families purchase bottled water 19-liter demijohns. In average, the consumption per family is 6.6 demijohns per week, which indicates a weekly consumption of 25.1 liters per capita (3.6 liters per capita per day). The cost per demijohn is $14.00 in average, representing an expense of $92.40 per week and they purchase it all week. Basically, water is used for drinking and for food preparation. ^{Vázquez et al. (2014}) report that women from Colonia Veracruz and San Pedrito in the state of Hidalgo purchase between one and four demijohns, with an average expense of $27.00 weekly per family.

Human work (carrying on foot)

Water carrying is performed from sources of communal property of collective access, such as wells with waterwheels, rivers and ravines; occasionally, from sources of private property. It is done throughout the year, with the intensity increasing during the months of March, April and May; 54 families carry water on foot. The distances are variable: 31.5 % (17 families) travel distances between 10 and 100 meters, 37.0 % (20) walk between 101 and 1 000 meters, and 31.5 % (17) between 1 001 and 2 500 meters. With regards to time used in coming and going, 79.6o% (43) invest between five and 30 minutes, and 20.4o% (11) use between 40 and 90 minutes. The WHO recommends that the source of water should be at a distance of 1000 meters or less from the household and the time of travel should not exceed 30 minutes in coming and going (^{Naciones Unidas, 2010b}).

The distances travelled and the times consumed for water carrying are similar to the ones that take place in other regions; in Pozuelos, municipality of Chamula, Chiapas, during periods of water scarcity in the network, the members of the families and mostly women devote between two and six hours daily (^{Soares, 2006}). Women in Pudukuppam, India, must walk between one and two kilometers to obtain drinking water and in Malwa, India; the residents travel an average distance of four kilometers to find it (^{Shiva, 2007}). In Españita, Ixtacuixtla and Terrenate, in the state of Tlaxcala, they travel between 500 and 2000 meters daily or every third day (^{Ramírez, 2008}).

The responsibility for carrying water falls on the whole family: wife, husband, children, grandchildren and in-laws. A percentage of 87.5 % (105 families) carry water as a family, and 12.5 % (15) is done individually (wife, husband or children). Each family carries in average 150 liters per day. To do it, they use a clay (20 l) or tin (20 l) jugs, buckets (between 10 and 20 l), and pails (20 l). They perform two to three runs per day; each person transports between 20 and 40 liters per run. Considering 2.5 runs of 30 liters each per day, each person supplies 75 liters from sources of community access.

Carrying water is a daily activity of families in many regions of México; however, in many places the participation of the woman (wife) and children (boys and girls) is higher. ^{Soares (2006}; ²⁰⁰⁷) reports this phenomenon in an indigenous community in the Chiapas Highlands, just like ^{Ramírez (2008}) in communities of Tlaxcala. Women understand the water needs in the household (^{Soares, 2007}), so her role in provision is fundamental and they are the ones most affected when there is a lack of the liquid (^{Domínguez et al., 2013}), particularly in zones of environmental degradation and high masculine labor migration where the woman takes on responsibilities, among these carrying water (^{Naciones Unidas, 2005}).

Animal energy (carrying by donkey)

Some families (132) use the donkey as a means of transport. For each run, 67.4 % (89) use a donkey; 29.5 % (39), two; 2.3 % (3), three; and 0.8 % (1), four. Likewise, 69.4 % (93) performs one to four runs per day. Considering that each animal transports 60 liters per run and makes two runs per day in average, two animals provide the family with 240 liters daily.

They use as deposits clay jug (20 l), tin can (20 l), and pail (20 l). Of the families, 11.2 % (15 families) paid between $5.00 and $50.00 (average $17.00) for a run of water by donkey. The responsibility of carrying by animal is shared: 80 % of the families were accompanied and 20o% performs the run individually (only the wife, husband, children). The distances and times are the same than carrying on foot, since they refer to the same sources of communal property and collective access.

Different communities with water deficit carry water on the donkey back as in Ojo de Agua, Puebla (indigenous Náhuatl community); the donkeys carry up to 120 liters per run (^{Flores, 2012}).

Motor traction (supplying by van)

Of the families, 40 carry water in a van. They perform between one and up to five runs weekly; 55.0 % (22) make one run; 35.0 % (14), two; and 10.0 % (4) from three to five. The amount of water transported weekly ranges from 200 to 6000 liters per family, with an average of 1978.8 liters per week, equivalent to 282.7 liters per day per family. In order to carry water the following are used: rotoplas water tank (1100 l), plastic barrel (100 l) and iron barrel (200 l), and some utensils of lower capacity (20 l); 22 families paid the van service with a cost of between $20.00 and $200.00 (average $113.00). The season of higher transport is between March and June.

Motor traction (supplying by cistern truck)

Of the families, 47 purchased water from a cistern truck or tanker. The number of tanker trucks purchased varied from six per year up to one per week. A percentage of 42.6 % (20 families) bought between one and two each month; 21.3 % (10), between one and two per fortnight; 19.1 % (9), between one and four per year; and 17.0 % (8) made variable purchases: from one to two per week, from one to two every two months, and from three to five every three months. The total volume purchased annually by families is 78 095.7 liters, which is equivalent to 214.0 liters per day per family. The capacity of the cistern truck is 3000 liters (there are also some of 10o000 liters, but the families share part of the water volume according to their storage capacity), with costs of $120.00 to $300.00. The water is consumed in a period of 15 days to three months. To deposit water they used rotoplas water tanks (1 100 l), square cisterns (500 to 5000 l), iron barrels (200 l), plastic barrels (100 l) and pails (20 l).

The cistern trucks use sources of private and communal property and community and private access located in Tehuitzingo, Ahuehuetitla, Palomas, Chinantla, Piaxtla, Acatlán, Amatitlán, San Jerónimo Xayacatlán and Chila de la Sal; 72.2 % (39 families) ignore the source of water; 27.8 % (15) know that it is from deep wells; 83.3 % (45) consider it is clean water; and 16.7 % (9), that it is not of good quality, classified as sources of unsanitized drinking water supply, according to ^{UNICEF and the WHO (2004)}.

Rainwater harvesting

Rainwater collection is an ancient practice used particularly by societies located in arid and semiarid zones. Facing problems of scarcity, it is a good technological option to provide water for human consumption at the family level, for animals and for agriculture (^{Anaya, 2010}).

In the study region, rainwater harvesting is a practice that families perform during the period of May to August. They connect plastic hoses to roofs of houses and lead them to different deposits for their storage. The most frequently used are iron barrels (200 l), plastic barrels (100 l), rotoplas water tanks (1 100 l), cement, rock and block tanks or cisterns (between 500 and 5000 l), pails (20 l), tubs (30 l), pots (10 l), buckets (between 10 and 20 l), and all sorts of devices that serve to store water. Studies carried out in Portezuelos, Chiapas, give evidence that during the rainy season almost everyone collects water from the roof and in many pots (^{Murillo, 2005}).

In the communities of study, 100 % of the families have at least one deposit. A percentage of 10o% (22) have barrels, pails and pans; 9.5 % (21) have barrels and water tanks; 8.6 % (19) have only barrels; 7.7 % (17) have barrels and tanks. Another similar percentage have barrels, water tanks and a cistern tank, and another equal number (17) use barrels, a tank or cistern, pails and pots. The other 48.9 % (108 families) use these same deposits in different combinations, with rotoplas water tanks and iron and plastic barrels standing out. In their majority, the supply of water tanks and barrels to the communities are dependent on public programs.

With the implementation of the Strategic Food Security Project, the families themselves built 521 ferrocement cisterns (during the first stage) for the capture and storage of rainwater. The storage volumes are between 8364 and 20 044 liters per cistern, with a mean of 13 453 liters per cistern. The capture area is primarily the roofs of the houses and other roofed constructions that connect through a piping gutter.

Rainwater harvesting through ferrocement cisterns contributed to increasing the volumes of water per family, which has allowed reorganizing the strategies for water management, decreasing carrying, purchasing more water from cistern trucks, planting the family garden and watering the animals.

The ferrocement cisterns have been one of the most frequently used techniques for the capture and storage of water for the households. In South Africa, rainwater harvest for domestic use (with cisterns) has provided the resource to the households and has turned out to be one of the most promising alternatives for water supply in face of the growing scarcity and water demand (Sazakli et al., 2007, cited in ^{Mwenge et al., 2007}).

In general, the different strategies for water appropriation have been constructed by the inhabitants themselves, adjusting to the natural restrictions, the time, the place, the technology and the amount of resource available, and with rules for provision of work, materials and money (^{Ostrom, 2011}). Water access does not take place naturally; it is conditioned by the strategies of appropriation that social actors develop (^{Cáceres and Rodríguez, 2014}).