Case file · Cuemanco, Xochimilco
A riverside chinampa on the Antiguo Canal de Cuemanco stopped being farmland; it lost its soil, its trees and its water edge to operate as a car park and a tourist pier. All of it inside the Xochimilco Protected Natural Area. The benefit goes to a few tour companies flagged for other offenses, such as the use of gasoline engines and other practices harmful to the wetland.
2014–2026
Satellite series of the plot
>20 m
Shoreline strip intervened (preliminary)
5 marcas
Operating from a single gate
2,522 ha
Protected Area surface
I. Facts
The filing describes observable facts and asks the authority to verify them on site. It asserts no crimes and names no one: it holds that a chinampa stops being a chinampa when it is filled, leveled and turned into a parking lot and a pier.
A chinampa is not an empty lot waiting for investment: it is an agroecological infrastructure built over centuries, where soil, water, vegetation and human labor form a single system. When it is filled, leveled and paved, it is not “developed”: it is destroyed.
The plot is a riverside chinampa on the edge of the Antiguo Canal de Cuemanco, inside the “Ejidos de Xochimilco and San Gregorio Atlapulco” Protected Area, Ramsar Site 1363 and the World Heritage zone. The 2014 to 2022 images show open farmland and a continuous strip of trees and riparian vegetation.
In January 2023 soil was removed in the middle of the plot; by March 2024 the tree mass was gone and the surface leveled. The chinampa stops being farmland and loses its ecological and hydrological function.
In March 2025 the surface is occupied by dozens of vehicles: the plot operates as a parking lot. In 2026 the land shows subdivision and topographic work.
Where riparian vegetation stood, 2025 and 2026 show a cleared canal edge and mooring structures. The intervened strip preliminarily exceeds 20 linear meters; the measurement must be verified with an official survey.
At the gate, several brands offer tours, food, drinks and events. The whole works as one system: arrival by car, parking, transfer to the canal edge, boarding and return.
The complaint asks that the whole — plot, parking lot, pier, restaurant and events — be assessed as one project because of its cumulative impacts, and that the soil, riparian vegetation and canal edge be restored.
Boats leave from this same access point without proving authorization: no register entry, no SEDEMA permit (Rules 73 and 74), no safety review and no operator identification. These are the point’s pirate boats. The register and inspection records requested from the authority (Annex III, items 09 and 11) will establish how many of the vessels operating here are registered and how many work outside any authorization.
The close-ups are crops of the case-file satellite images, shown in their original orientation so the reader can follow the canal edge.
II. Satellite evidence
Google Earth captures centered on 19°16’47.9” N, 99°06’11.8” W. Preliminary observations subject to official verification.
January 2014
March 2019
April 2020
December 2022
January 2023
March 2024
March 2025
January 2026The sequence alone does not prove who carried out the works or their illegality, but it is objective evidence: tree removal, parking and boats appear within two years inside a Protected Natural Area.
III. Legal framework
The plot is not ordinary urban land. A federal reserve, a wetland of international importance, a historic monuments zone and a management program that fixes what may be done and where all overlap on it. A deed replaces none of those layers.
Historic Monuments Zone
DOF decree: Xochimilco, Tláhuac and Milpa Alta
UNESCO World Heritage
Mexico City and Xochimilco (criteria ii–v)
Ejidos de Xochimilco Protected Area
Ecological conservation zone; boundary amended in 2006
Ramsar Site 1363
Wetland of international importance · 2,657 ha
Management Program
Official Gazette, February 26: zoning and activity matrix
Protection
Preserve ecological components and processes. Compatibility with new commercial development cannot be presumed.
Public Use
Allows recreational activities and services, but subject to conditions, authorizations and limits.
Chinampa and Rain-fed Farmland
Its purpose is to keep chinampa production and landscape: the matrix is stricter for commercial tourism services.
Ecological restoration
Recover ecological functions. A new commercial development cannot be assumed compatible.
Management Program activity matrix (2018)
| Activity | CHAT | Public Use |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional boats | Allowed | Allowed |
| Ecotourism | Allowed | Allowed |
| Traditional tourism | Prohibited | Allowed |
| Tourism services | Prohibited | Allowed |
| Crafts and traditional food | Prohibited | Allowed |
| Low-impact ecotourism infrastructure | Conditional | Conditional |
| Mass events | Prohibited | Prohibited |
| Commercial parking and access works | Needs a ruling | Needs a ruling |
An indicative summary of pages 123 to 127 of the management program: it authorizes nothing and does not replace the full text. “Traditional boats” and “ecotourism” do not make a corporate fleet or a restaurant lawful: what matters is the real activity, its scale and the infrastructure it requires.
Ownership of the land, if proven, gives rights over the property. It does not by itself grant any of these:
Regla 39
Every activity or work inside the Area requires express authorization from SEDEMA under the management program.
Regla 108
Prohibits land-use change and any use outside the Area’s regime, as well as events with sound, light or vibration affecting flora, fauna, soil or water.
Art. 138 · Ley Ambiental CDMX
Activities inside a protected area are subject to the management program and zoning; anything harming biodiversity or interrupting the hydrological system is prohibited.
Art. 28 · LGEEPA
Assessment must consider the entire project and its direct, indirect, cumulative and synergistic impacts.
IV. Socio-environmental annex
The problem is not that people visit Xochimilco or that communities earn from tourism. The problem is a model that increases pressure on a fragile ecosystem, effectively privatizes the benefits of a collective heritage and displaces the decision-making of those who have cared for it.
What it is
What it is not
We are not against tourism; we are against tourism that consumes the place that makes it possible.
The wetland is not available land: it is a living system on which biodiversity, water, farming and identity depend.
The community is not part of the set dressing or a labor pool: it must have a voice and real economic participation.
An investment is not sustainable if its profits are private and its ecological and social costs stay in the territory.
The alternative is not banning all visits: it is moving the center of the model from commercial growth to conservation with local benefit.
V. Impacts of the model
One pier, one terrace or one parking lot can look minor alone. The damage appears when they add up: water, soil, wildlife, waste and the precedent that invites imitation.
Kitchens, restrooms, cleaning and visitors need supply and safe disposal. Without sanitary infrastructure, discharges or seepage add nutrients, grease and microorganisms to the canal.
Water is the structure of the system: altering its quantity, quality or movement affects habitats, farming and navigation at once.
Leveling, fill, foundations and compaction look small one by one; together they fragment the landscape and displace production. The chinampa loses soil, ecological continuity and the knowledge tied to it.
A chinampa is not an empty lot: it is agroecological infrastructure.
Sound, events, auxiliary engines and night lighting change the behavior of birds, amphibians, fish and insects. Repeated disturbance pushes wildlife out of refuge and breeding areas.
An area can still look green and no longer perform its ecological function.
More visitors mean more packaging, grey water, waste, traffic and pressure on piers and paths. Carrying capacity is not how many people fit, but how much the whole system can bear.
It includes routes, simultaneous boats, wildlife, water, waste and enforcement capacity.
One pier or one restaurant can be presented as minor. The problem changes when dozens imitate the model and the authority faces pressure to approve similar projects.
Many small commercial decisions can cause greater ecological loss than each work assessed alone.
Legality is a floor, not proof of sustainability
Completing a form does not make a project desirable if the ecosystem and community absorb the cost.
How to assess any business in the wetland
| Dimension | What is measured | Warning sign |
|---|---|---|
| Water | Consumption, source and discharge treatment | Discharges to the canal, unmetered extraction |
| Soil and chinampa | Farmland preserved, fill, compaction | Parking or terraces on productive land |
| Biodiversity | Bird and wildlife records, noise, night light | Recurring disturbance and loss of refuge |
| Visitors | Capacity, simultaneous boats, routes, hours | Congestion and no carrying capacity |
| Waste | Kg per visitor, separation, removal, cleaning | Waste in canals and insufficient restrooms |
| Local economy | Local purchasing, decent jobs, distributed income | Dominant intermediation and outside concentration |
VI. Evidence
The facts are presented as indications the authority must verify. The complaint imputes no liability without due process and respects the presumption of innocence and the right to be heard. The complainant’s identity is kept confidential.
VII. Graphics
The map of the intervened area, the satellite sequence showing the transformation and the operating route of the reported site. All three pieces were built from the same satellite and photographic evidence as the file.
01Cuemanco: the pier under investigation
Satellite view of the intervened area: parking lot, alleged pier and transformed chinampa area on the Antiguo Canal de Cuemanco.
Journalistic recreation based on satellite images and submitted evidence. Location and liabilities subject to official verification.
02How the area changed: 2014–2026
Satellite sequence of the observed transformation: from farmland to parking lot and pier.
Journalistic comparison based on submitted visual evidence; specific dates and causes must be corroborated through expert review and official case files.
03How the reported site operates
Parking, canal access and boat departures: the whole route, from arriving by car to boarding the boats.
Explanatory visualization for journalistic purposes; each company’s involvement and the legality of the works must be determined through official investigation.
Companies named in the observed operation
Arca TierraAkali CDMXHecho en XochimilcoLas Palmas de Don RubénEl Buen CampoFuego VivoKawilAsadero Roket
The mention indicates only the operation observed at the site. Each company’s involvement and the legality of the works must be determined through official investigation; the presumption of innocence is respected.
The recording was made in the field, vertically on a phone, to document the pier and parking lot operating over what used to be chinampa farmland. The material is part of the evidence file and may be cited under the PROFEPA folio.
These facts are documented for reporting and authority verification; publication does not presume liability, which only the competent authority may determine.
VIII. Follow-up
Ongoing complaint, PROFEPA folio 0920121. We will update this page with every development.
Popular complaint filed with PROFEPA
November 12, 2026
PROFEPA folio 0920121 assigned
Tracked by case file
Qualification and admission ruling
Awaiting notice from PROFEPA
Referral to SEDEMA, PAOT, CONAGUA and the borough as competent
Art. 191 LGEEPA
Joint day and night inspection
Requested as a priority
Information requests on the plot’s authorizations
Case files and rulings, in public version
Providing evidence and public follow-up
Art. 193 LGEEPA
Authorities asked to intervene
Annex I · Boats
This annex does not accuse those operating within the rules: it documents that boats depart from the plot’s landing without proven authorization, registration, insurance or training. What is asked is simple and verifiable: that every vessel and every operator be checked, and that no one run the service until it is proven.
What each vessel must prove, document in hand
A current concession, permit or authorization to carry passengers in trajineras, with its number, validity and issuing authority.
Hull number, fleet number and registry of the vessel, tied to the authorized holder, not to a third party.
Liability and third-party policy covering passengers, in force on the date of operation.
One life vest per passenger, visible maximum capacity, bailers and propulsion fit for navigation.
Operator identification, current training and an employment or service link with the permit holder.
Document proving the boarding point: an authorized location, compatible with the protected area zoning and the federal zone of the channel.
What we ask
Why it matters
People’s safety: without a current policy or counted life vests, an accident has no identifiable party responsible and no funds to repair the harm.
Unfair competition: those who pay for permits, insurance and maintenance compete against those who pay none of it.
Pressure on the wetland: every extra vessel means more visitors, more waste, more noise and more wake against the canal edge.
Basis for verification
Annex II · Omitted authorities
A complaint is not resolved with a letter. Each authority has a specific competence, a deadline and a mandatory act. Here, authority by authority, is what it had to do, what is missing from the file and what is demanded. If it does not act, silence becomes administrative liability.
If they do not act: the legal consequence
Omission in the exercise of duty is an administrative offense. The General Act of Administrative Responsibilities and its Mexico City counterpart provide, for serious offenses, temporary disqualification, dismissal, an economic penalty and compensation for the harm caused.
We ask that the authority handling the complaint refer it to federal and local internal control bodies and to the city comptroller, so that whoever had a duty to act and did not is investigated.
A popular complaint requires referral and follow-up within short deadlines; administrative procedure has a general three-month deadline to be resolved. Silence is also a decision, and it can also be challenged.
PROFEPA file 0920121. What is not on record to date is documented; qualification and sanction belong to the authority, not to the complainants.
Annex III · Transparency
Permisos, inspecciones, embarcaciones y actuación de personas servidoras públicas — Cuemanco
Legal basis
Solicito documentos existentes, en versión íntegra o pública, respecto del área de Paraje La Virgen, Cuemanco, Xochimilco, coordenadas aproximadas 19.2749013, -99.0918303. No se pretende que el sujeto obligado elabore un dictamen nuevo como respuesta a una solicitud de información.
Documents requested (24)
The filing is submitted in Spanish to the relevant Transparency Unit. Each request must be registered separately on the authority’s platform, with a receipt, and its response may be challenged before the guarantor body.
Track record
Victoria Legal — Logro Histórico
✅ Tras la demanda formal de CIMA A.C., la empresa Arca Tierra retiró sus motores de gasolina que contaminaron los canales de Xochimilco durante más de 15 años.
CIMA Comunidad
Acción Legal por el Humedal
"La demanda formal contra la contaminación en Xochimilco es crucial para salvar este invaluable humedal. El silencio ante delitos ambientales permite que la degradación continúe, amenazando la biodiversidad, incluyendo al ajolote, y la salud del ecosistema. La acción ciudadana, a través de demandas formales, es esencial para exigir el cumplimiento de las leyes ambientales y proteger este patrimonio natural para las futuras generaciones. No callar es nuestro deber."
15+
Años de contaminación
97+
Embarcaciones con motor
5:00 AM
Inicio de operaciones diarias
✅
Motores retirados
Resultado: Victoria para el Humedal
Gracias a la presión legal y ciudadana de CIMA A.C., la empresa Arca Tierra retiró sus motores de gasolina de los canales del ANP de Xochimilco. Este logro representa el fin de 15 años de contaminación activa y demuestra que la acción ciudadana organizada puede proteger el ecosistema y al ajolote mexicano.
ANP Xochimilco y San Gregorio Atlalpulco — protegida
Durante más de seis años, CIMA A.C. y el Santuario Ajolote han presentado denuncias formales ante PROFEPA, SEDEMA, CORENADR, SACMEX, la Alcaldía de Xochimilco, la PAOT y el Congreso. Esta es la documentación oficial de esa lucha: folios, expedientes, respuestas y evidencia multimedia.
6+
Denuncias presentadas
6
Años de litigio ambiental
2
Victorias documentadas
8+
Autoridades involucradas
Transparencia y Documentación Abierta
Toda la documentación publicada aquí corresponde a registros oficiales, folios de denuncia y comunicaciones formales de acceso público. CIMA A.C. mantiene el principio de transparencia total en su litigio ambiental.
