Argentina–Uruguay river commission faces tensions over funding and infrastructure disputes
Argentine outlets have reported that representation expenses amount to around US$8,500 per month per delegate, despite the appointment decree describing the posts as “ad honorem.”
A string of disagreements between Uruguay’s and Argentina’s delegations at the Administrative Commission of the Uruguay River (CARU) has heightened internal friction at the binational body in recent weeks, amid clashes involving infrastructure proposals, absences from official events and public allegations over the handling of funds and allowances.
Uruguay’s El País quoted CARU sources describing “difficult moments” in the relationship with the Argentine delegation, although they said day-to-day work continues “normally and cordially” after tensions eased somewhat in recent weeks. Uruguay’s Foreign Ministry, according to the same report, said it was aware of the disputes but would not comment publicly.
Main flashpoint: a proposal to finance Route 136
The sharpest rift stemmed from the Argentine delegation’s push for CARU to sign an agreement with Argentina’s National Road Directorate to repave — among other works — National Route 136, a corridor linking Gualeguaychú to the international bridge crossing toward Fray Bentos. The proposal involved US$15 million, with funding options discussed ranging from CARU reserves and bridge contingency resources to dredging allocations and even a potential toll increase.
Uruguay’s delegation rejected the plan, arguing that road construction falls outside CARU’s remit. Uruguayan media said the decision relied on a Foreign Ministry legal opinion concluding the binational commission lacks authority to undertake such investments.
An event without Argentines, and signs of political strain
Days after the rejection, Argentina’s delegation did not attend a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the General Artigas International Bridge (Paysandú–Colón), held on Dec. 16 at CARU’s headquarters. Argentina cited “austerity” for its absence, but Uruguay’s delegation viewed it as a snub linked to the Route 136 episode, El País reported.
In that context, Uruguay’s delegation head Cecilia Bottino told a local broadcaster that authorities must “rise above economic and political circumstances” and push integration forward, while acknowledging that relations are not always under “the best conditions.”
Allegations over allowances and “ad honorem” appointments
The dispute widened after Argentine press reports pointed to alleged administrative irregularities involving Argentina’s CARU delegation appointed in 2025 by President Javier Milei. La Nación cited an internal document saying the Argentine side generated repeated conflicts with Uruguay’s delegation, which intervened to halt several initiatives, and that some issues warrant “detailed analysis.”
One of the claims concerns a request for Argentine delegates’ representation expenses to be deposited into a Banco Nación account based in Montevideo. Argentine outlets have reported that representation expenses amount to around US$8,500 per month per delegate, despite the appointment decree describing the posts as “ad honorem.”
El País said Uruguay’s delegation did not formally process the request, considering it an Argentine internal matter, while acknowledging the episode has damaged perceptions of transparency.
In Colón, a local branch of Argentina’s Radical Civic Union called for judicial intervention to clarify allegations of “exorbitant spending,” according to the Uruguayan report.
Background: the green hydrogen project near Paysandú
CARU also features in the broader dispute over a proposed green hydrogen / e-fuels facility linked to HIF near Constancia (Paysandú), which has faced opposition in Argentina’s Colón. Federal prosecutor Josefina Minatta filed a complaint in Argentina alleging possible environmental harm and arguing Uruguay breached the Uruguay River Statute, Infobae reported.
