WSP08751 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

38 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 53 N 0) ~ It was physically possible for Franee to return to the Carol from a higher reach of the Ariege water equivalent (in amount and rate of flow) to the total diversion. The original French proposal contemplated, how- ever, no replacement of supplies to the Carol River, notwithstanding that there were important irrigation uses in Spain dependent upon such supplies. ' It appears that France intended to provide only monetary in- demnity to Spain for the losses to be suffered by reason of the proposed diversion. This was an extreme position and it drove Spain to an op- posite extreme. Spain replied that France could not lawfully change the natural course in France of a river flowing into Spain without the prior consent of Spain, even though the flow Itt the border were to remain unchanged. France then offered to return to the Cltrol River a flow adequate to meet" Spain's real needs." It may be assumed that this represented what the French considered to be necessary to maintain what France considered to be Spain's existing uses. This concession did not win Spain's consent. The French next offered to return to the Carol an amount of water from the Ariege equivalent to the full inflow at Lake Lanoux, Spain con- tinued to object on the ground that the change would subject the flow into Spain to French control. To meet this, the French offered to permit a Spanish representative with the privileges of a consular agent at all times to be present to join in the measurement of the inflow of Lake Lanoux and to verify that an equivalent return was being made from tbe Ariege. This added concession, however, did not win agreement, The Spanish Government came forward with an alternative plan. It' met the Spanish objection by keeping the waters of Lake Lanoux beyond human power to drain them from the basin of the Carol. While it would have enabled France to produce hydro-electric power, the amount would have been less than under the French proposal. The reduction in power potential was not acceptable to the French. In a last effort to win Spanish consent, the French agreed to manage the delivery of Ariege water in such a way that the quantity would not only be the same as that naturally received from Lake Lanoux, but the deliveries would be at times more advantageous to Spanish agriculture. Even with this added feature, the Spanish Government refused to agree to the French project. The govern' ments of the two nations thereupon submitted to arbitration the question r ~ t ,",' \ the Atlantic watershed and directed to a power station where it would be run through a turbine after dropping straight from a height al 780 meters. This projeet would enable France to produce enough electricity, even during the peak hours, to se;rve a city of 326,000 inhabitants throughout the year. To return to the Carol River the waters diverted ;trom it, the French project contemplates the construction of a tunnel, 5 kilometers in length, which would take water from the Ariage to the Carol at a rate of approximately.5 cubic meters per second and at a point higher than where the head- works of a canal which serves Spanish users are locfl.ted. The headworks would lie in French territory. The planned diversion amounts to '25% of the entire flow of the Carol, the watera of which are used in Spain by 18,000 farmers. (Affaire du Lac Lanoux, Memoire du Gouvernement de la Republique Fran~aise 3-13 [Paris, 1957].) ,.