Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0'2.631 <br /> <br />;, <br /> <br />tc t;l~ c8nstruction of Boulder Dam. This aHDunt is much less than <br />she cOl1lo. probably have used wlder normal condit ions of development. <br />l!:exico further contends that bec'3use of the deposition of silt and <br />the L1c,.eased salinity of the water" due to drainage floy.; in the <br />United States, the water she now receives is inferior to th~,t which <br />she received prior to the construction of Boulder Dam. <br /> <br />In any event, there is no aSSU!'8,nce that an arbitral body <br />wOl1.1d maJ.:e cTe-I1oulder use the basis of aCl alVaI'd. In all of the <br />water tre!3.ties of which we are B.wce"e, allocations Nere based pr'imarily <br />0:1 uses ezisting at the t.i!ne t.he treaty was negotiated, with pro- <br />vision in HlOst instances .fo~ expansion. Tr1ere is no authority in <br />international law for the conclllsion that, the lower riparian state <br />shoulc1 b~ li;rated to an aJ!"lOunt of v~ater which she useu 0r could have <br />used at sO'lle earlier time, despite the fact that the increased use <br />in the lower riparian state was made possible by improvements or <br />change.:' conditions in the upper riparian state. It must be borne <br />in mind that ],\exico's use in 1943 was a;opr-oxi:oately 1,672,000 acre <br />feet, wnich is in excess of the proposed treaty allocation. <br /> <br />4. The allocation of 1,50C,000 ~cre feet is double <br />that heret.ofore offered to Mexico. <br /> <br />A. It '"ust be borne in mind that. ,,11 previous effofts t.o <br />reach a set tlelUent with !:lexico failed. ,'Jevertheless, it <br />is not accurate to say that the proposed treaty allocation of <br />l,500,00C acre feet is double that heretofore offered to Mexico. <br />It is true that the A:clerican Section of tIle International ,later <br />Commission in 1929 offered Mexico 750,000 acre feet a""year to be <br />delivered according to schedule. To this amount, however, there <br />was proposed to be added an additional amount to compensate for <br />losses in tbe main canal, and it was pointed out at that time that <br />Mexico woulL receive, in aduition, return, drainage, and uther excess <br />flows frOlll the United States. The present proposed treat.y allocation <br />is only about 42% of ],lexico's previous demand of about 3,600,000 <br />acre feet, and is less than rexico diverted for use in 1943. The <br />amount 1s "ithin the so-called "Santa Fe Formula" which ",vas apP,'oved <br />by the representatives of five of the seven Colorado ,,~v~~ Basin <br />States and which was opposed only by Ca.lHornia. In some respects, <br />the provisions of the proposed treaty are Elore favorable to the United <br />States than tbose of the S~nta ?e Formula. <br />