My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09503
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09503
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:54:06 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:40:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8278.400
Description
Title I - Mexican Treaty
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
5/10/1962
Author
CWCB - D. Hamburg
Title
Mexican Water Treaty Negotiations Pertaining to the Colorado River
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />work out something that was bad for Mexico, and Mexico's <br />negotiators, on the other hand, knew plainly what they <br />were doing, and the language was agreed to with one <br />purpose in mind, and they understand it." <br /> <br />P. 470: <br /> <br />"SENATOR MILLIKIN. Senator Austin, the language of <br />the treaty, article 10, chapter 3, starts off as follows: <br /> <br />Of the waters of the Colorado River, from any <br />and all sources, there are allocated to Mexico-- <br /> <br />l,500,OOO feet. <br /> <br />I think the testimony has made it very clear that <br />Mexico contemplates that included in the sources of <br />water will be return-flow water, and Mexico, of course, is <br />aware of the fact that the water for example coming from <br />Arizona has very high salinity. <br /> <br />SENATOR AUSTIN. Yes, I understand, but the problem <br />that is in my mind--and this may be in error, because I <br />am not familiar with that southwestern situation--the <br />prOblem in my mind is this: assuming that that is the <br />true meaning of the treaty, that on that basis there <br />should be a development in Mexico to the full extent of <br />l,500,OOO acre-feet from all sources; then, afterward, <br />if it should turn out that the surplus is not fit for bene- <br />ficial use, does that not raise at once an issue that would <br />invoke an arbitration? <br /> <br />SENATOR MILLIKIN. If the Mexicans understand the kind <br />of water they are getting--and as I understand it the testi- <br />mony has shown that they do--and if they contract in the <br />treaty for that kind of water, I doubt whether it would be <br />any subsequent ground for arbitrating the question. <br /> <br />SENATOR AUSTIN. Well, there would not be, if the <br />treaty plainly stated "regardless of quality", but as I <br />interpret the treaty, that is one of the ambiguous features <br />of it. <br /> <br />SENATOR MILLIKIN. I would like to suggest that when <br />you say "from any source", where it is clearly contemplated <br /> <br />-32- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.