Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />f <br /> <br />that a part of the source is water of high salinity, it <br />meets the same point. <br /> <br />SENATOR AUSTIN. You may be right about that. That <br />is what I am trying to find out. What is the practical <br />interpretation of that, by men who are accustomed to the <br />conditions? <br /> <br />SENATOR MILLIKIN. Mr. Tipton, who sat in on the con- <br />ference between Mexico and this country, with the engineers, <br />has testified that that issue was faced squarely, that <br />Mexico understands exactly the kind of water she will get <br />from return flow." <br /> <br />Bottom of P. 556 to top of P. 557: <br /> <br />"MR. HARRIS. * * * * How about the quality? It has <br />been whispered around that the return flow, whatever it <br />may be, will be unfit for the use to which we know Mexico <br />intends to put it. But that has been off-the-record stuff. <br />It mustn't be talked about, because, if it were, Mexico <br />might be awakened and refuse to ratify. Mr. Timm, the <br />State Department representative, at the meeting of the Com- <br />mittee of Fourteen, held at Salt Lake City during January <br />of 1944, just before the treaty had been signed, said that <br />the Mexican representatives were concerned about this, <br />but--and I use his words--"they were evaded". All this by <br />the very persons who prate of equitable rights and fair <br />dealing, and the like. If Mexico is entitled to a guaran- <br />teed first right to 1,500,000 acre-feet of the waters of <br />the Colorado, she is entitled to l,500,OOO acre-feet of <br />water fit for use, and, after having been guaranteed it <br />by the treaty, she could get it, plus the return flow, by <br />arbitration, if necessary, for we couldn't refuse to arbi- <br />trate that, unless on the ground, as proclaimed, that "we <br />put one over and that settles it"." <br /> <br />Bottom of P. 796 to middle of P.798: <br /> <br />"MR. HORTON. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * <br /> <br />The statement was made that the words appearing in the <br />first line of article 10 were put in there for the specific <br />purpose of relating to the quality of water. I think I am <br />correct in stating that, in substance, the proponents take <br />the position that there will be somewhere around 900,000 <br /> <br />-33- <br />