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 />. <br /> <br />Mexico will be from return flow, their argument being <br />that since there will be 300,000, 400,000, or 500,000 <br />acre-feet of fresh water from the rive4 that will tend <br />to dilute the salinity of the river. <br /> <br />Let us remember that 20 or 25 years from now the <br />water from Lake Mead itself will be impregnated to the <br />extent of approximately l,OOO parts per million. If <br />you add a third or a quarter fresh water impregnated to <br />that degree to water that is already impregnated with <br />harmful salts to the extent of 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 <br />parts per million, you still have water that, in my <br />opinion, is totally unusable. At the very best, <br />Mexico could not hope, under the circumstances out- <br />lined by the state Department, to get more than one- <br />half or perhaps one-third effective use out of this <br />water. At the worst, she would have nothing of any <br />value whatsoever. <br /> <br />I can tell you that the Department's interpretation <br />of the treaty is not accepted by me. I think it is <br />shocking. The representation is being commonly made <br />that they put one over on Mexico in relation to her <br />being compelled to take saline water. There are <br />already in the record statements made by the repre- <br />sentatives of the State Department, when this question <br />was raised, that Mexico had raised the question but that <br />we smartly had evaded it. As a matter of fact, there is <br />one statement that I will read in my answer to my ques- <br />tion why, if this burden was to be cast on Mexico to <br />take this water regardless of quality, did we not say <br />so; and the witness said, as I shall later read his <br />testimony--the clear implication is--because it was <br />feared that the Mexican Senate would not ratify the <br />treaty if this condition were made plain to them or if <br />they knew what it was." <br /> <br />Bottom of P. 1114: <br /> <br />"SENATOR DOWNEY. If the interpretation is given, as <br />wanted by the State Department, that Mexico must take <br />waters, even though unusable, and if there is the return <br />flow that they state to the committee there will be, it <br />will be very much to the disadvantage of Mexico and to <br />our advantage. <br /> <br />-38- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.