My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10867
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10867
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:15:02 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:34:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8278.400
Description
Title I - Mexican Treaty
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
3/1/1962
Author
IBWC
Title
Mexican Water Treaty -Appendix E -Water Supply
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.
/
113
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 />'~'." <br />.,"" <br /> <br />APPENDIX "E" <br /> <br />WATER SUPPLY <br /> <br />It is axiomatic that the main item of concern in the Mexican Water Treaty <br /> <br />and in its negotiation was the water supply. Both the proponents and opponents of <br /> <br />the treaty agreed that Mexico was entitled to some water from the Colorado River, <br /> <br />the question seemed to be "how much". There were divergent views 'as to the quantity <br /> <br />of water available from uncommitted river sources, return flow, seepage, regulatory <br /> <br />losses, and desilting basin uses. Views also differed as to the basis for making an <br /> <br />allocation and as to data to support the basis. <br /> <br />We will attempt to outline the issues as raised and the arguments advanced <br /> <br />on both sides. Besides the quantity question, there was discussion on the prior use <br /> <br />of water in Mexico, the use and potential use of water in the United States, the need <br /> <br />for a diversion dam for Mexico and related sub-issues. . <br /> <br />The conflicting views are summarized in the majority and minority reports <br /> <br />of the Committee on Foreign Relations to the Senate. (Executive Report No.2, <br /> <br />79tl1Congress, 1 sf Session)-:-On pages 'I ana-Softne Majority Report, we find <br /> <br />the following language: <br /> <br />"This water is to be delivered mainly in the boundary section <br />of the river, but proVision is made for the delivery of a portion <br />through the All-American Canal and a small portion across the land <br />boundary in the vicinity of Yuma, Ariz. Certain limitations are placed <br />upon the schedules of delivery so as to insure to the United States <br />credit for substantially all return flows and other waste waters emana- <br />ting from projects within the United States and generally reaching <br />the river at points too Iowan the stream to be susceptible of further <br />use within the United States. This is largely composed of water <br />which has been used for the irrigation of lands within the United <br />States and which returns to the river through drainage canals or <br />through underground seepage. Not all of the water which is put <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.