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 />"Mr. LOWRY. I will go ahead and explain later where I think <br />that is coming from. <br />* * * <br /> <br />"Senator DOW NEY . Mr. Lowry, I understand from the testimony <br />which you have given to this committee that you think that Mexico <br />would have as good a treaty as is here proposed if the treaty were <br />changed to give Mexico the rGturn flow and these other items which <br />you have mentioned, plus approximately 400,000 or 500,000 acre- <br />feet of fresh water? <br />"Mr. LOWRY. You said you believed Mexico would have good <br />a treaty. Were you asking that question of me? <br />"Senator DOWNEY. I say to you that under your statement Mexico <br />would have just as good a treaty if, instead of being allocated 1,500,000 <br />acre-feet of water, she were allocated in the treaty all of the return flow <br />and these other items that you have mentioned, plus an additional 400,000 <br />or 500,000 acre-feet. <br />"Mr. LOWRY. The next statement that I was about to make indicates <br />that that leaves a residual of about 375,000 acre-feet to be supplied <br />from the main stream. <br />"The CHAIRMAN. If the treaty, instead of having its present <br />provisions, should have those suggested by Senator Downey, would <br />not that necessarily involve the right of Mexico to come over into <br />the United States and see whether she is getting the return flow and <br />whether she is getting these other items, whereas under the treaty <br />she simply gets what is allocated to her at the boundary, and we do <br />not want any interference? It has already been suggested that the <br />objection of some genLlemen is that this treaty would give the inter- <br />national commissioner the right to come over into the United States <br />and interfere with our administration of internal affairs. Is not that <br />true? <br />" Mr~b0WRY-;--T-hat-i's-Tight--;---T-he--qtlesHDn-came-up-among-the <br />participants on the American side during the negotiations. We did <br />not want anything in the treaty that would make it necessary for the <br />Mexicans to come on this side and measure the water to see whether <br />they were getting what they thought we should give them. There- <br />fore, the amount of water was all lumped. <br /> <br />The following day, Mr. Lowry elaborated a little more on this item as follows <br /> <br />from pages 239 and 240. <br /> <br />"Mr. LOWRY. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I concluded with a state- <br />ment regarding the return flow that is expected down and available <br />in the lower river. The figure, including desilting water and unused <br />Gila flow, was 1,130,000 acre-feet. That leaves a residual of about <br /> <br />-14- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.