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. Dowd then introduced a chart which showed the monthly use of water in <br /> <br />percent of annual totals for United States and Mexico. This chart and the physical <br /> <br />situation it represented, was imjJortant to the negotiators in preparing the scheduling <br /> <br />of water deliveries for Article 15 of the Treaty. In generai, this chart shows that <br /> <br />diversions in Mexico, because a't that time it was a one crop country (cotton), varied <br /> <br />from a low of 0.8 percent of annual in January and December to a high of 20 percent <br /> <br />in July. While in the Imperial Valley in the United States, the curve is quite flat, <br /> <br />varying from 6 percent in January, February, and December to 10 percent in July <br /> <br />(See pp. 702-704). <br /> <br />At page 710 Mr. Dowd argues further against allotting Mexico more water than <br /> <br />she used prior to the construction of Boulder Dam and states that it would be possible <br /> <br />for the United States to control development in Mexico by the regulation of Boulder <br /> <br />and Davis Dams. <br /> <br />Mr. Dowd summarized his previous testimony at page 724 and 725 in the fol- <br /> <br />lowing language: <br /> <br />" D1r-.-DOWD-.--(-l-l-+he-low-f-lew-of-t-he-Golorado-River-hacl-been-over <br />appropriated; (2) the maximum use of 750,000 acre-feet in Mexico, which <br />was approximated in only 2 years, was more than the dependable supply <br />available to her; (3) Mexico had to depend upon diversion works located <br />in the United States, because (a) the diversion of any substantial volume <br />of water in Mexico would hilve violated the navigation provisions of the <br />treaty of 1853, (b) every attempt to divert in Mexico had proved unsuccess- <br />ful due to changing and unstable conditions of the river channel, and (c) <br />a diversion dam in the limitrophe section of the river was neither feasible <br />nor could it have been constructed without the consent of the United Stales <br />and, below the lower boundary, would have been of little if any benefit <br />to Mexico; (~) in any event, construction of the All-American Cdnal would <br />have reduced the dependable supply for Mexico to conSiderably less than <br />750,000 acre-feet. <br /> <br />-41- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.