WSP11122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~""'"P":"~""':~"1,...,~--., !T',,"~I'"'~"_';'~'-'.-_-~""--" "~-,'-"'-' -o",V ""'-"":"-".".,,.~-~,..--,.,,,.--~...,........ -". 14 ,.Q ,,,..c.. 'w N . two countries desired to obtain the most complete and satisfactory utilization of the waters of these international streams. The preamble, of course, is not a source of treaty rights but may be resorted to in construing other pro- visions of a treaty. From the preamble, therefore, it is certainly arguahle that the delivery as treaty water of highly saline groundwater conflicts with the expressed desire of the parties to obtain the most complete and satis- factory utilization of the waters of the Colorado River." Considering the provisions of the treaty, therefore, it is clear there is no provision requiring that waters de- livered to Mexico be of any particular quality. On the contrary, Articles 10 and 11 provide that delivered waters may be "from any and all sources" and" whatever their origin." These phrases per se are broad enough to allow the delivery of Wellton-Mohawk groundwaters to Mexico in satisfaction of the treaty obligation of the United States. It may be argued from the preamble that the delivery of , such groundwaters conflicts with the general desires of the parties in concluding the treaty and that, accordingly, the above-stated phrases should be given more limited scope. It appears to us, however, that the preamble is too broadly stated to give this argument genuine per- suasiveness. . 21 Another argument that may bo made is that the 1944. treaty recognized the right of Mexico to participate in the benefits of the Colorado lliver system and that, accordingly, Mexico is entitled, except for return flow waters, to waters which the Colorado River system l,V'Ould naturally deliver. In other words, it appears from other treaty provisions that the 1944 treaty was con~ sidered to be a determination of the rights of two neighboring countries in the waters of an ~ntcrnational stream, not a mero grant of water by the United States. In this regard, Article 10 provides for the delivery of addi- tional waters of the Colorado River system beyond the guaranteed allotment in the event a surplus exists in any year. On the other hand, Article 10 also indicates that Mexico shall participate in the negative contingencies occurring on the Colorado. River s;.rstem, providing that in the event of extraordinary drought Or serious ace.ident to tho irrigation system irt tho United States, water allQtted to Mexico will be redueed in tho same proportion as consumptive uses in the United States.