Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />W <br />tJ1 <br />c:Jl <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />!J <br />I. <br />:'[ <br />it <br />il <br />,I <br />II <br />I, <br />I' <br />d <br />I, <br />'[ <br />II <br />I. <br />I <br />~ I <br />Ii <br />.l <br />,; <br />fj <br />I' <br />I <br />:j <br />:1 <br />" <br />IJ <br />~i <br />If <br />[) <br />:! <br />11 <br />II <br />r <br />r <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />37 <br /> <br />4. Conclusion <br /> <br />Though not set forth in the treaty, it appears to us that <br />the two countries did not contemplate that highly saline <br />groundwater artificially introduced into the river in such <br />quantities as to materially affect the salinity content of de- <br />livered waters would be deliverable to Mexico as treaty <br />water. Article 10, however, allots to Mexico water of the <br />Colorado River" from any and all sources" and Article 11 <br />refers to waters "whatever their origin". Taken alone <br />these phrases are sufficiently broad to allow credit to the <br />United States for the delivery of waters such as the Well- <br />ton-Mohawk drainage. For the following reasons, we think <br />these phrases should not be given such an application. <br /> <br />First, hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee <br />of the United States Senate indicate that the United States <br />insisted credit be given for the large amount of return flow <br />which would pass to Mexico in any event. Testimony indi- <br />eates this was the reason for the phrases" from any and <br />all sources" and waters "whatever their origin" found in <br />Articles 10 and 11 of the treaty, that the language was <br />agreed to with one purpose in mind, and that the Mexican <br />negotiators were aware of that purpose. (We think it <br />highly unlikely that the Mexican negotiators would have <br />agreed to a pl~ovision allowing credit for the delivery of <br />highly saline groundwater artificially introduced into the <br />river in such quantities as to materially affect the quality <br />of water delivered.) Moreover," return flow" is defined <br />in Article l(h) of the treaty to mean "that portion of di- <br />verted water that eventually finds its way back to the source <br />from which it was diverted. " We think groundwater <br />pumped from the IVellton-Mohawk project is not covered <br />by this definition. The drainage wells which pump highly <br />saline groundwaters in the Wellton-Mohawk project tap. <br />the underground water table which began to rise with the <br /> <br />