WSP11122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

43 <:> Co;.) en .... and the Colorado. If injurious effects are thereby caused to Mexican users, it should be of no siguificance that acts giving rise to such injury take place on a tributary rather than the main stream of the Colorado River.'" We have found no decision of an international tribunal dealing with the precise question presented' here, viz., . 86 In The Uses of the 'Vatcl'S of International Rivers, Comments Submitt.ed to Committee of American Branch of tho International La.w Association on First Report of the Committee on the Uses or the Waters of International Rivers (Dubrovnik Conference 1956) 3, La-yUn states as follows with respect to acts done all tributaries: It is difficult to believe that, in dealing with acts which have an effect upon a river at or beyond the point whore it becomes or crossos a bound- ary, international law should distinguish between acts dono upstrenm Oll ono branch merely bcca.use it is regarded as the main river and acts done on another merely because it is considered to be a tributary. If the effect of those acts canies as f.ar as the border, it is quite unim- portant, in terms of eit.her tho justification that. may be offered by the upper riparian or the injury inflicteel on the lower, whether the acts were performed in the largor or in t.he lesser branch. Diversion of a. given quantity of water from a tributary, or pollution of a tributary by a given quant.ity of waste, will-other things being equal-serve the sarnO beneficial purpose or the upper stn.t.e, and do the same harm to the lower, as though the diversion or the pollution had occurred in the main river. Laylill states a.lso that" In dealing with either diversion or pollution of the waters of interstate rivers, the United States Supremo Court has made no distinction between acts done on the main river a.nd acts done on a wholly intrastate tributary. [Citing Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208 (1901), 200 U.S. 496 (1906); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336 (1931); Nebrash, v. Wyoming, 325 U.s. 589 (1945).]" Id. at 37. Among f' Agreed Principles of International Law" adopted by the Inter; national Law Association at its 1958 meeting in New York is tho following: 1. A system of rivers and lakes in a drainage basin should bo treated as an integrated whole (and not piece-meal). Report of the Forty-Eighth Conference, International Law Asa'n (New York 1958) viii. Aa defined in the Colorado River Compact of 1922 which provided for the equitable divisioll and apportionment of tho use of the waters of tho Colorado Itiver between the states of Arir.ona, Oalifornia, Colo'rado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, the term "Colorado River System" was con- sidered to embrace 'all tributaries as is evident from the definition of that term given in article II(a) of the Compact: "'l'he term 'Colorado' River System' means that :portion of the Colorado River and its tributarioo _within the United States of America." . L