WSP11122

• File Number: 8271.300
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - General Information and Publications-Reports
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/3000
• Title: OPINION - Colorado River Salinity Problem - Submitted to His Excellency - Honorable Antonio Carillo Flores - Ambassador of Mexico
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

58

o
w
.....
U1

I,
i

I
!

would bring it in conflict with the Constitution since plain-
tiffs would be granted property rights they had not had
before and defendants would be divested of property rights.
From this premise the court stated: .

1'hc trenty apportioned the wat.er of t.he Rio Grande
and aUoented t.he share that might he diverted and
nsed on each side of t.he river, but. wit.hout making or
int.ending' to make any provision as to how or by whom
t.he water so apportioned nnd aUocnted should be used
upon being diverted. Inercnses in diversion to and
use upon eit.her side is prohibiteil except upon t.he
conilit.ions stated. We think it. was int.ended by t.he
pnrties t.o t.he trent.y t.hat to each nat.ion shonld be left
t.he power of making det.erminat.ions, pursuant. t.o it.s
own Inw, of those who arc, may become, or cease to
be, entitled to the use of tlle waters secured by the
trenty t.o snch nation, nnd their relntive right.s among
themselves. If any intent had heen present to create
or protect or give a priority to inilividunl property
right.s of one gronp resulting in t.he diminntion or
divestment of those of another group, the operntive
langnage wonld have been eouched in more explicit
terms."'

.

II
I
i

The court thus held that, as between parties in the United
States, the treaty did not affect respective water rights.
The court also noted that for plaintiffs' interpretation to
prevail the treat.y would have had to confer the claimed
right in more explicit terms.

From the eases mentioned and from other cases we have
examined" we think for a treaty to confer privately
enforceable right.s such rights must be explicitly set forth
in the treaty as having heen granted to nationals of the

.

I
I
i
I
I
I
I
II
"
ii
"
d

01220 F. 2d at 7.

02 E,g., BOfl.l'(l of County Com'rs v. Acroli.ncas Pcruanasa, B.A. 30'/ F. 2d
802 (5th Oil'. 1962); Z. & F. AHscts ]lcaliza.tion Corp. v. Hull, 114 F. 2d 464
(D.C. Oil'. 1940), aff'd, 311 U.S. 470 (1941) i Cavae. Campania Anonima v.
Board for Val. or German Bonds, 189 F. Supp. 205 (S.D.N.Y. 19(0); United
States v. Ferris, 19 l:!\ 2d 925 (N.D. Calif. 1927).

):

,
I
I'