My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC12502
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSPC12502
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:28 PM
Creation date
7/30/2007 8:51:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8282.400
Description
Colorado River Operations and Accounting - Deliveries to Mexico
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Unknown
Title
Ecological Water Flows for the Colorado River Delta Under International and Domestic Law - Draft - Date Unknown
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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 />000353 <br /> <br />DRAFT-Not for distribution <br /> <br />consideration is required by the U.N. Convention pertain to pre-allocation deliberation, rather <br />than post-allocation deliberation where the water allocation treaty is in place, and while one <br />modem treaty (1995 Meking Treaty) does provide for minimum monthly flows, 119 incorporating <br />ecological flow provisions in treaties pre-existing the 1997 U.N. Convention requires treaty <br />amendment. Moreover, if equity were the determinant after treaty allocation has occurred, then <br />the ecological condition of the entire Colorado River system must be taken into account. <br /> <br />b. Watershed / Basin Management . <br /> <br />- A developing international law principle, which some day could become a candidate for <br />peremptory norm status in general international law, is "watershed management" of international <br />rivers. Watershed management has become largely accepted as a successful strategy in the <br />United States in intrastate stream management. 120 Some argue that enhanced watershed <br />management constitutes ecosystem management, which, in turn, ought to be the normative <br />management paradigm for natural resource management.121 Watershed management, in the <br />minds of many, carries a presumption that hydrologic and physical considerations are more <br />important than political boundaries.l22 Even institutions that must respect political contours and <br />boundaries are coming more and more to translate their missions along watershed and drainage <br />lines. The Bureau of Reclamation has, for example, elevated the importance of river <br />management in comparison to project development.123 <br /> <br />Taken in a larger, interstate or international124 context, the watershed management <br />principle can lead to a minimizing of jurisdictional boundaries that divide ~ransjurisdictional <br />water supplies.125 If this concept were ever to become a peremptory norm (discussed below), it <br />could countermand the rigidness of international water allocation through treaty. Now, it is more <br />of a trend line, one integral to the equitable principles incorporated in the Helsinki Rules and <br />presumes their application. It has been recently advocated, for example, by the U.S. Good <br />Neighbor Environmental Board.126 <br /> <br />Reliance on the watershed principle produces essentially the same result as the argument <br />that ecological water supply was not considered in the adoption of the 1944 Water Treaty- <br />namely that it may be the basis for an agreement independent of the Treaty. Like that argument, <br />it fails because of any such agreement's inevitable implications for the 1944 Treaty allocations. <br /> <br />Reliance on the watershed principle also raises a United States counterargument. <br />Whereas Mexico could argue that watershed management compels delivery of water to Mexican <br />environmental uses, so the United States could argue that portions of Mexico's water <br />apportionment should be retained in the United States for U.S. environmental uses. Both these <br />arguments are rebutted by the more-established principle that water in international water bodies, <br />once apportioned by treaty, is subject to the exclusive right and control of the nation to which it <br />has been so apportioned. It is also noteworthy that application of the trans boundary watershed <br />management approach to the U.S.-Mexico border would depend upon some type of collaborative <br />management model. Implementation of such a model would test current IBWC authority and <br />capacity. <br /> <br />c. Sustainability <br /> <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.