Laserfiche WebLink
<br />oon3o~ <br /> <br />DRAFT-Not for distribution <br /> <br />B. International Laws <br /> <br />The 1983 La paz Agreement, in which the U.S. promises generally to "cooperate in the <br />solution of environmental problems of mutual concern,,,206 may authorize the United States and <br />Mexico to jointly address the environmental problem of the Colorado River Delta. The <br />participation ofhoth the U.S. and Mexico in the 1936 Migratory Bird Treaty and the Ramsar <br />Convention and Mexico's designation of the Colorado River Delta under the Ramsar Convention <br />may qualify the Colorado River Delta problem as one of "mutual concern." The United States <br />might suggest that Mexico's promise, in the La Paz Agreement, to "cooperate in environmental <br />problems of mutual concern" and its promise in the Migratory Bird Treaty, to protect migratory <br />birds requires that Mexico redirect agricultural water concessions to environmental uses, so as to <br />create wetlands for migratory bird sanctuaries?07 If these sanctuaries were properly located, they <br />might also result in enhancement or preservation of habitat for other species. The Secretary of <br />the Interior's other current authorities, under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, <br />the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (cited above) could <br />provide financial support for Mexico's actions. Funding through the U.S. EP A and Department <br />of State might also be explored. <br /> <br />Among the means of facilitating the creation of ecological flows for sanctuaries in the <br />Delta might be the acquisition of private water rights (concessions or irrigation rights) from. <br />within District 014 and the delivery of brackish agricultural return flows from the Yuma area, <br />approaches presented in a May 2001 report to the David and Lucile Packard Foundation208 but <br />receiving some criticism from a group of environmental, academic and tribal interests that favors <br />instead proportional fresh water contributions of flow from each side of the border.209 <br /> <br />C. Conclusion: Legal Rilles and Mechanisms Exist to Facilitate Ecological Water <br />Flows for the Delta <br /> <br />In the aggregate, then, legal arguments are available to justify United States expectations <br />that Mexico provide water for protection of the Colorado River Delta from its Treaty-allocated <br />portion of the Colorado River. Also, legal theories are available to support either a domestic <br />Mexican or binational United States-Mexico cooperative effort at augmenting or redirecting <br />water flows for ecological purposes for portions of the Colorado River Delta. Few, but some, <br />developing legal theories could be invoked to support Mexican arguments that the United States <br />contribute water for protection of the Colorado River Delta from its Treaty-allocated portion of <br />the Colorado River, but none ofthem could preempt or dislodge the Mexican Water Treaty. <br /> <br />In the end, whatever solutions may be selected, whether dominantly political or legal, <br />they must occur within the broader framework of United States-Mexico relations. Given the <br />connectedness of trans boundary resources, including the emerging network of protected natural <br />areas on both sides of the border,210 the subject of eco"logical flows for the Delta is not likely to <br />fade from agendas on both sides of the border until effectively addressed. <br /> <br />19 <br />