WSPC12502 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OUUJJl DRAFT-Not for distribution While the lowest beneficial use priority. . . is sufficient to incorporate an ecological valuation of water within the terms of the treaty, it is also clear that such a valuation was simply not contemplated by the treaty's framers. At no point in the discussion or debate on the treaty were such concerns raised. In fact, a thorough review of all declassified State Department documents related to boundary and water matters through 1970, including diplomatic exchange on the Salinity Crisis, fails to reveal any concern whatsoever with the ecological services afforded by the rivers independent of concern for agricultural, municipal, and industrial development. Our reading of the prioritized uses in Article 3, however, lead us to conclude that they pertain to the limited instance of "joint use of international waters. Article 2 makes clear that IBWC jurisdiction is limited to the limitrophe sections ofthe Rio Grande and Colorado, with the works of either country outside the limitrophe section coming within the sole jurisdiction of each country. If the reference to the limitrophe section in Article 2 is read to mean "international waters" as that term is used in Article 3, then Article 3 does not have the broad application Mumme suggests. Our reading is consistent with the provisions of Section II, Article 5 providing for joint construction in the main channel of the Rio Grande, creating "international storage dams" and "international reservoirs" (see also Article 8). No reference to "international waters" appears in the articles in Section III pertaining to the Colorado River. Also, it is noteworthy that the term "international waters" is not synonymous with "international river." "International water" is water subject to the domestic jurisdiction of more than one country at a time, or water entirely outside the domestic jurisdiction of anyone (i.e., the high seas). 68 CILA Courses of Action, Paragraph 8. This argument is inconsistent with the technical assessment of water necessary for environmental purposes in the Colorado River Delta as stated by Zamora-Arroyo, F., Nagler P., Briggs~ M. Radtke, D., Rodriquez, H., Garcia, J., Valdes, C., Huete, A. & Glenn, E. (2000), Regeneration of Native Trees in Response to Flood Releases from the United States into the Delta of the Colorado River, Mexico, Report to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, November 2000 (49 Journal of Arid Environments 49, September 2001). That assessment is 260,000 acre feet more water over a four year period, and does not include water necessary to sustain the Cienega de Santa Clara. 69 CILA Courses of Action, Paragraph 3. 70 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 62, See note 20, supra. 71 See Hundley, note 54, supra at 41-136. 72 Press release, November 23, 1999, Center for Biological Diversity; "A coalition of more than thirty-five national, international, and local conservation groups representing more than eight million people from Mexico and the United States today sent a letter to their governments calling for [a treaty amendment that] would allocate water for conservation ofthe Colorado River Delta and northern Gulf of California." 30