Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000347 <br /> <br />DRAFT-Not for distribution <br /> <br />Colorado River Water Crossing the International Boundary from the U.S. into Mexico <br /> <br /> <br />Year <br /> <br />TolaI u.s. <br />Deliveries in <br />Satisfaction <br />of Treaty <br /> <br />TolaI of All u.s. <br />Deliveries, GN <br />lk1derfla.v, and <br />9jpass WIler <br /> <br />NR - Not Reported <br />11 Data from IBWC (http://www.ibwc.state.gov/wad/colorado_river.htm) <br /> <br />12 Data for limitrophe and SIB from USSR LCRAS reports <br /> <br />13 Years 1990 _ 1994 estimated as average of years 1995 - 2000 <br /> <br />14 Estimated as 90% of total seepage from MC between Pilot Knob and Drop 3 (90% of 84,500 aflyr, FEIS/FEIR, <br />All-American Canal Lining Project, March 1994, pp. 11I-3 - 11I-8) <br />15 USBR Decree Accounting Records <br /> <br />In surplus years the United States may elect to deliver an amount each year not to exceed <br />an additional 200,000 acre-feet.64 The Mexican Water Treaty foreclosed the assertion of <br />Mexican claims for greater water quantities. "Mexico shall acquire no right beyond that <br />provided by this subparagraph by the use of the waters of the Colorado River system, for any <br />purpose whatsoever, in excess of 1,500,000 acre feet.,,65 <br /> <br />The U.S. delivery of water to Mexico has been consistent with its obligation under <br />Article X of the 1944 Water Treaty. The Annual Operating Plan adopted by the United States <br />Secretary of the Interior for 2003, for example, is consistent with the Article 10 (B) of the <br />Mexican Treaty. Neither the Mexican government, nor any academic, nongovernmental or water <br />user group has alleged breach ofthe Water Treaty. The Mexican legal argument regarding the <br />Treaty is that it is inapposite or narrow, not that it has been breached. The issue instead appears <br />to be whether the Treaty comprehends the subject of ecological flows as a matter of intent, either <br />expressly by breadth oftext or by reference to its underlying negotiations. Clearly, the thrust of <br />the Treaty, as with international water treaties generaUy,66 is toward development, not <br />. I . 67 <br />envlronmenta protectIOn. <br /> <br />Mexican interests have tended to conclude that the current problem is not one of supply <br />(which unquestionably is covered by the treaty), but one of "water quality and the spacial and <br />temporal distribution of water, including its inherent operation aspects to maintain in sustainable <br />form the elements that integrate the ecosystems of the Deha,,,68 a subject omitted from the 1944 <br />Water Treaty.69 And the Courses of Action statement adopted by CILA at the conclusion ofthe <br /> <br />6 <br />