WSPC12502

• 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

000349

DRAFT-Not for distribution

Treaty.76 This would include the environmental harm to the Colorado River Delta caused by the
operation of the Morelos Dam (built in 1950), which is exclusively within Mexico and is the
primary cause of diversion of Mexico's share of Colorado River water away from the Delta.
Mexico currently diverts almost all its apportionment of Colorado River water at Morelos Dam
for agricultural and municipal purposes. None ofthat water is intentionally77 used for
environmental purposes.

If Mexico's argument that ecological issues arise outside the 1944 Treaty were
successful, it would not follow that Mexico could rely on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the
Non-navigational Uses ofIntemational Watercourses78 to ensure water deliveries for ecological
purposes. One author has observed that the Watercourses Convention is not about the protection
of riverine ecosystems.

The Convention acknowledges that these are goals that should be pursued by
watercourse states and that the establishment of co-operative mechanisms will
facilitate their attainment. However, it does not impose the concomitant legally
binding obligations on its Parties.79

Even if merit were accorded Mexico's argument that ecological issues arise outside the
1944 Treaty, it would not follow that the solution of these issues might be addressed outside the
standard treaty amendment format, for example, by a minute not dependent upon treaty powers.
Such action would be preempted by the 1944 Treaty if it affected water allocation.8o And the
"Parties to the Watercourses Convention are not under any obligation to amend existing
agreements so as to bring these into conformity with the Convention.,,81

c. 1983 La Paz, 1986 Ramsar and 1992 NAFTA Agreements

The 1983 La Paz Agreement, defined the "border area" as 100 Ian on either side of the
boundary,82 established the Environmental Protection Agency as the U.S. national coordinator,83
and left the authority of the IBWC intact.84 The U.S. and Mexico agreed "to cooperate in the
field of environmental protection in the border area" 85 and to "undertake. . ~~o adopt the
appropriate measures to prevent, reduce and eliminate sources of pollution;" to "cooperate in
the solution of the environmental problems of mutual concem;,,87 and to "coordinate their efforts,
in conformity with their own national legislation and existing bilateral agreements to address
problems of air, land and water pollution in the border area.,,88 Under the La Paz Agreement,
"parties may conclude specific arrangements for solution of common problems in the border
area."S9 Several administrative programs have spawned from the La Paz Agreement.9o

The 1992 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation91 was developed to
support the environmental provisions of North American Free Trade Agreement92 by
establishing a level playing field with a view to avoiding trade distortions and promoting
environmental cooperation. Its objectives are to promote sustainable development; encourage
pollution prevention policies and practices; and enhance compliance with environmental laws
and regulations. It recognizes the right of each party to establish its own levels of domestic
environmental protection and environmental development policies and priorities.93 Each party
promises to "effectively enforce" its environmentallaws.94 It creates the Commission for

8