WSP12533 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,"\ (\... 5 r. () lnJ .i J ;:) 2002] THE lAST GREEN lAGOON 955 basic arguments. First, BOR argued that Mexico alone manages all water that passes the international boundarrl5 and is ultimately responsible for whether water reaches the Delta. Second, BOR claimed that in the absence of a treaty amendment it lacks the authority to deliver (except in flood conditions) any water to Mexico beyond that required by the Mexico-U.S. Water Treaty (1.5 maf and 200,000 of surplus, when available).316 BOR's arguments continue a tradition among U.S. federal agencies of denying responsibility for impacts in Mexico from river operations. For example, BOR's 1996 Biological Assessment,317 Fish & Wildlife's 1997 Biological Opinion,318 and the ongoing Lower Colorado Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan319 have each denied that impacts in Mexico are relevant in federal decision-making. BOR's position is disingenuous at best. The United States bears considerable responsibility for the elimination of flows to the Delta because the U.S. currently uses approximately 90% of the water that once flowed to the Delta. 320 Moreover, in the absence of flood cortditlons, the U.S. controls the release of water. into Mexico with incredible precision. BOR correctly pointed out that even if more water actually crossed the U.S. border, the Mexico-U.S. Water Treaty does not prevent Mexican farmers from diverting this water for human consumption.321 While the Treaty identified "fishing and hunting" as beneficial uses, they are low pnority;322 the Delta is legally the last in line for Mexican water. Although this argument is perhaps the most powerful one advanced against the release of additional water for the Delta, it completely ignores the reality of the water diversion system in Mexico. Mexico has little or no storage capacity on the Colorado River. Mexico's only dam on the Colorado, Morelos Dam, has 1 I ~ ! 315. Seeid at 3.16-1. 316. See id at 3.16-1 - 3.16-4; see also DEIS, supra note 180, at 2-24. 317. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Final Biological Assessment Prepared for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Lower Colorado Multi-Species Conservation Program (Aug. 1996), available athttp://www.lc.usbr.gov/-g2000/assess/. 318. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Biological and Conference Opinion on Lower Colorado River Operations & Maintenance (1997). 319. See Lower Colorado Multi-Species Conservation Program, available at http://www.lcrmscp.org. 320. As discussed suprafuSection ILA, the U.S. claimS rights to a minimum of 15 maf by the terms of the Colorado River Compact and the Mexico-U.S. li"eaty; Mexico receives only 1.5 maf. 321. See FlNALEIS, supra note 71, at 3.16-1. 322. See Frank S. Wilson, A Fish Out of Water: A Proposal for International Instream Flow Rights in the Lower Colorado River, 5 COLO. J. INT'L ENVl'L. L. & POLY 249, 266 (1994).