WSPC12525 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COLORADO RIVER DELTA BI-NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS ENGLISH 26 Q: JIM DAVENPORT: I have two questions. Perhaps the three speakers can think about them both and respond to both of them. The first question relates to the hierarchy of legal signifi- cance of treaties, executive agreements, and statutorily authorized executive agreements as they were explained by Mary Brandt. Would the three of you agree or disagree with the proposition that any agreement to alter the volumes of waters assigned to the respective nations by the 1944 Treaty would require con- gressional approval in the United States and national legislative approval of the Nation of Mexico? That's my first question. My second question is, given your experience between the two nations, what have you found to be the most valuable and productive and workable: Is it the more formal agreement that requires a greater amount of approval by the national legislative bodies, or the less formal agreement, which perhaps is more easily altered and easily adapted to specific problems? Those are my two questions. ~ A: MARY BRANDT: I'll be happy to explain that. Under United States law, it would require an amendment to the 1944 Water Treaty to alter the water allocation. That would mean that we would have to do a treaty that would be subject lto the advice and consent of the United States Senate. I also should mention that the hierarchy that I explained of agreements, executive agreements, congressional agreements, they're all equal with statutes as the law of the land in the United States. On your second question about which works better, I'm not sure that I understand the distinc- tion between a formal agreement and an infor- mal agreement. To me an a~ent is eitber legally binding or -rt's n~~a~indin~ and I thiilKwe find wltl'lfu the I C that we have legally binding agreements that work and that the IBWC is able to make this system work and work well. Q: JIM DAVENPORT: Let me clarify. I would agree with you that all have the same legal effect. The question, I guess, is whether they are statutory or administrative type agree- ments, that is, more easily adaptable through an administrative or regulatory amendment process as opposed to strict statutory or treaty type amendment process. A: MARY BRANDT: Well, do you want an agreement that's legally binding or do you want a political commitment of the two countries that does not have legal force, that would be the answer. After spending 22 years working with treaties and agreements, I would have to come down on the side of a legally binding agreement, but that's because of my background. Anyone else want to comment? I \ A: JAIME PALAFOX: With regards to the Mexican side, if there are any adjustments, if the \-. treaty has to be amended, that has to go through the Mexican Senate. A: LUIS ANTONIO RASc6N MENDOZA: I think that here we have different interpretations with regards to the concept that exists of recipro- cal consulting. So, the commitment to do recip- rocal consulting when there is going to be a change or a new water development between the two countries hasn't been interpreted the same by both parties. A: MARY BRANDT: If we're talking about water quality, then we are probably talking outside the framework of the 1944 Water Treaty which deals primarily with quantity unless you look at the provisions in the treaty that talk to beneficial use, I'm not sure, but I suspect that we entered into Minute 241, the salinity minute, on the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and not specifically the authority within the 1944 Water Treaty.