9367 ‎(4)‎

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9367
• Author: Colorado Water Workshop.
• Title: Proceedings
• USFW Year: 1992.
• USFW - Doc Type: Colorado Water Workshop July 22-24, 1992.
• Copyright Material: NO

Ibid.
Congress also believed that the Mexican Water-Treaty had
conceded too much because of miscalculations by the American
negotiators of the amount of water available, a Federal
interest in exchanging Colorado River water for Rio Grande
water, and a desire to improve military ties with Mexico and
to coax it and other nations into joining and supporting the
United Nations through leniency in the Treaty terms.34 Thus,
the Act declares "that the satisfaction of the requirements
of the Mexican water Treaty from the Colorado River consti-
tutes a national obligation." 43 U.S.C. §1512. . Congress
warned that, absent augmentation, "the unresolved issue
... of whether consumptive use of the water from the Gila
River in Arizona ... should be counted when computing the
amounts of water that may have to be supplied by the Basin
States to fill deficiencies to Mexico"35 might well precipi-
tate litigation. The Act declares that the seven Basin
states would be relieved of the Mexican Treaty duty as soon
as an augmentation plan for an additional 2.5 m.a.f. had been
implemented. Ibid.
California recovered from the Congress much of what it
had lost from the Supreme Court. The Act directs the
Secretary of Interior to administer the CAP so that Califor-
nia never receives less than 4.4 m.a.f. 43 U.S.C. §1521(b)
(1976). In effect, then, the Lower Basin's burden under the
Mexican Treaty was shifted back to Arizona as the price of
-15-