Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />tlle United States to Mexico to "restore" the Delta. A lawsuit was filed in Defenders of Wildlife <br />v. Norton, Case No. I :OOCVOlS44 (D.C. Cir,), which would seek to require additional flows <br />under the autllority of the Endangered Species Act. We are adamant in our position that the <br />Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, as a law of the United States, does not apply to <br />actions of persons within the United States that have or may have effects upon listed species <br />located in Mexico. We also believe that litigation is not conducive to a productive working <br />relationship leading to resolution of important issues. <br /> <br />Because of the obvious significance of these issues to our states, we desire to initiate a <br />direct dialogue with you concerning om positions, as well as to express our willingness to work <br />cooperatively with you and other interests toward resolution of these issues. As an initial matter, <br />we believe it important to recognize the authorities involved in any discussion that entails the <br />Colorado River and its Delta, which is a resource shared by two nations, and in which the <br />Colorado River Basin States have a direct interest. <br /> <br />We recogni:l:e the sovereign authority of the Republic of Mexico over the appropriation, <br />administration, development, use and management of Colorado River water that flows across the <br />International Boundary, and over the protection of the natural environment in Mexico, The <br />Mexico/United States Treaty of 19441 allots to Mexico the quantity of Colorado River water <br />subject to that sovereign authority, but does not abrogate or diminish the sovereign authority of <br />the Republic of Mexico over Colorado River water in Mexico. Any assistance by the United <br />States in the development and implementation of measures to assist in resolving issues of mutual <br />interest should be in response to requests by the Mexican National Government, and should be <br />utilized consis1ent with Mexican law and policy. <br /> <br />Likewise, the United States and the respective Basin States have sovereign authority over <br />the appropriation, administration, development, use and management of Colorado River water <br />within their territorial boundaries. The Treaty imposes a delivery obligation of the United States <br />to Mexico at the specified points of delivery, but does not abrogate or diminish the sovereign <br />authority of the United States or the Basin States over Colorado River water in the United States. <br /> <br />The United States is and has been in full compliance with its obligations under the Treaty <br />and Minute 242 of the IBWC, The States believe that the water delivered from the United States <br />Lo Mexico, from whatever SOlll"ce, needs to be properly accounted under the Treaty. However, <br />there is no existing or anticipated action, including specifically operations under the Interim <br />Surplus Guidelines, by or within the United States, that would result in any violation of any such <br />obligation under the Treaty or Minute 242. Any proposal to manage or deliver water for any <br />purpose in the Delta must be undertaken pursuant to the Law ofthe River, and must not enhance, <br />diminish, or abrogate any provision thereof, particularly the Treaty, <br /> <br />Iln referring Lo the 1944 Mexico/U.S. Treaty, this letter ...fers only to those provisions of tile Treaty that deal with <br />the Colorado River. It does not deal with those aspectS of the Treaty that deal with other rivers, such as the Rio <br />Grande. <br /> <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />