BOARD02033

• Board Meeting Date: 5/8/1963
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

should be don~. If they are able t~cut the
uncontrolled flows in the limitrophe section
to something less than l200 second feet during
the winter months then, under our wording, we
feel that this will permit running some of this
water back into the river. However, this does I
accomplish the thing which Mexico is objecting
to and the thing which Mexico wants, in that they
want a reduction in the total annual amount of
salt that is delivered to the Colorado River for
use by Mexico. Even if these improvements cut
it back to where, say, it was 1100 second feet
we would still be taking two-thirds of the annual
amount of salt out of the river as opposed to
taking nothing out under the Bureau proposal.
It would not be the ideal situation but we would
still be answering the prime objection that
Mexico has to the current operation.

~1e say:

'(8) Nothing in these recommendations
should infer (and Ray, Bill says
the proper word is "imply" - that
you imply things and other people
infer things) that bypassed water
is not chargeable to Treaty obli-
gations.

(9) !n the event it should prove feas-
ible to bypass some of the highly
saline waters during the summer
months wi.thout affecting our
deliveries under the Treaty, con-
sideration should be given to
this also.'

The reason we stuck this last paragraph in,
this is a matter of comity to Mexico and this, I
think, is the thread that runs through all of
this recommendation, is that we are doing this
as a matter of comity and not as a matter of
requirement under the Treaty. That we have the
capability, without being disadvantageous to us,
of solving or helping the Mexicans to solve a
part of their problems so we do this on a good
neighbor basis and not because we are required

I