Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />APPENDIX "B" <br /> <br />""VATER QUALITY <br /> <br />The Mexican Water Treaty does not directly contain one word concern- <br /> <br />ing the quality of the water which Mexico is to receive. This lack of direct <br /> <br />statement on the question of water quality was one oI the issues raised during <br /> <br />the consideration of the treaty by the Senate. The proponents of the treaty <br /> <br />stated that there was no need for a direct statement on the quality question <br /> <br />because the treaty language was clear on this matter-namely, Mexico was to <br /> <br />take what water was in the river if it fitted into tne schedule of delivery to <br /> <br />Mexico. The opponents of the treaty claimed that this was one of the fatal <br /> <br />weaknesses of the treaty and that the language on this matter can be construed <br /> <br />so as to mean Mexico must receive water of a 'usable quality. <br /> <br />The cleavage on this question can best be demonstrated by the <br /> <br />majority and minority report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. (Executive <br /> <br />__ Report ~o. 2, 79!!'1 <;:0}1gress, 1 s~ ~es.siQn). On_page 6 of-the-Majority report <br /> <br />we find the following language: <br /> <br />"The committee is unqua lifiedly of the opinion that the <br />language of articles 10 and 11 of the treaty is clear and subject <br />to no other construction than that, . . . third, that the'quantities <br />allotted to Mexico under article 10 may be composed of any <br />waters of the Colorado River from any and all sources and what- <br />ever their origin. The committee is firmly of the opinion that <br />the language of these two articles is clear and that there can <br />be no occasion for any misunderstanding with respect to their <br />meaning or application." <br /> <br />In part two of the report which was the minority statement we find this language <br /> <br />on page 8: <br />