My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00291
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00291
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:13:35 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:37:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8278.400
Description
Title I - Mexican Treaty
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
3/1/1962
Author
IBWC
Title
Mexican Water Treaty -Appendix B - Water Quality A Missing
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />On page 1503 Giles admitted that there might be a remote passibility that salinity <br /> <br />cantral might be set by an internatianal arbitratian court in cast Mexican water <br /> <br />was tatally unusable; however, he daubted that such would happen. Immediately <br /> <br />fallowing the Dawney-Giles exchange the fallowing accurred on pages 1503 and <br /> <br />1504 af the Hearings: <br /> <br />"Senator WILEY: From what yau have said--and I agree <br />with Senator Austin that yau have made a very clear summary <br />af your viewpoints, and I think yau have added cansiderable <br />to the understanding af the cammittee--yau certainly would <br />have to. agree, I believe, that with the present salinity af the <br />water, which daes nat affect it seriausly, which Mexico. wauld <br />get under the treaty, there should be at least an inference that <br />the water wauld remain far all time equal to what it was at the <br />time the treaty wa s made. In ather words, yau wauld not read <br />into it that there was the thought that we could add a lot af salts <br />to it and make the water unusable. There wauld at least be an <br />understanding between the natians that the quality of the water <br />would remain as gaod as it is naw? <br />"Mr. GILES. I think that is a fair inference. <br />"Senatar WILEY. I think that is what Senatar Downey was <br />driving at. <br />"Mr. GILES. But I do. nat think there is any guaranty any- <br />where in this treaty af usability af the water at any time. <br />"Senatar WILEY. No.; but if we palluted the water after we <br />- ~ -__ ---agreed .tode li ver- it_to_them,_they_wauld_certainl y_hav.e_a_chance <br />afterwards to. say to. a caurt af arbit ratian ar on an appeal to. <br />Americans, 'You are nat playing ball.' <br />"Mr. GILES. Yes; those are passibilities. <br />"Senator WILEY. We are nat gaing to pallute the water, I <br />hape. <br />"Mr. GILES. Of caurse we are nat. I have felt that the <br />matter af the usability of the water was prabably considered in <br />the particular allacations that were made. There was certain <br />return flow determined upan and then there was certain fresh <br />water that was determined upan, and return flaw, no. matter what <br />the salinity might be. <br />"Senatar WILEY. But yau would expect under internatianal <br />camity and equity that, having made a treaty, we wauld maintain <br />the quality substantially in the same conditian. We wauld nat be <br />permitted to do. atherwise. <br /> <br />B 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.