WSP00291 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, '. flow was greater than the Mexican treaty obligation from the river. (Note Riter had suggested that under a certain type af dev,elopment in the United States, the return flow in the river could be greater than the river delivery to. Mexico. He had stated that excess cauld be pumped into the All-American Canal.) Bashare thought that to. pump back into the Canal wauld violate the spirit of the treaty. On page 1726 Bashare agreed with Senatar Milliken that the states take the water that comes to. them after normal irrigation in the states abave, i. e ., there is no. guarantee af quality between states ar basins in the Colorado., thus Mexico. can nat expect any different treatment. At page 1730 Bashare agreed with Senatar Millikin that actually any salt problem which cauld arise is a result of geagraphy and not the treaty. IS. Beginning an page 1764 Senator Dawney and Mr. Acheson engaged in the fallawing quality discussion: "Senator DOWNEY. If I might say this to. yau: Under the interp!'etation of the' treaty as given to. us by aur State Depart- ment I would be willing and very happy indeed to accept the trea ty.,_buLiLseems_sa.ambiguous_thaLiLis.impos sibleJar..me to accept that interpretatian. One af the interpretations given by the State Department is that to the full extent af the return flow Mexico. must take that and credit it upon our 1,500,000 acre-feet, and she must take that water, even though it is unusable. Wauld it not be possible to. verify a fact of that character that might be sa cruel to. Mexico. in the future, sa that we wauld knaw that Mexico. knew just what we were delivering. "Mr. ACHESON. Senatar, I do. nat think there is the slightest doubt abaut the matter that yau raise. I see no. possible utility served by trying to reapen negatiatians and suggest doubts where I think there are nane. It seems to. me that in three places, in articles 10 and 11 of the treaty, they have made that abundantly clear. '8 20