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 />"2. For the purpases claimed by the prapanents of the treaty <br />the language is far from clear and in fact entirely ambiguous. <br />"3'. The language could of itself never be said to require <br />Mexico to take water regardless af its quality thaugh unfit far <br />use. <br />"4. A negatiator far the State Department contends that the <br />issue was 'evaded.' <br />"5. If the claimed intent, i.e., regardless af quality, were <br />written into the treaty, it probably would never be accepted by <br />Mexico. . <br />"6. A fraud is being perpetrated which is baund to bring <br />difficulties and calls far a Senate investigatian." <br /> <br />5 . Senator Downey testified against the treaty as would be expected. <br /> <br />On pages 1107 -1113 Senatar Downey discusses the problem af reuse of water <br /> <br />and how it increases in salinity. He relates this to the Mexican water to shaw <br /> <br />that the water will be unusable. On page 1114 Senator Dawney reveals his <br /> <br />pasitian to. i,e that if the treaty is construed as the State Department claims-- <br /> <br />Mexico. takes water as is, it will destroy any gaod neigh bar relations, however, <br /> <br />if it is canstrued otherwise the tre2ty will be tatally distructive to. the interests <br /> <br />of the states af the basin inasmuch as it will require so much water that it <br /> <br />_ _____means_a. cut. in_United_State s_uses_._Senatar-Daw.ney_went_into_a_detailed_ _ n.__ <br /> <br />analysis of Article 10 (a) and (b) to. shaw. that it was vague as to. meaning and <br /> <br />that a construction could be placed on these two. subsections so as to. allaw <br /> <br />Mexico 1.5 m.a.I. of consumptive use. If such was the case, the salt prablem <br /> <br />wauld be unimpartant because water wauld have to. be supplied to. make the <br /> <br />aitotted cansumptive use. (See pp. 1115 to 1136.) Of course, the purpose <br /> <br />of this argument was to. show that United States had allotted too. much water to <br /> <br />Mexico, and further, if consumptive use shauld be used as the tool to insure <br /> <br />B 27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.