Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />Fram the faregaing it can be seen that the oppositian to the treaty <br /> <br />never really separated the quality questian from a quantity questian. <br /> <br />~asically <br />\ <br /> <br />Califarnia, the leader af the op;:>ositian, wa s always battling a quantity <br /> <br />question. Quality was merely a tool in the real battle aver quantity. For <br /> <br />Califarnia, too much water was given to Mexico in the first place. In arder <br /> <br />to. attack the quantity, California raised the quality issue particularly inasmuch <br /> <br />as she could claim the treaty was not speCific as to. the source af this water. <br /> <br />To. say "any and all sources" far California was not actually being specific <br /> <br />enough. If this meant what the State Department states--return flows, et al-- <br /> <br />Califarnia felt there was a chance that the water wauld be unusable, and <br /> <br />Mexico. might demand more water. California cauld nat afford to give up any <br /> <br />mare water. The real loosers in Califarnia were the municipalities, and the <br /> <br />Califarnia water supply studies shawed that these California users who. had <br /> <br />Lake Mead Water Cantracts, part of which could only be supplied fram surplus <br /> <br />(Calarado River Campact Surplus) staod to. lase by the quantity granted by <br /> <br />the treaty. To. add anything to. this burden because of quality wauld be un- <br /> <br />bearable. It was far this reason that Califarnia faught the treaty. <br /> <br />We turn next to the debate on the Senate flaor to get the final <br /> <br />legislative hlstary of this part af the Mexican treatynat least from the United <br /> <br />States point of view. All references hereinafter will be Vol. 91, Part 3, af <br /> <br />the Cangressional Record which was the record af the 79th Congress, 1st <br /> <br />Sessian, unless as otherwise noted. <br /> <br />B 31 <br />