|
<br />,
<br />,'-'p',,,,,
<br />
<br />
<br />:."
<br />'.;>
<br />" ,'~
<br />
<br />
<br />1
<br />j
<br />)
<br />
<br />'I"
<br />
<br />:.,'~:'
<br />
<br />'[;~i:~:ci,. '.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />','-
<br />
<br />""..j
<br />
<br />
<br />J
<br />li
<br />., :1
<br />'oJ
<br />
<br />,L",
<br />
<br />8
<br />
<br />MEXICAN WATER TREATY
<br />\
<br />
<br />
<br />Are you su,re that we could not, py the use of our dams and reservom in the
<br />'Qnited States, prevent Mexico from using that water? _ :.
<br />Mr. ACHESON. I am not an engineering expert. Tho facts of the mat~er,a~ I
<br />understand them, are that it will take somewhere in the neighborhood of 25. to
<br />40 years in the United States before all'these waters will be put to use. Whether
<br />they can be diverted to the Pacific Ocean or to the Mississippi I do not know, of
<br />course.
<br />Senator DOWNEY. Mr. Secretary, is it not the basis of your entire argument
<br />here, and that of the State Depart.ment, that the reason this treaty is imperative
<br />is that there is a great volume of water going down to Mexico that we cannot pre_-
<br />vent her from using for irrigation, and by using it she builds up a m:uch greater use,
<br />thus imperiling our rights? . '
<br />Mr. ACHESON. That is the statement that I made.
<br />
<br />Mr. Tipton, one of the American negotiators, testified (hearings,.
<br />pt. 3, p, 1065):
<br />
<br />Senator WILEY. You take the position, I understand, that without any treaty
<br />you feel that the rights of the users of water in the United States. would be
<br />prejudiced? .'
<br />Mr. TIPTON. Very definitely so; yes, sir. ,
<br />Senator WILEY. And you base that primarily upon _the idea that -Mexican
<br />civilization might build up a use that would be a 'basis for an equitable claim
<br />against the water supply of the Colorado River in the future? '
<br />Mr. TIPTON. Defimtely; with one qualification. Not "might," but llwouklH
<br />build up such a -use. T.here is no q\lestion in my mind, sir, about that.
<br />Senator WILEY.. That would depend upon whether or not the water of the
<br />Colorado were made available for Mexico, would it not?
<br />Mr. TIPTON. No. The_ water is being made available unavoidably, by the
<br />operation of works in the United States. Mexico can divert and use tijat wflter
<br />without the use of United States facilities, which I shall subsequently show.
<br />Senator WILEY. Without the use of them? '
<br />:tv!r. TIPTON. Yes, sir. .
<br />
<br />At another point, Mr. Tipton sunrmed up the motivation of the
<br />
<br />treaty concisely, as follows (hearings, pt. 3, p. 951):, . . .
<br />
<br />* * * It is entirely feasible and practicable at this time for Mexico to build
<br />a river bank he,acting in ~Mexi('-an territory, just below t,he upper boundary liIie
<br />only a few hundred yards below the present Rockwood structure, and from such
<br />heading- to irrigate by gravity all,of the lands now supplied from the Rockwood
<br />heading in the pnited St~tes and by extensions of the oanal system, to irrigate
<br />practically all the lands in the Mexicali Valley on both sides of the river. At the
<br />rresent time} Mexico is watering c~rtain,small areas by pumping from the Alamo
<br />Can~l. Sucn pumping would have to be oontinued with the new all~Mexican
<br />heading and certain other small areas would have to be suppljed by _pumping
<br />eIther from the canal system or direct from the river as is the present practice.
<br />The above is on the point that Mexico can divert from the lower ..Colorado
<br />River in' her own territory water in sufficieJ1t quantity to irrigate' a mUch larger
<br />area than now irrigated as was proved in 1905 and 1906 when the entire river
<br />flow was discharged through a out in the river bank and since that date' only pre~
<br />vented from overflowing these lands by an elaborate system of levees.
<br />With the large surplus disch:arge of many times the treaty allooation in,the lower
<br />Colorado River most certain to be avaiJable to Mexico for many yefl,fs in; the
<br />future, Mexico's- diversion and use is certainly not limited.
<br />
<br />Again (pt, 4, p. 1332):
<br />
<br />16. If the treaty is not ratified it appears probable that Mexico will continlIe
<br />to increase her uses, with a possibility ,that she may provide a gravity'diversion
<br />immediately ,below the upper boundary without a dam,across the river; and,that
<br />after her uses have substantially increased she will ask that the problem be
<br />arbitrated under the Pan~American Republics Arbitration Treaty. . If the "con-
<br />troversy were arbitrated, the results oJ the arbitration could "well be :rnore -un...
<br />favorable to the United States interests, including those of California, than: are
<br />the terms of the treaty. Not oniy would the quantity of water. be involved, but
<br />the question of quality, both with respect to- salt and silt, could" be ;raised by
<br />Mexico. It is believed that those questions are resolved by the treaty,
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />'~
<br />'y
<br />
<br />,\1
<br />
<br />,,1
<br />
<br />':~
<br />
<br />1
<br />
<br />
<br />-"--',-'.'"
<br />
<br />.........:"':'..::':"t.~~
<br />
<br />.
<br />(~ "J,;
<br />.";> ;'r<~}t
<br />
<br />:'~
<br />
<br />,', ,'.
<br />,",,' '".'
<br />
<br />:i>: ~:-i
<br />.';"/1
<br />.....~
<br />:,~-~
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />_ ,2_->._ :',"-"
<br />
<br />_,~'_~'_"_;l,._j;'_
<br />
<br />.,
<br />
|