WSP00860

• File Number: 8278.400
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - Mexican Treaty - Development and History
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 7/26/1946
• Title: Light on the Mexican Water Treaty from the Ratification Proceedings in Mexico - A Report to the Colorado River Water Users Association
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

N
w;:,.
t-
l\)

I

MEXICAN WATER TREATY

In short, the American treatypropon~nts thought that the United
States had to have a Colorado River treaty, but that Mexico did. not,
and we were fortunate to obtain this one. Now let us see what the
Mexican negotiators' told their Senate on the same subject:
The a8sumptions of the Mexican negotiators.-Ing. Fernandez Mac,
Gregor, MeXlcan member of the International Boundary and Water
Commission, and opposite number of oJlrMr. Lawson, issued a pre-
pared statement answering a critic of the treaty, saying:
Of the opponents Lie. Man.anora del Campo was the only one who did not
limit himself to showing that Mexico has an undeniable right to the waters of
the Colorado River (a thing in which we are entirely in, accord with him) but
went further to fix a quantity of this right in the annual volume of 2,380,000
acre-feet (2,937,000,000 cubic meters).
To make plain to Lie. Man.anera del Campo that the volume of Colorado
River water assigned to Mexico by the treaty, and which as a minimum is
1,850,234,000 cubic'meters per year, has muoh more value for our country than
that whioh he calculates, the National Irrigation Commission, at my request,
had prepared a graph to which Lie. Enriquez referred briefly, but due to the pres~
sure of time, it was not possible for me to explain. In this I have shown the
llJ?nual discharge (gastos) from this stream in the form in which _the same would
occur month by month and year by year if the regulatory works constructed in
American territory did not exist. This graph shows clearly that in the irregular
form in which the flows would occur, Mexico, instead of receiving 'benefits would
repeatedly sustain damage; as a rule when the water was available, ,it would descend
in veritable floods which would destroy everything; and on other occasions in the
months of the greatest scarcity and the greatest necessity, the channel would be dry.
Instead, the waters that Mexico will receive in accordance with the treaty
will be received regulated by the American works, and at the appropriate time for'
their application to the lands. For this purpose there is established'in the treaty,
procedure by meaps of which the Mexican section of the International Boundary
and Water Oommission will present each 'year, in advance, to the American
section of the same Commission monthly tables for delivery of the water which
our lands are going to need for the following yeAr; and, what is more, there is a
stipulation that thes~ tables can be varied 20 percent, plus. or minus, 30 days
in advance, in the event that .the forecasts that shall have been made. are no-~
exact. * * '*
In the same graph to which I referred it is shown clearly that even supposing that
not a single drop' of water of the Colorado River were retained in American territory, the
irregular form in wMch the discharge would arrive in aUf country would not permit any
fmportant area of I,and to be irrigatedj. tha t is to say, supposing that there is accepted
as correot the conclusion to whioh Lie. Manzanera del Campo arrives, not only
would we be unable to increase our 1'rrigation system on the Colorado River t'n Lower
California and Sonora up to ?JOO 000 hectares in ?,:ound figures, as we are going to_do
when the treaty enters into effect, but probably the area already irrigated would have to
be reduced considerably. ill * * . '
I make the above statements as It. Mexican, as a public officer conscious of my
duty, having had the good fortWle (after having dedicated 21 years of my life to
the study of this problem) to have the honor to sign the treaty of"February 3,
1944, together with Dr, Francisco Castillo Najera, present Secretary of Foreign
Relations. a treaty which, in my opinion, constitutes a prime example of what
two friendly countries can do when with all good will and understanding they sit
down at the conference table to resolve .their problems. The Treaty- resolves in
11 satisfactory and equitable form the problem that confronts the two Govern-
ments on their international rivers (EI Naoional, September 23,1945). [Emphasis
supplied. ]
Lie. Ernesto Enriquez, an eminent Mexican. authority on inter-
national law, who participated in the negotiations, testified:
6. In practicel the treaty not' only is convenient, but "is indispensable to us.
The United States of America can get along_ witho'J1.t it; our country cannot. More-
over, the favorable result of a judg?nent of arbitration that Mexico might win 'would not
give in the end results as good as thOS'e obtained thro'U,gh this internationa~ instrument.
7. If the treaty were not ratified, It wouJq be almost impossible to hope that for
many years we would be able to negotiate another; and in this the matter of time
has I1Iways been adverse to us (Excelsior, August 2,1945), [Emphasis supp~ied.1

'vi

9

" "

......

','., "

'11.