|
<br />
<br />,'-',
<br />
<br />. ,~
<br />j
<br />I
<br />'I
<br />"A
<br />',<1
<br />",1
<br />
<br />"
<br />"j
<br />
<br />..~
<br />
<br />':i
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />~- .'
<br />
<br />',",
<br />
<br />,,,;
<br />
<br />12
<br />
<br />MEXICAN WATER TREATY
<br />
<br />Third. As to the amollnt of water Mexico could put to use without
<br />a treaty; in short on the whole basic question as to who needed a
<br />treaty, the United States or Mexico. '
<br />
<br />III. CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS
<br />
<br />Let us' turn now to the second class of differences disclosed by tM,
<br />Mexican hearings, namely, the conflicting interPretations placed by ,
<br />the two sets of negotiators upon the language they agreed upon in
<br />the treaty itself.
<br />It is clear that there was no meeting of the minds it all upon
<br />severa] points:
<br />First. As to the quality of the water which the United States
<br />guaranteed to deliver.
<br />Second. As to the operation of the extraordinary droughtc]ause,
<br />Third. As to several' important factors upon which the treaty is
<br />silent. Thus (a) the circumstances which would entitle Mexico to
<br />'1,700,000 acre-feet instead of 1,500,000" and (b) as to Mexico's right
<br />to discharge as much return flow as she pleases into the closed basin
<br />of Salton Sea, thereby drowning out American farm lands in Imperial
<br />Valley.
<br />To take these up in order: '
<br />
<br />(1) CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS AS TO QUALITY OF WATER TO BE
<br />. DELIVERED TO MEXICO
<br />
<br />The American interpretation.-Mr. Tipton, one 01 the American
<br />
<br />negotiators, testified so categorically and emphatically as to the
<br />intent of the negotiators that ,.it is difficult not to believe he spoke
<br />
<br />accurately. He testified (hearings, pt. 2, p. 322): ,
<br />
<br />Senator DOWNEY. Mr. Tipton, is there any statement in the treaty ,as to _the
<br />'quality of water that must be delivered by the United States to Mexico?
<br />Mr. TIPTON. We are protected on the quality, sir. .
<br />Senator DOWNEY. That is, you woul4 mean _ by that statement that we could -per.
<br />form the terms 'of our treaty with Mexico by delivering to her' water that would not
<br />be ,usable? .
<br />Mr. TIPTON. Yes, sir,'
<br />Senator DOWNEY. And you think that some court in the future would 'uphold that
<br />kind of interpretation, that, we could satisfy in whole or in part our. obligation to
<br />M ezico under this treaty of delivering 1,500,000 acre-feet of water, even though 80me
<br />or all of it were not usable for irrigation purposes? .
<br />Mr. TIPTON. That is my interpretation oj the treaty, sir. During the nego#a-
<br />tions, that question was ,argued strenuously. Memoranda passed ba.ck ~nd forth
<br />during negot~ation8 indicate what the intent was. Language was placed in the treaty.
<br />to cover that situation and to cover only that situation. -(Emphasis supplied.)
<br />
<br />Part 2,page 338:
<br />
<br />Senator DOWNEY. Are_you one of the consulting engineers of the Boundary
<br />Commission?
<br />Mr. TIPTON. Yes, sir; I am, sir.
<br />Senator DOWNEY. I understand you to say that in your opinion there is no
<br />guaranty to be implied from this treaty that the water furnished to Mexico shall
<br />he of such quality that it wili be usable for irrigation?
<br />Mr. TIPTON. That is correct, sir.
<br />Senator DOWNEY. I .think you also ,stated that you based that opinion, in
<br />part, at least, on conversations and exchanges- of data between the two Govern.
<br />ments leading up to the treaty?
<br />Mr. TIPTON. That is correct, sir.
<br />
<br />,
<br />,-:.-
<br />
<br />
<br />
|