|
<br />N
<br />~
<br />~
<br />CX)
<br />
<br />
<br />MEXICAN WATER TREATY
<br />
<br />In the event of' extraordinary drought or serious accident to the irrigation aya.
<br />tem in the United States, thereby making it difficult for the United States to
<br />deliver the guaranteed quantity of 1,500,000 acre-feet (1,850,234,000 cubic meters)
<br />a year, the water allotted to Mexico under subparagraph (a) .of this. article will
<br />be reduced in the same proportion as consumptive- use~ ,in the United States are
<br />reduced. .
<br />. , .
<br />The Rio Grande dro"Ught clause in the 194-4. treaty,-This differs from
<br />the drought clause on the Rio Grande, which excuses the Mexicans
<br />in tbe case of serious accident to their "hydraulic system" (not their
<br />irrigation system) making it difficult for them to "make available"
<br />(not deliver) annually the "runcoff of 350,000 acre-feet" (not "from
<br />any and all sources"), which is the "minimum contribution" (not the
<br />"guaranteed quantity") from the Mexican tributaries. In such event
<br />any deficiencies existing at the end of a 5-year cycle" shall be made
<br />up in the following 5-year cycle with water from the said measured
<br />tributaries." .
<br />The drought clause in the 1906 Rio Grande treaty.-The Colorado
<br />River clause differsa]so from tbat in the Rio Grande Treaty of 1906.
<br />The American Senate committee report on the 1944 treaty says
<br />~.~: ' '
<br />.In the 1906 convention -the reduction of deliveries -to Mexico is based upon the
<br />reduction of deliveries to lands in the United States rat.her than upon a _reduction
<br />of consumptive uses in the United States, as in the present treaty. This ohange
<br />in the basio factor WlV! made at the instance pi the negotiators for the United
<br />States" in order to take care of situations where waters are not "delivered" in the
<br />tech;nioal sense, but where, nevertheless, consumptive uses m'Qst be curtailed
<br />during periods of drought. .
<br />The American interpretation.-The American negotiators of the
<br />1944 treaty explaining this Colorado River drought clause, testified
<br />(pt. 1, p. 106):
<br />Senator McFARLAND. Was there Any negotiati:qg at all in regard to setting up
<br />and speUing, that out as to what a drought is-how much water would have to
<br />be on hand before it would be considered a drought?
<br />Mr. CLAYTON. No, sir. Any actual 9-etermination will be made here in the
<br />United States, because here is where_the records are kept and h~re is where the
<br />water is. However, I think in praotical effect it would work out this way; We
<br />have a measuring stick-furnished by the Colorado River compact that obligates
<br />the upper basin to deliver to the lower basin in 10~year progressive series 75,000,000
<br />acre-feet of wl\ter every 10 years. The drought, of course, would be_ felt first
<br />in the upper basin. That is where t,he rainfall and snowfall are primarily, and
<br />the effects _would be felt there first. If that represented such a drought that
<br />they had to curtail deliveries'to the lower basinl I would say that was a drought
<br />within the meaning of the compact and that deliveries to Mexico would be dimin.
<br />ished correspondingly. The drought does not have to occur simultaneously in all
<br />portions oj the basin. It is sufficient iJ it occurs in any portion and results in the
<br />curtailment of usage. [Emphasis supplied. J
<br />Mr. Olayton, counsel for the International Boundary Commission,
<br />and actual draftsman of much of the treaty, testified as follows (pt. 1,
<br />p.108):
<br />Senator MURDOCK. The question I have in mind is this: Suppose that the use
<br />of water in the upper basin has to. be curtailed over a 10-year period in order to
<br />deliver to the lower basin 75,000,000 acre-feet" so that there is an actual curtail-
<br />ment of the use in the upper basin-must there also be a ourtailment of use in
<br />the upper basin to supply that part of the water that goes to Mexi~o?
<br />Mr. CLAYTON. Of oourse, when you ~peak of any anq aU sources, as fn:t as the
<br />obligation to Mexico is concerned, it is immaterial where the water eom,es from.
<br />If you are speaking about a curtailment in the upper basin as a result of drought
<br />conditions, as ordinarily it would be, then, of cauhe, there will be a curtailment
<br />also of the deliveries to Mexico. .
<br />
<br />,,"',"
<br />
<br />'1-\-'.
<br />
<br />
<br />15
<br />
<br />",';.0-0'
<br />
<br />€
<br />1
<br />
|