|
<br />,-,' "
<br />
<br />.If
<br />J
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />;1
<br />':,',!!
<br />'::)1
<br />"i
<br />
<br />'<:
<br />
<br />",N<...", '.
<br />c;.J;i;;. ....':;.. "'"
<br />, ' .~>~ <?~
<br />"~""::"
<br />~;, '
<br />
<br />,,','
<br />"",
<br />
<br />,~" Y,~ i..
<br />"':::::....i:...... ;?~~.;
<br />":":..
<br />
<br />'.',.:,
<br />
<br />";>~:! :
<br />
<br />.~<': ,",' "-'.-'.'
<br />
<br />):;)1,
<br />'j
<br />
<br />
<br />.,
<br /><
<br />,,'I:
<br />" ..,J:
<br />
<br />.:
<br />;;.-;t
<br />,
<br />
<br />:1
<br />:-1
<br />
<br />.,~
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />"',,'
<br />
<br />4_,., " ",
<br />
<br />16
<br />
<br />MEXICAN WATER TREATY
<br />
<br />Part 1, page 109:
<br />Senator MURDOCK. I am not afraid- of the periods when there is,:_a surplus.
<br />The crucial thing in this treaty is the years when there is a drought, When the~
<br />is plenty of water, nobody cares; the question becomes academic. .But when
<br />there is not enough water, then the question in my mind is who loses? Where
<br />does it come from? How do we get the water down to Mexico?
<br />Mr. CLAYTON. There is no obligation to deliver all of the allocation:-to Mexico'
<br />when there is a curtailment of use anywhere in the United States. The Mexican
<br />deliveries will be curtailed, too. [Emphasis supplied.]
<br />Mr. Tipton, previously identified, testified (pt. 3, p. 1084):
<br />Mr. TIPTON. In my opinion, sir, my interpretation of ODe conditIon -,whep. the
<br />ftextraordinary drought" provision of the treaty would be invoked would be when
<br />the upper basin would be required to curtail' its uses in order to deliver its-
<br />75,000,000 acre-feet at Lees Ferry under the comract.
<br />Senat.or MURDOCK. Is that. your definition of I ,extraordinary drought?~'
<br />Mr. TIPTON. That would be my personal definition of one condition' when the
<br />provision would .be invoked.
<br />,Senator MURDOCK. I think it is important to get that 'straight. Now, if 1.
<br />have followed you, whenever the upper basin has' to curtail :to any <iegree ~ts
<br />beneficial, consumptive use in order to supply the lower bMin with the 75,000;000
<br />acre-feet over a lO..year period, that constitutes, in your opinion, an extraordinary
<br />drought under the treaty? . .
<br />Mr. TIPTON. That is correct, sir. That certainly would constitute an extra-
<br />ordinary drought, in my opinion. .
<br />Part 3, page 1985:
<br />Senator WHITE. Was there any effort at the time the treaty was negotiated
<br />by the ne~otiators~anystatement or effort by them~to determine what is
<br />mea.nt by I extraordinary drought"?
<br />Mr. TIPTON. No, sir.
<br />Senator WHITE. It was left wide open?
<br />Mr. TIPTON. It was left open. It was not discussed "t great length, except
<br />the point I bxought out, that the criterion of reduction in use in the United States
<br />should apply not only to the lower basin, as it does in the upper Rio Grande
<br />Treaty, but that it shouid apply throughout the basin. .
<br />Part 3, page 1088: . .
<br />Mr. TIPTON; * * * Senator Millikin asked two questions. His first ques-
<br />tion was, as I understood it--and I hope the Senator will correct me: if I ,am
<br />wrong-if there was no curtailment in the consumptive uses,. but there was a
<br />depletion of reservoir capacitYJ whether or not we could invoke this provision.
<br />I said I did not think so.
<br />. His second qUestion was this-that if, accompanying the commencement of
<br />depletion of water in main stream storage, ther,e also was a curtailment of' use-
<br />actual curtailment of consumptive u,se-by virtue of a lack of water in- the upper
<br />basin above our main stream reservoirs, whether or not under that condition
<br />this pro'vision could be invoked. -1 said that it'could be so interpreted. .
<br />Senator LA FOLLETTE. But you were not certain? .
<br />Mr. TIPTON. 1 was not certain.
<br />Senator LA' FOI,LETTE. One other thing that I got from this series of questions
<br />was the fact that in the negotiation of this treaty, in which you participated, fl.B:I
<br />understand it, there was not very much discussion of this provision with, the
<br />Mexican negotiators. I came to t!te conclusion, therefore--and if I am wrong, I wish
<br />to be corrected......:..that this particula?' language in the treaty-this, \ drought~clau86
<br />language-was arrived at without a full meeting of the minds of the negotiators as to
<br />what its a,ctual provisions involved.
<br />Mr. TIPTON. I think, Senator, that that resulted from this fact-
<br />. Senator LA FOLLETTE. 18 that true' Am I correct in that deduction'
<br />Mr. TIPTON:' You are substantially correct, sir.- "
<br />Senator LA FOLLETTE. Then, I might just say that it seems rather strange to
<br />me-1 have never participated ~ the negotiation of a treaty-because, as;J see it,
<br />regardless of your statement that you do not think it is very important thi$ i~ the
<br />one clause in the treaty which could result in any diminution of water delivered to
<br />Mexico' under the guaranty and that, therefore, if, despite your c()ll'cluaion :that we
<br />will not face t~at situation, it should o~cur, it would be the one clause in the treaty
<br />
<br />~~
<br />
<br />f-'
<br />-t
<br />
<br />
<br />,
<br />'f :'{
<br />,",j
<br />
<br /><1
<br />
<br />r
<br />
<br />'~ '1
<br />
<br />"",-"-
<br />
<br />
|