|
<br />.',:0>
<br />
<br />18
<br />
<br />MEXICAN WATER TREATY
<br />
<br />
<br />.N.
<br />.....~..
<br />
<br />"'::~',:j:;::
<br />
<br />Mr. TIPTON. That is correct.
<br />Senator WILEY In other words, your theory is that these reservoirs, even it
<br />there is an extraordinary drought up north, are f'lJ~ and that they "re full for
<br />the purpose of taking care of the first allotment to lVlexico? .
<br />Mr. TIPTON. That is right, to enable the United States to increase her use~ as
<br />against ,Mexico's present' uses. The capacity required 'for such purpose however
<br />will be minor. .
<br />Senator HAWKES. Mr. Chairman,' may I ask a question just for my information?
<br />The CHAIRMAN. Surely. '_
<br />Senator HAWKES. Is there anything in the treaty that says what you have-
<br />just said, and that-is, that Our Commissioner can decide whether it is difficult? I
<br />have understood that there is not. I have understood that the Commissioners
<br />have to agree on it.
<br />Mr. TIPTON. No; I do not thin~, an extraordinary drought, sir.
<br />Senator HAWKES. Can you refer to the thing that say's that our Commissioner
<br />can decide it alone?
<br />Mr. TIPTON.- I think the lack of saying anything would indicate that it is at
<br />the discretion of our Commissioner. As a matter of fact it is assumed at the
<br />present time tbatthe actual determination would be made. by the United States
<br />Bureau of Reclamation.
<br />So much for the proceedings in this country. Now let us listen to
<br />the report on the extraordinary drought clause given by the Mexican
<br />negotiators to their Senate. _ -
<br />The Mexic{#n interpretation,-Ing. Orive Alba exp]ainedthe diil'er-
<br />ence between the drought clauses on the Rio Grande and Colorado as
<br />follows IE] Universal, August 1,1945; S. Doc. No. 9S,p. 10): -
<br />'rhe difference is t.he following: In the case of the Rio Grande, Mexico does'
<br />not agree to deliver the guaranteed volume in all and each one of the yearS-
<br />8S, on the other hand, - happens in the case of the Colorado River-but Mexico
<br />has the choice, according to the treaty; of giving the volume guaranteed in lesser
<br />or greater annual volumes, if the annual guaranteed volume is completed in cycles
<br />of 5 years. This, ,which is beneficial for Mexico, because it gives Mexico' great
<br />elastioity in covering its obligations and which does not exist for the United
<br />States, in-the case of the' Colorado River, is compensated by the fact, of. having
<br />to pay the deficiencies in the following cycle of 5 years. On the other band, in
<br />the case of the Colorado River, in which the Uniteq. States,. as we will see, is
<br />obligated to furnish US with exactly the volu_me guaranteed and 'eveq with the
<br />monthly distribution which our irrigation deinand requires, there wo'uld be no
<br />object in having- the deficiencies caused by extraordinary droughts compensated
<br />by paying us the water. in the following years, since we would not have any
<br />place to store the excess volume .of water from the abundant years to collipensate
<br />for the dry ones, while, on t4e other hand, in the case of the Rio Grande the
<br />international s_torage dams are there.
<br />Answering objections to the treaty, lng. Orive Alba had this to say:
<br />Page 17:
<br />4. That in a year of drought the treaty permits the - volume guaranteed.to
<br />Mexico to be reduced and that the, treaty only promises - to reduce American
<br />volumes in ~ equal proportion, which would be very difficult to caJ;Ty out: 'n
<br />practice. A reading of the final paragraph of transitory article 10 show. that the
<br />objection is completely unjust since the case is entirely the_ce:ntrary. The amount
<br />guaranteed to Mexico can only 'be reduced in cases oj extreme drought and only if that
<br />extraordinary drought should bring about the .reduction of all con_sumptions in the
<br />United States.
<br />Lie, Ernesto Enriquez, the expert on international law, was reported
<br />as saying (Excelsior, August 8, 1945):
<br />Only in cases oj generalized drought would the clause enter into effect in the, case
<br />of the Colorado River. With respect to the Rio Grande, we do not commit our,etve, to
<br />let paS$ water in determined periods. For this reason; the two drought clauses are
<br />distin.ct, and if either oftheni resultsfavorably, it is ours. [Emphasis supplied.]
<br />
<br />,,'
<br />t\
<br />
<br />j,
<br />
<br />
<br />",
<br />
<br />,,'
<br />
<br />.:~
<br />',1
<br />
<br />,:']
<br />j
<br />.~~
<br />
<br />v'
<br />
<br />i
<br />
<br />.,i', ,
<br />:j
<br />
<br />..,'
<br />
<br />~~
<br />
<br />,','
<br />
<br />" ,<
<br />
<br />
<br />',\.
<br />
<br />'.~>
<br />
<br />
<br />1i
<br />
<br />-""--<''"---''-'
<br />
<br />j,j;" '
<br />
<br />m
<br />
<br />"",' tDii
<br />
<br />. ~ ',',.
<br />
|