Laserfiche WebLink
<br />N <br />~ <br />N <br />1'''; <br /> <br />,) <br /> <br />I <br />i' <br />i' <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />MEXICAN WATER TREATY <br /> <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />The unsettled qUe8tion.-The question, in short, remains open: Can <br />we invoke the drought clause if the reservoirs on' the Gila River <br />system are dry but those on the Colorado are full and vice verSll? <br />Can we invoke the clause if the upper basin findsdiificulty in deliV'er- <br />ing the comp!,ct guaraJ?teed quantity of 75,000,009 acre-feet, 'while <br />the lower basm reserVOIrs are ful]? If the run-off IS 50 percent but <br />the consumptiV'e uses in .this country are maintained by drafts on <br />storage which American irrigation has paid for, can deliveries tu <br />Mexico be reduced? The Mexican negotiators seemed to have little <br />doubt on this. Lic. Enriquez stated (E] Nacional, August 8, 1945): <br />Moreover, in these cases of drought there will be- offered to us daily waters of <br />the Colorado River by virtue of which 1vlexico has no need for storage works. <br />The great dams, such as Boulder and Davis, will serve to regulate the delivery <br />of the waters in the periods of low flow of the river. <br /> <br />8, FACTORS UPON WHICH THE TREATY IS SILENT <br /> <br />There are two other blank spots in the treaty, upon which the <br />legislative history throws very little light: <br />(a) The existence oj a surplus.-The standard by which existence of <br />a surplus is to be'determined, entitling Mexico to receive 1,700,000 <br />acre-feet instead of 1,500,000, was left completely open by the treaty. <br />If the reservoirs are full but the run-off is below norma], what duty <br />rests upon the American Commissioner? It seems reasonably clear <br />that this is a matter which the treaty leaves to American determina- <br />tion, and the direction to the American Commissioner in this respect <br />ought to be spelled out by Congress before it authorizes any compre- <br />hensive plan of development of the Colorado River Basin. <br />(b) Discharge of return flow into Salton Sea.-The .treaty is, com- <br />p]etely blank as to the quantity of return flow which the Mexican <br />water users may dump into the closed basin of the Salton Sea, thereby <br />drowning out lands of the Imperia] and Coachella Valleys. This was <br />frankly admitted by Mr. Tipton to have been overlooked, The <br />American negotiators apparently regarded the matter as of little im- , <br />portance because only 45,000 or 50,000 acre-feet annually have been <br />flowin~ from Mexican lands into the Salton Sea. But this is because <br />diverSIOns through the A]amo Canal have not exceeded 1,200,000 acre- <br />~eet annually and, more importa,nt, because under American manage- <br />ment losses were held to very low levels: The treaty specifically <br />allows Mexico to divert without limit not only 1,500,000 acre-feet per <br />y~ar, ~ut "any other quanti!ies ~rriviJ?g at .the Mexican points of <br />dIversIOn" (art. 10), and provIdes m article 17 tha,t-- " <br />The use of the channelS of th~ international rivers for the discharge. of ;flood or <br />other exoess waters shall be free and not subject to limitation by either country, <br />and neither country'shall have any claim against the other' in respect of any <br />damage:::: caused by such use. <br />Are New River and Alamo River, through which Mexican return <br />flow drains into the Salton Sea Basin; "international rivers"? <br />As to the quantity involved, it will be remembered that the Senate <br />Committee on Foreign Relations accepted the State Department's view' <br />(report, p. 4) that return flow from some 3,000,000 acre-feet applied <br />in Arizona would yield over 900,000 acre-feet per year, If a like ratio <br />should apply to the 2,000,000 acre-feet which Mexico expects to divert <br /> <br />".' ' <br />" <br /> <br />,;,.., <br />