<br />
<br />,',,<'
<br />
<br />"j',1
<br />
<br />. ,'"
<br />
<br />" "
<br />,.eN
<br />i:<i,'.e."',//<:'
<br />..-~ ""'.;'
<br />',:.:.~,.:
<br />
<br />
<br />" .,"
<br />
<br />',l' ..
<br />
<br />.. 'I
<br />
<br />,,', 'I:
<br />-'''.-.'''1
<br />
<br />ili
<br />lij
<br />
<br />.J
<br />
<br />,',-,",
<br />
<br />-l"~
<br />
<br />20
<br />
<br />MEXICAN WATER TREATY
<br />
<br />and pump, the' retUrn flow into the Salton Sea could very quickly;
<br />become catastrophic. ."
<br />The Mexican proceedingS, quite understandably, <lid not agitate'
<br />this question in any manner. .
<br />
<br />IV. CONCtuSION
<br />
<br />From all the foregoing, perhaps the following conclusions can be
<br />drawn:
<br />
<br />1. THE WEIGHT OF THE TREATY'S BURDEN
<br />
<br />The failure of the treaty to evidence a meeting of the minds either,
<br />upon factual assumptions or upon the language of the document,;
<br />coupled with its silence upon factors of vital importance, make it:
<br />impossible to assigu any definite weight to the burden it imposes upon :
<br />the waters of the Colorado River system either as to priority, quan-
<br />tity, quality, or the geographical distribution of the burden, :
<br />
<br />2. RELATION TO THE "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" ON THE COLORADO
<br />
<br />The comprehensive development of the Colorado River requires a ;
<br />more exact definition of the Mexican burden. and a clearer blueprint "
<br />of the administration of the treatyasa domestic statute. Until such.
<br />definitions are effected, and until the geographical distribution of the
<br />burden is determined by interstate agreement or litigation, the only
<br />safe assumptions are the most adverse assumptions.
<br />The effect of the treaty on unbalancing the water budget is illus-
<br />trated in sharp focus by the analysis of the main-stream water budget
<br />of the lower basin, prepared by Mr. Raymond Matthew:
<br />
<br />Water budget, Lower Colorado River Bal3in, main stream only
<br />
<br />[QuantitieS in million acre.!eet, to Dcarest hundred thousand]
<br />
<br />Total available water supply from main stream__~________~____~_,_~____.. 9.2
<br />Less reservoir losses_____________h_~h_______________h~__,h_____ .9
<br />
<br />Net supply - - -------.---------________________________________ 8. 3
<br />Demand, on s_~:pply: ,
<br />Nevada, Utahl,New_Mexico------_--h-_h__h..,___uh.:.._u_h 0.4
<br />Arizona (claimed by State):__________________________________ 2.8
<br />California (by contracts)_____________________________________ 5.4
<br />Mexico (by treaty) - ---------________________________________ 1.5
<br />-10.1
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />Deficm"____"______.___._~___________________________________ 1. S
<br />
<br />Total available supply__~____h_____________"______.-----h_________ 8.3
<br />Deducting Nevadal Utab, New Mexico, and Mexico demands_h___..__~__ 1. 9
<br />
<br />Remainder for Arizona and Ca1ifornia______:__~~_____________-~__ 6.4
<br />If California contracts satisfied, Arizona would have____________________ I. O'
<br />If Arizona gets 2.8, California would have_________________"___________ 3.6
<br />O~
<br />Less than histol'ic- use befor~ Boulder Dam was built.
<br />Less than III (a) limitation:
<br />
<br />No sound planning can be done for new projects until the water
<br />budget is balanced again in some way,
<br />
<br />..-,--;'-',,,', ','.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|