Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />