|
<br />
<br />
<br />N
<br />~
<br />o
<br />~
<br />
<br />LIGHT ON THE MEXICAN WATER TREATY FROM
<br />THE RATIFICATION PROCEEDINGS IN MEXICO
<br />
<br />(By Northcutt Ely, Washington, D. C,)
<br />
<br />INTRODUCTION
<br />
<br />This report, prepared for the Colorado River Water Users' Asso-
<br />ciation, deals with the ratification of the Mexican-United States
<br />Water Treaty by the Mexican Government, submits a comparison,
<br />of the conflicting analyses and interpretations officially offered by the
<br />Mexican and American negotiators, to their respective Senates, all
<br />with particular reference to the Colorado River, and submits certain
<br />conclusions and recommendations.
<br />, The Mexican Water Treaty must be kept in proper perspective,
<br />It has been ratified by both Governments, It is the law of the land
<br />and presumably will remain so. From this point on it matters little
<br />whether we opposed or supported the ratification of the treaty. All
<br />of the Colorado BasinStates now have a common interest in protect-
<br />ing the interests of the basin in the interpretation and administration
<br />of the treaty, with complete fairness to Mexico.
<br />The treaty is both an international contract and a domestic statute.
<br />As a contract, it must and will be fully performed. It isa first
<br />mortgage on the waters of the Colorado River system. As a domestil)
<br />statute, it operates in many ways that do not concern Mexico at all,
<br />or \tre of only incidental interest to her, as her own resolution of
<br />ratification specifically demonstrates.
<br />The treaty, both as an international mortgage and a domestic
<br />statute, becomes of first-rank importance in the formulation of the
<br />comprehensiVe plan for the development ,of the Colorado River.
<br />, Comprehensivil planning for the Colorado Basin's water utilization
<br />cannot safely proceed until the weight of this mortliage and the mean-
<br />ing of this domestic statute, collectively constitutmg the treaty, are
<br />more definitely ascertained. If evidence of that necessity were needed,
<br />the ratification proceedings in Mexico, discussed in this report, amply
<br />provide it.
<br />Anyone who examines the Mexican proceedings will come away with
<br />sober respect for the caliber of the Mexican negotiators and what they
<br />believe they h~ve accoml.'lished for th,!ir country. This is not to s~y
<br />that the MeXIcan negotIators were nght and ours 'were wrong, m
<br />reporting what the treaty accomplished, but, as the conflict in these
<br />pages shows, they could not both be ri.&:hL. " "
<br />Whatever may be done toward clarIfying the opposing interpretac
<br />tions of the treaty as a,contract, it SMms clear that the uncertainties
<br />of this document ,as a domestic, statute, governing the 'operation of
<br />American works by American officials who remain subject to American
<br />
<br />1
<br />
<br />.1..,
<br />
<br />"'."
<br />
<br />" , '.":",,,., .JIIIII
<br />
<br />,:",L:~1~r;'ijc;~~~;~
<br />
<br />,,",'. ''''>~''~'''' ',;
<br />";1;;-
<br />,-. -, ~.
<br />
<br />f';f~~i~~:
<br />:".;:
<br />"e;"
<br />
<br />. - "~--- -'-;- . - ~;
<br />,/
<br />
|