|
<br />
<br />i
<br />.!
<br />
<br />,j
<br />
<br />MEXICAN WATER. TREATY
<br />
<br />i~j~'~it~
<br />
<br />
<br />;,"c-::
<br />
<br />5
<br />
<br />N
<br />w::.
<br />o
<br />Ct:J
<br />
<br />The Mexioan resolution specifically makes a point of "failing to
<br />mention" ("hace punto omiso") some of these understandings,
<br />Ratifications were nevertheless exchanged between the two nations
<br />November 8, 1945, as noted below.
<br />
<br />)},
<br />
<br />18. DEEP DIFFERENCES DISCLOSED
<br />
<br />
<br />12. EXCHANGE OF RATIFICATIONS
<br />
<br />The exchange of ratifications between the two Governments in
<br />Washington, November 8, 1945, was evidenced by signature of a.
<br />supplementary protocol, and the treaty entered into force on that
<br />date. President Truman signed a proclamation .to that effect on
<br />November 27, 1945. .
<br />
<br />The Mexican proceedings revell,] differences from the account given
<br />the American Senate by the American proponents of this treaty with
<br />respect to the Colorado River, in three broad cate~ories: .
<br />First, As to the assumptions, legal and engineerrng, on which .the
<br />treaty was based. .
<br />Second. In the interpretation of the liocument signed.
<br />Third. As to factors on which the treaty is silent. .
<br />These differences, so deep in some instances as to indicate that
<br />there was no real meeting of the minds on some of the basil; factors
<br />of the treaty, insofar as the Colorado is concerned, are discussed
<br />below. .
<br />
<br />II. CONFLICTING ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH THE TREATY
<br />WAS !,JASED
<br />
<br />The argument in both countries raised the following questions, and
<br />drew the following official answers:
<br />
<br />1. AS TO THE IRRIGABLE AREA IN MEXICO
<br />
<br />Tke Q,8sumptions oj tke American negotiators.-Mr. Lawson, Ameri-
<br />
<br />can member of the Boundary and Water Commission, and one of the
<br />
<br />negotiators, testified (hearings, pt. 1, pp, 77-78):
<br />
<br />* * * In the Mexicali Valley, also, there is opportunity for great expansion
<br />in the future. Estimates of the areas in Mexico readily irrigable from the
<br />COlqrado River vary from 800,000 to 1,000,000 acres.
<br />
<br />Part 1, page 83:
<br />
<br />The CHAIRMAN. If I understand you correctly, you mean that under pre$ent
<br />conditions the water has to be released in the river, and it goes down into Mexico,
<br />and without any treaty it is .appropriated to increasing the irrigable territory
<br />there and that if the treaty goes into effect she would be limited to 1,500,000
<br />acre-feet in the future, but if not she could continue to- develop and increase her
<br />acreage over a larger territory and have a basis in the future for a claim that she
<br />had B.fJguired water rights by prior use, and that that would be embarrassing to
<br />the Umted States. Is that about your testimony? .
<br />Mr. LAWSON. Yes; Senator. If they are using; as we can assume they are, or
<br />if they are irrigating today something like 300,000 acres, they can, with the water
<br />supply being furnished, develop about three times that amount, because they have
<br />. about 800,000 acres of irrigable land in that valley. The water supply is now
<br />available for their use. The treaty limits ,them to less water than they used last
<br />year3 however.
<br />
<br />S. Doc. 249, 79-2-2
<br />
<br />-,,'-'
<br />
<br />
<br />, '~"".
<br />
<br />-1",
<br />
<br />"
<br />
|