WSP01020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 2. It is vitally important in the interest of a sound, secure, and firm development ,in both countries that the equitable rights of both countries in the waters of the Colo- rado River be finally and definitely defined. 3. One of the arguments advanced by the California interests in opposition to the treaty is that Mexico con- tributes no part of the runoff of the Colorado River. The same is equally true of California. It is highly significant that the states supporting the treaty are the states which furnish that runoff. 4. The treaty provisions with respect to the Colorado River were arrived at after months of negotiation. The Department of State was assisted in the negotiations by competent engineers of long experience in these matters. Prior to the negotiations, the Department of State consulted freely with the Committee of Sixteen representing the seven Colorado River Basin States and the power interests, and the treaty provisions finally arrived at were well within the limits recommended by five of the states, California alone opposing. [In many respects the terms of the treaty are more favorable to the United States and the states directly affected than that formula.] 5. The treaty contains a provision to the effect that in times of extraordinary drought the deliveries to Mexico will be curtailed in the same proportion as uses within the United States. This clause was patterned after one in the treaty with Mexico of 1906 providing for the equitable dis- tribution of the waters of the Rio Grande above Fort Quit- man, Texas, which clause has always worked well in practice. 6. The opponents of the treaty dwell continuously upon the fact that the Boulder Canyon Project Act provides spe- cifically that Boulder Dam is to be devoted solely to uses within the United States, the implication being that Mexico 5