Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, I <br />. , <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />o <br /><':) <br />"""" <br />...j was amended to 1.15 maf/yr, but with the delivery to be from "any <br />00 <br />00 source whatsoever." Mexico countered with a demand for 2 maf/yr. <br /> <br />A Committee of Fourteen composed of two representatives from <br />each of the seven Colorado River Basin states had been formed in <br /> <br />1938 to consider basinwide problems. As negotiations between the <br /> <br /> <br />United States and Mexico developed in the early 1940s, this <br /> <br /> <br />Committee became involved in advising the State Department on <br /> <br /> <br />matters relating to the proposed treaty. Before signing the Treaty <br /> <br /> <br />in February 1944, which called for delivery of a guaranteed annual <br /> <br /> <br />quantity of 1.5 maf/yr, the State Department reported on the treaty <br /> <br /> <br />to the Committee. The Department explained their agreement to <br /> <br /> <br />deliver such a large quantity of water by pointing out that more than <br /> <br /> <br />one-half of the 1.5 maf/yr would be irrigation return flows entering <br /> <br /> <br />the river below Imperial Dam, which would go to Mexico under any <br /> <br /> <br />circumstances. Thus, the State Department's position was that <br /> <br /> <br />the United States' users would be better off agreeing to deliver <br /> <br />a larger quantity of water to Mexico, which included return flows, <br /> <br /> <br />than a smaller quantity which did not include return flows. <br /> <br />Five of the states agreed with the proposed treaty. However, <br /> <br /> <br />California vigorously dissented, and Nevada abstained. Because of <br /> <br /> <br />California's dissent and Nevada's nonconcurrence, the remaining <br /> <br /> <br />five states joined with Texas in July, 1944 to form a new group <br /> <br /> <br />called the Six State Committee, which actively supported ratifica- <br /> <br /> <br />tion of the Mexican Water Treaty. <br />