WSP04499 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, ,) ",: 0"") ,."'1} ...,- 496 FOREIGN AFFAIRS N W (0 OJ arguments, most of which do not concern us here. But one argument, which proved important at the time, also sheds light on the present controv:ersy between Mexico and the United States. Treaty advocates insisted that the grant to Mexico would be made up largely of "return flow" drainage from reclamation projects in the United States. They estimated the return flow at about one million acre-feet. Consequently, of the 1,500,000 acre-feet allocated to Mexico, two-thirds of it would be satisfied with return flow-water already used at least once by the United States. Californians immediately recognized the power of this argument for, if true, it meant that the treaty was giving Mexico little more than she would receive in the natural course of events. They wasted no time in moving to the att;lclt. Spearheading the Senate opposition Was California's Senator Sheridan Downey who considered the return-flow estimate too high and tried by re- lentless cross-examination to get the treaty advocates to modify their figure. He drew finally from Royce Tipton, an engineer and adviser to the American treaty negotiators, the concession that the United States would probably be able to reclaim all but 730,000 acre-feet of the return flow. Tipton admitted further that the only thing that would prevent the United States fromre- claiming even more would be the poor quality of the remainder. This water, because of heavy prior use for irrigation, would be too saline for most crops. Rather than use such water, Tipton felt that it should be allowed to flow downstream, thus helping the United States fulfill iu treaty obligation to Mexico. It was shortly before this that one of the most important debates on the treaty occurred. Downey seriously doubted that the United States could set away with giving Mexico unusable water and he questioned Tipton closely on this point. "Is there any.statement in the treaty as to the quality of water that must be delivered by the United States to Mexico?" "We are protected on the quality, sir," quickly responded Tipton. Downey saw an opening and his next question came right to the point. "You would mean by that statement that we could perform the terms of our treaty with Mexico by delivering to her water that would not be usable?" ''Yes, sir," answered Tipton without a moment's hesitation. "And you think," asked Downey as he pressed his examination, "that some court in the future would uphold that kind of interpretation, that we <<>>uJd satisfy in whole or in part our obligation to Mexico under this treaty of de- livering 1,500,000 acre-feet of water, even though some or all of it were not usable for irrigation purposes?" Tipton remained adamant. "That is my interpretation of the treaty, air," he replied. "During the negotiations, that question was argued strenuously. Memoranda passed back and forth during negotiations indicate what the intent was. Language was placed in the treaty to cover that situation and to cover only that situation.'''' The language to which Tipton referred appeared in several provisions stipu- lating that Mexico's allotment would corne "from any and all sources," would 1 Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "Hearings on Water Treaty with Mexicot 79th Coug., rat S...., r945. p. 3ZZ. See articlea ro and u of the treaty in "United Statea St;ltutea at Larae," LIX. p. ur9 f. . 't ,., , "_1 , , . ;1, -'} ,.