WSP04499 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l'\) w ~ -...I ~,j: " '" ". ,~.' THE COLORADO WATERS DISPUTE 497 be "for any purpose whatsoever" and would be "made up of the waters of the said river, whatever their origin." However, there is no evidence, other than Tipton's testimony, that the provisions were inserted "to cover only" the question of water quality. The memoranda to which he referred are now miss- ing. Moreover, after additional questioning, he admitted that the Mexican negotiators had signed no such memoranda. Even so Downey tried to have them entered into evidence, but Tom Connally, powedul chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, refused to approve the request. Since Connally's home state of Texas benefited from other provisions in the treaty, he favored the agreement and shied away from anything that might have jeopardized its ratification. The available evidence seems to suggest that the1"ords "from any and alI sources" and "waters . . . whatever their origin" were inserted primarily to give the Utlited States maximum credit for the return flow and only indirectly -if, indeed, at alI-to cover the question of quality. Some return flow would enter the river above the boundary; some would enter below the California border along the twenty-mile stretch where the river forms the common boundary between Arizona and Mexico; and some, the drainage water from the Yuma project, would never enter the river, but would flow instead aeraBB the land boundary into Sonora. To gain credit for this return /low (or at least that part of it constituting "good quality" water, according to Mexico) would seem to have been the real reason for the provisions cited by Tipton. It should be noted that neither government attempted to define "usable" or "good quality'! water and scientists have not devised any hard-and-fast rule them- selves. Treaty advocates insisted that there was another provision which would compel Mexico to accept polluted watcr. Article 10 provided that the amount allocated to Mexico was "for any purppse whatsoever." The implication here was that Mexico would have to find another use for her water if it were too saline for irrigation. Though this provision might be construed to favor the United Statei, it seems unlikely that an international tribunal would interpret it in such a filshion. Besides, if the allotment were unusable, then there would be no "purpose" to which Mexico could put the water unless it were treated in a desaliniZation plant. But the cost of such an operation was then-and still is-prohihitive. Another event seems to corroborate the abpve conclusion. In January 1944. less than a month after the negotiations, Charles Timm, another adviser to the American negotiators, was questioned about the treaty. When he was asked if it contained anything abollt the quality of Mexico's allotment, Timm replied, "Not in the treaty. . . . There was frankly strenuous objection on the part of Mexico. They objected to the omission of the quality but we suc- ceeded in evading it.'" If the question of quality were evaded, it would cer- tainly be stretching things for Tipton to say that both sides agreed to a pro- vision which both understood settled the question. Moreover, it would seem highly foolish for the Mexicans to agree to accept unusable water. The incredibility of Tipton's contention caused Downey to insist that the words "regardless of quality" be written into the treaty. That way the mean- · Colorado River Basin Coinmittees of FourteeD and Sixteen, Proceedings, Jan. a7-<l8. 1944, p. 21, ..~