WSP04854

• File Number: 8278.400
• Description: Title I - Mexican Treaty
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 9/20/1944
• Author: Jean Breitenstein
• Title: Memorandum Concerning Proposed Treaty Between the United States and Mexico Over Use of the Waters of the Border Streams
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

plant at Pilot Knob. Water which would be used for power generation at such a plant would be
returned to the river below any point from which the water could be rediverted to irrigate lands in
the United Srates. The excess capacity over 10,000 second-feet in the All-American Canal from
Syphon Drop to Pilot Knob was for the purpose of furnishing a water supply for the ptoposed Pilot
Knob plant. The running of ),000 second-feet daily through a power plant at Pilot Knob would
result in the- return to the stream at a point so low as to prohibit rediversion in the United States
of more than 2.000.000 acre,feet of water annually. Such an amount of Water would be available
for use only in Mexico--nor in tbe United States. No comment is necessary on the attitude of those
who in one breath advocate the construction and operation of the Pilot Knob plant and in the next
breath condemn the proposed treaty as being too generous to Mexico in its apportionment of water.
The question of the amount of water which should be allotted to Mexico under any treaty
should not be confused with the desire of any interests to secure a financial return from the delivery
of water to Mexico. It has been asserted that the Imperial Irrigation District. and perhaps orher
interests, have hoped to seCUre a financial return from a delivery of water to Mexico through such
facilities as rhe All-American Canal and the Pilot Knob Wasteway, It is a truism that. in the arid
and semi-arid West, water is more valuable than money. Money can be secured through the activities
of man: the forces of nature. which are uncontrolled by man, are the only source of water, It follows
that in determining the amount of water which the United States shall permit to go to Mexico it is
vastly more important to reduce the amount of water to the lowest possible figure than it is to work
out a method of delivery which will give a financial return to a particular interest, Despite the charges
which have been made by zealous opponents of the t..aty. ir is utterly uureasonable to believe that
California's sister states would prefer to favor Mexican over Californian interests. The situation is
that those basin states which favor the treaty ace moce concerned with the diminution of the amount
of water guaranteed to Mexico than they are with a merhod of delivery, which, while it will enhance
California pockerbooks. will jeopardize the ultimate rights of the other states,
It is very apparent that the hopes and aspirations of Colorado River basin states for future
developmenr. depending upon the availability and Use of Colorado River water. comprehend an ulti-
mate requirement for more water than is. or will be, available in the basin. This fact has been urged
as an objection to the treaty. Rather than being an objection, it is in reality ;1 powerful argument
favoring ratification of the rreaty. Under Article III (c) of the Colorado River Compact, any right
of Mexico to water must be satisfied first our of surplus over and above III (a) and III (b) water.
and then any remaining deficiency must come half from the lower basin and half from rhe upper
basin. As long as there is uncettainty as to the extent of the Mexican righr. all development depend-
ing upon waters of the Colorado River system is beclouded by the Mexican claim. A determination
of the Mexican right will remove this cloud.
Finally. in considering the question of the amount of water Mexico should receive. Some thought
must be given to the Mexican attitude. Those who art active in the negotiations of the treaty assert
that the amounts of water agreed upon as representing the share of Mexico constitute the lowe~t
possible figures to which Mexico will agree, Unless We are to charge rhe representatives of the United
States with either incompetence or bad faith. we must accept their report in this regard, This being
true. it is a waste of time to discuss an agreement with Mexico based upon a smallet amount of water.
The question resolves itself to a determination of whether it is better to accept the proposed treaty or
to reject it. If the treaty is accepted. development can go forward in the United States portion of
Colorado River Basin withour the threat of Mexican demands and Mexican rights appearing ro raise
doubts as to the amount of water available for such developmenrs, If rhe treaty is rejected, then it is
but reasonable to expect that Mexican uses will continue to increase and that eventually the rights of
the two countries will be determined by some arbitration board or international tribunal. Thus. the
question is narrowed to one of whether or not it is reasonable to expect the obligation imposed upon
the Unired States by the proposed treaty to be less severe than would result from arbirration.
It is now known what can be obtained through a treaty. What can be obtained rhrough arbi-
tration or future treaty negotiation is conjectural. Common sense would indicate that a settlement
upon the terms now presented should be accepted.

10