WSP04854 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In connection with Article 13 attention is specifically directed to the face that it applies only to flood control below Imperial Dam. Reference has been made to the provision of this Article whereby the Governments agree [0 construct such works as may be recommended by the Commission and approved by the two Governments. The rather exaggerated claim has been made that this amounts to blanket authority to the Commission to construct such works as it may see fit. So far as flood control on the Colorado River below Imperial Dam is concerned. the Commission is given powet to srudy. investigate, and prepare plans, Before any works can he consttucted the approval of the two Governments will have to be obtained. and in the United Stares congressional appropria- tions will have to be secured. Under the treaty provision it would seem plain that there is a definite obligation upon the United States to advance the necessary funds for the construction of the flood- control works recommended by the Commission and approved by the two Governments. This does not mean that the treaty gives the Commission a blank check from the proceeds of which works may be constructed anywhere along the Colorado. Article 13 tefets on'ly to flood control below Imperial Dam. On such a matter. it is entirely proper for this nation to delegate much authority and responsibility to the Commission. The situation is comparable to that before the United States Supreme Court in the Great Lakes Drainage case. There it was held that the delegation to the Secre- tary of War of the power to determine the amount of water that could safely be taken from Lake Michigan involved a peculiarly expert question which Congress could properly delegate to an execu- tive official (see Wisconsin v. Illinois. 278 U. S. 367, 414). The function of determining the desirability and suitability of flood control works falls in the same category. Technical. expert knowledge on these flood-control matters is necessary. It is not to be presumed that the Commission will abuse its powers in this regard. Should it do so, the two Governments would probably not agree and Congress would undoubtedly withhold appropriation of the necessary money. Those opposing the treaty have made reference to Article 20, which contains this provision: "The two Governments shall. thtough theit tespective Sections of the Commission. carry out the construction of works allotted to them. to In considering this provision attention has been directed to the following excerpt from Article 2: "Wherever there are provisions in this Treaty for joint action or joint agreement by the two Governments. or for the furnishing of reports, studies or plans to the two Governments. or similar provisions. it shall be understood that the particular marter in question shall be bandIed by or through the Department of State of the United States and the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Mexico." The argument has been made that by teason of these ptovisions the Department of State will be authorized to. and can, take over functions which have heretofore been exercised in the United States by such agencies as the Department of Interior and the Corps of Engineers: and the treaty opponents conclude that the treaty represents an endeavor of the State Department to expand its power and authority so as to take over the jurisdiction of the entire Colorado River in the United States. This is another specious argument which affords no base for the conclusion reached. The treaty must be read as a whole. The jurisdiction of the Commission is specifically defined in Article 2 and relates to only the- boundary section. In our system of Government the functions and duries of the Depart- menr of Stare. Department of the Interior, and Department of War are well established and clearly tecognized. It cannot be assumed that either the Chief Executive or Congress would permir the State Department to seize upon any treaty provision as an excuse or justification for usurpation of power. It must be clear to all reasonable people that the intent of the treaty negotiators was to entrust to the International Water and Boundary Commission conttol over only those facilities in the United States directly used for delivery of wJtrr to Mexico or necessaty for stream measurement or for flood-control below Imperial Dam. It has been said rhat the treaty operates in perpetuity. This is desirable rather than objectionable. The United Stares is the up-stream nation. To protect its development. based upon the utilization of tbe waters of the Colorado River. it is necessary tbat the Mexican righr be defined for all time. 15