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

. '

Otherwise, rhere would be the ever-present possibility of future recogmrlOn of a greater right of
Mexico to the detriment of all existing development in rhe United States.

One other exaggerared claim of the treaty opponents should be mentioned. It has been said that
"The Treaty enables the complete nationaJization of the river systems in question even to the exclu~
sion of states' rights." To any fair minded person a reading of the treaty is a complete answer. No..
where is there any power granted the Commission to take over the powers or duties of the Bureau of
R.c1amarion, the Corps of Engineers, rhe Geological Survey, the Federal Power Commission. or any
other Federal agency. Insofar as the construction, operation and maintenance of facilities to be used
in making deliveries to Mexico. in protecting against dood damage below Imperial Dam, and in
proteering United States lands against flooding and seepage occasioned by a main diversion structure
constructed by Mexico are concerned the Commission has specific powers defined by the treaty. The
Commission supplements. but does not supersede. other Federal Agencies.

The treaty does nor, and under our constitutional system could not. infringe upon the juris-
diction of any state of our Union.

What the treaty does is to define the right of Mexico. The United States has the right to use
as it SE'es fit all watn flowing within its borders in excess of that which must be permitted to flow
to Mexico. The administration, control and use of the United States share of the stream flow will.
after thE' ratification of the treaty, remain as it was bE'fore such ratification.

No good purpose would be served by a discussion of each criticism which has been made by
treaty opponents in regard to the administrative provisions. It must be recognized that:

(I). Some administrative agency must be futnished.

(2). The choice of the International Boundary Commission as the agency to carry out the
treaty, a body which has had over fifty years experience in boundary matters and which has functioned
with full sarisfacrion ro both nations. is commendable.

(3). The powers given rhe Commission are both adequate to give effect to the treaty and
sufficiently restricted to protect the rights of intE'rests in thE' United StatE'S dependent upon the use
of Colorado River water.

Conclusion

An appraisal of all factors entering into the Colorado River situation justifies the following
conclusions:

(I). It is desirable and necessary to have a definirion of the extent of Mexican rights to rhe
use of Colorado River water.

(2). The allotment of water ro Mexico undet the proposed treary is fair and equitable and
may be reasonably assumed to be (a) the smallest amount which Mexico will agree upon and (b) a
less amount than would be awarded Mexico in a future arbitration of the controversy or a future
treaty negodation.

(3). The administrative provisions of the treaty are proper and adequate.

It follows that full support should be given the treaty and rhe Senate of the United States should
advise, and consent to. ratification.

16