OCR Text |
Show -106- legal basis for Kexican damage claims, and that the United States does not concede the establishment of any general principal or precedent by the concluding of the treaty. But nevertheless the treaty also recites that Mexico waives all past, present, and future Itexican claims arising from the diversion of water by United States citizens. Koreover, the draft treaty as proposed by Secretary ~oot contained a phrase that the United States' action in entering into the treaty is prompted only by considerations of international comity , but this phrase was struck out of the treaty as signed. 2. United States-Lexico: Lower Rio Grande, Colorado, and Tijuana Rivers, 19*44. The United States and Kexico each appointed three Commissioners who held their first meeting in February 1928 to study the equitable use of the waters of the lower Rio Grande, the Colorado, and Tijuana Rivers. In March 1930 the American Commissioners submitted a report recommending that the interests of the United States and Kexico would be served by a treaty determining the extent to which existing uses of the lower Rio Grande and the Colorado Iciver were to be recognized and perpetuated. In 1932 the activities of the International Water Commission were transferred to the International Boundary CommLssion. In 1935 the American member of the latter was authorized to cooperate with a representative of the hexican Government in a further study of the equitable use of these three rivers to obtain additional information which might be used as a basis for the negotiation of a treaty. The Treaty was signed November 14, 19^4 . Its principal provisions may be summarized as follows: (1) The lower Rio Grande. (a) The waters are allocated to the two countries in a specified manner. (b) The two Governments agree to construct jointly certain works required for diversion, conservation, storage and regulation of the greatest quantity of the annual flow in a way to ensure the continuance of existing uses and the maximum development of feasible projects. (c) The cost of the diversionary works is prorated between the two Governments in proportion to the benefits which the respective countries receive therefrom. (d) The costs of, and the power from, hydro-electric works are shared equally. (2) The 1. U.S. Treaty Ser. 994, 59 Stat. 1219. |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |