OCR Text |
Show __2__ "1. The treaty allotted an excessive amount of water to Mexico, with the consequence that there would not be, under conditions of ultimate development of the basin, sufficient water available, particularly in dry cycles of years, to serve all needs in the United States and supply the amount allotted to Mexico. It was recognized that in view of the controversies between the states in the basin as to the proper interpretation and application of the Colorado River Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the secretarial contracts executed under that act, it is impossible to foretell whether the deficiencies would fall upon California, Arizona, or, in part, upon the upper basin, but the hazard that it would impair important California water rights was regarded as sufficiently acute to justify every proper measure in opposition to the treaty. "2. The treaty invested the International Boundary and Water Commission with excessive and uncontrolled authority, administrative, legislative and judicial in character, conflicting with the jurisdiction of other federal agencies and of the states and subjecting the entire basins of the rivers involved, and the water rights of users throughout the basins, to dictatorial management by the Commission. This feature was regarded as harmful to the California water and power agencies. "Accordingly, in March, 1944, with your approval and with the full support and approval of the Legislature, members of the Board and its advisors proceeded to Washington for Hearings on the treaty which were scheduled shortly to be held before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The proposed Hearings were, however, indefinitely postponed early in May, 1944. "In view of the fact that the treaty was supported by official representatives of five states in the Colorado River |
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] : California exhibits. |