AZ vs. CA:15 California Exhibits, Vol. XV; Nos. 2101-2174; 2200-2217; 2250-2253; 2301; 2401-24032401-2403

page 11

000,000.00, believing in the integrity of commitments contained in the Boulder Canyon Project Act and in those contracts. "2. The inference is strong that upper basin Senators were committed to the treaty by the prospect or promise of securing construction of projects in the upper basin at the expense of the United States, without reinburse-ment. "3. The incorrect idea was frankly expressed by some eastern and southern Senators that while the Colorado River Basin would suffer from, the treaty, Texas was gaining enough so that the United States as a whole was not making a very bad bargain. "4. The fact that Mexico greatly increased her use of water during the period of negotiations, led to the feeling that the 1,500,000 acre-feet was not an unreasonable allotment, in spite of the fact that the State Department, in conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation, caused additional releases of water from Boulder, during the period in question, without which Mexico's increased uses could not have been attained. "5. The most important factor, however, was the imminence of the San Francisco Conference, which coupled with the trend toward internationalism, impelled many Senators to vote for the Treaty to escape the imputation of isolationism. The argument was strongly voiced that the Senate must not block this Treaty, or "reject" it, by attaching amendments which would require renegotiation or a fresh consent from Mexico. The leadership of both parties appeared to be committed to this position. "It remains to consider the outcome of the work done at Washington by the California delegation. At the time the treaty was presented to the Senate in February, 1944,