Page 1

LIGHT ON THE MEXICAN WATER TREATY FROM THE RATIFICATION PROCEEDINGS IN MEXICO (By Northcutt Ely, Washington, D. C.) INTRODUCTION This report, prepared for the Colorado River Water Users' Association, deals with the ratification of the Mexican-United States Water Treaty by the Mexican Government, submits a comparison of the conflicting analyses and interpretations officially offered by the Mexican and American negotiators, to their respective Senates, all with particular reference to the Colorado River, and submits certain conclusions and recommendations. The Mexican Water Treaty must be kept in proper perspective. It has been ratified by both Governments. It is the law of the land and presumably will remain so. From this point on it matters little whether we opposed or supported the ratification of the treaty. All of the Colorado Basin States now have a common interest in protecting the interests of the basin in the interpretation and administration of the treaty, with complete fairness to Mexico. The treaty is both an international contract and a domestic statute. As a contract, it must and will be fully performed. It is a first mortgage on the waters of the Colorado River system. As a domestic statute, it operates in many ways that do not concern Mexico at all, or are of only incidental interest to her, as her own resolution of ratification specifically demonstrates. The treaty, both as an international mortgage and a domestic statute, becomes of first-rank importance in the formulation of the comprehensive plan for the development of the Colorado River. Comprehensive planning for the Colorado Basin's water utilization cannot safely proceed until the weight of this mortgage and the meaning of this domestic statute, collectively constituting the treaty, are more definitely ascertained. If evidence of that necessity were needed, the ratification proceedings in Mexico, discussed in this report, amply provide it. Anyone who examines the Mexican proceedings will come away with sober respect for the caliber of the Mexican negotiators and what they believe they have accomplished for their country. This is not to say that the Mexican negotiators were right and ours were wrong, in reporting what the treaty accomplished, but, as the conflict in these pages shows, they could not both be right. Whatever may be done toward clarifying the opposing interpretations of the treaty as a contract, it seems clear that the uncertainties of this document as a domestic statute, governing the operation of American works by American officials who remain subject to American 1Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,444,800 byte