HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE RIO GRANDE/BRAVOCE 397Transboundary Water ResourcesSamuel Sandoval-Solis

Pre-Hispanic …-1492

1492 Christopher Columbus

1519-1521 Hernan Cortez

1535 Viceroyalty of New Spain

Valle de Española, Chamita. (First Capitol city of NM, 1598)

Valle de Paso del Norte, diversion from a dam made of branches, stones and soil.

2000190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

ColonialValle Española, Chama.

Valle del Bravo, Santa Fe (Capitol NM1605), 12K ha & 20K people(1680).

Paso del Norte. Acequia Madre (Humboldt).

Albuquerque 1706.

Aviquiu (1739)

2000190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Colonial

ColonialPresidio del Rio Grande (Presidio - Ojinaga).

Presidio del Norte (El Paso-Cd. Juarez)

Laredo (Nuevo Laredo)

Refugio (Matamoros-Brownsville).

2000190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Colonial

Colonial 1521-1810; Independence 1810-1821

The rivers were considered as “public property of common use”; with the users obligation to respect this attribute and not harming from the upstream riparian against downstream riparian.

-Absolute prohibition to obstruct and impede the navigation channel by any means.

-Water was available for Merced and Composition and the viceroy could grant to individuals.

Common use priority over particular use (1803-1807).

Mexican Independence (1810-1821) Ratification of the Viceroyalty Laws

2000190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial

1835-1836 Independence of Texas

The Viceroyalty of New Spain invite foreign people, mostly from US, to colonize Texas.

Compliments about the pay of fees and taxes.

Mexico’s President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna started a campaign to extinguish the riot.

Santa Anna was defeated in San Jacinto battle, when he sign Texas Independence (Treaty of Velasco). Mexican representatives cameras unknown Santa Anna as president of Mexico.

2000190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial

TX Ind.

1846-1847 US Invasion to Mexico

American Expansionist sentiment. President James K. Polk

Manifest Destiny (Jahn O’Sullivan):”destiny to overspread the whole North American continent with an immense democratic population”

“Misunderstood” about the border of Texas.

Santa Anna’s betrayal.

“The American Invasion was a question of life and death for Mexico, not only because it involved the seizure of its territory, but also because Mexicans were reduced to the humiliating state of being strangers in their own land” Jose Mariano Salas

2000190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial

TX Ind.

US Inv.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848)

1.- Peace.2.- Set the borders: Rio Grande (Rio Bravo del Norte), Gila, Colorado3.- Lay down the right of Navigation.4.- 15 million dollars, 200K sq. mi.

Mexico “ceded” 55% of Territory

Nuevo Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah and Nevada

2000190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial

TX Ind.

US Inv.

Treaty 1848

1853 The Mesilla Treaty. The Gadsden Purchase

“The most direct and practicable route for the Southern transcontinental railroad would be south of the United States boundary”

29K sq. Mi.

$10,000,000.

31 ° 47’

100

m

i

31 ° 20’

111

°

20 mi.

Emory-Salazar LineErased LineBlanco-Barlow Line (1896).

2000190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial

TX Ind.

US Inv.

Treaty 1848

1853

Contrast between two allocation systems

East. Riparian rights

West. Priority use

First in time, first in right.

Uncontroled appropiation (CA, NM)

Fast expedition and immediately aplication

Complicated with Acts (River and Harbor Act)

WR for powerful and sovereign states

Formal System (Burocracy)

Slow in expedition Centralized (Federal

property of the water) Riparian rightsVs

The US System

The Mexican System

1877-1884 There is no water at El Paso

In 1877, US president Hayes sign a law to confer to the states the control and regulation of the non-navigable rivers. $0.25/acre unpopulated zones with the promise to built the irrigation infrastructure

In 1878, Coronel Hatch wrote a note highlighting the problems of allocation of water in drought periods in the Rio Grande Valley.

On April 16th 1880, Texan irrigation users complained about the allocation of water from the dams “Acequia Madre”. American farmers must fight for the 50% stipulated in the treaty.

On June 15th 1980, first official international complain about the Acequia Madre.

The complain was responded 4 years later as follows (June 1884):

1.- Both sides suffered the ravages of the drought period

2.- Mexican supplied water to this area in scarcity periods

3.- The dam is built in Mexican Territory and it is 300 year old

4.- The scarcity in the Rio Bravo river is the waste of water in Colorado and New Mexico states

2000190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial

TX Ind.

US Inv.

Treaty 1848

1853

No Water1880

-Change in the course, Creation of “Banks”1884.- Convention for the replacement of monuments that mark the boundary line between El Paso to the Ocean Pacific. This convention “will have ended” the discrepancies.-1887.- Prolific profits in the Upper Rio Bravo/Grande basin. On the opposite, there was no water at El Paso/Paso del Norte.-1888.- Establishment two International Boundary Commissions, one who decides about the changes of the water course (Pluvial) and one for the boundary delineation in land (5 year duration). Indefinite duration after 1900. Int. Commission of Boundaries : Blanco-Borlow (1981). Pluvial matters: Osorno-Mills(1896)

1884-1888

$$$

No Water

190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial

TX Ind.

US Inv.

Treaty 1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Vs Powel’s Solution-1888.- Mills recognize the problems in Paso del Norte Region: a) Scarcity of water due to CO and NM diversions, b) Water rights of Mexico (seniority and navigability), c) Must stop CO and NM WR, d) Ravages to Mexico, e) Compensation, f) International Dam “Mills Dam” operated jointly.

-1888.- USGS Director Powel recommend: a) In the Rio Grande Valley (NM), most of the water is lost in the sand. b) The irrigation in Colorado (1.5M acres) is preferred over NM (200-300K acres) c) To protect the senior irrigation rights at El Paso/Paso del Norte, it will be necessary to remove all the existent infrastructure and water allocations. D) The irrigation at Colorado is destroying the already established ID’s in the border. (Irrigation Survey).

-1888.- Lanham/Reagan survey Representative/Senate of Texas.

1.5M Acres

300K Acres

$$$

No Water

190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

Mill’s Dam (1888-1889)

1888.- Engineers Mills & Garfias propose the construction of a dam at El Paso/Cd. Juarez (1/3 US, 1/3 Mex, 1/3 to the river)

1889.- Jornada del Muerto and Taos Valley & Co. WR compromised the water for the dam.

-Public Auditions

-Mills encouraged the construction of the dam in the congress. He was positive about the support of the Mexican government. Commitment with the Treaty and the oldest WR. The US must compensate for the damages (50K people, 50K acres, $25 Million)

Powell argued the preference for the Colorado ID priority, expansion of the ID in NM. Ratified the feasibility of Mill’s Dams. Although, after all the expansion plans, there wont be any water left.

-Lanham recognize the affectations to the Mexican users, encourage the project of an international dam as an initial compensation.

190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

1890 Concurrent resolution at the US Congress, Lanham-Reagan Iniciative

Considers the Río Bravo River as the natural international border

Considers the channels and dikes constructed in NM and CO the responsible for the scarcity at Paso del Norte Valley

Recognize the Mexican Water RightsRecognize the controversy of the allocation of

international waters And considers the conditions generated, a threatening for

the peace and harmonyConsiders the flood of the rivers the responsible for the

confusion in the border lineAvoid to decide on the construction of the International

dam (Mill’s Dam)Invites Mexico to dialogue and built a Treaty

190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

Con.Resol1890

1990 Gamboa Vs Vallarta examinationGamboa: a) Due to the navigation statement in the Treaty of1848, is not possible to the US to reduce the stream flow. b) Mexico has the right to request the destruction of the facilities that harms his right and a compensation c) Just by agreement of both countries Mill’s dam can be constructed

Vallarta: a)The border rives are common and belong the 50% of the use and supply for each of the riparian states; b) The sovereignty of one state over a portion of the international river do not authorize the right to use the water of the other state; c)It is illegal divert the

flow of a river if this harms the navigationConclusions: a) The water must be divided in halves between both countries; b) The US breaks all the treaties because of the excessive use of the international waters; c) Powell ‘s project not only accept the US appropriation system but also, simplifies the problem to maximize the US area irrigated, d) Mexico has the right not only to stop the US diversion, but also to closed the existing ones, e) Mexico has the right to claim for a compensation

190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

Con.Resol1890

1890-1895

After the US government request to talk about the distribution of water, there was no answer from Mexico (1890-1892). When the answer came, there was no reply (1893). In 1894, Mexico sent a formal request to the State department asking about the current resolution of the Cameras and the willingness to talk about it.

In 1894, the Department of the Interior approved the construction of the Elephant Butte dam in NM.

In 1995, Romero has a meeting with Olney (Department of State) and Dutton (USGS). Dutton explains the position of the priority allocation policy and the “thirsty” reaches of the Rio Grande in NM. Romero explains the navigability of the Bravo (Love, 1850), the Mexican rights over the water and the seniority of the Mexican rights 300 years old.

In 1995 Texas enters in the arena. If there is a compensation to the Mexican farmers, it must be a compensation for the Texan farmers too.

190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

Con.Resol1890

ElephButte1894

1895-1896

In 1895 Olney ask Harmon (US General-Attorney) to review Romero’s Note.

Harmon or Absolute Sovereignty Doctrine “The fundamental principle of international law is the absolute sovereignty of every nation as against all others, within its own territory... all exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other source”.

Later, Olney consider Mill’s dam as a possible solution as a possible solution and he emphasized the necessity to prove the real and genuine obligation.

In 1896, Romero and Olney started the mechanisms to solve the problem. They resolve to initialize an International Boundary Commission (Pluvial affairs) Mills-Osorno

190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

Con.Resol1890

ElephButte1894

1896.-IBC (Pluvial or Arcifinium affairs)In 1896, Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co, the owner of the Elephant Butte project, send a communication to the Interior Department offering the supply of the US obligations if a treaty will be signed with Mex.

-1896.- Establishment of the International Boundary Commission (Pluvial or Arcifinium problems). Osorno-Mills.

-1896.-Olney told Romero, that if the Study of Osorno-Mills about was done before Cleveland’s administration ends, It could be huge possibilities to set a Convention.

190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

Con.Resol1890

ElephButte1894

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1896 Mills-Osorno recommendations

-1. Sign a treaty.

-2. Construction of Mill’s Dam. $2.3 Mill by US $0 Mex (Allowance). 50%US/50%Mex

-3. Avoid Dam in NM (Elephant Butte)

-There is no available flow to supply Elephant butte and Mill’s Dam together.

CO:1880 303K acres1896 504K acres1900 1.5 M acres1880 -1896

Significant Increase in Irr.

Decrease in 300 cfs (85.2 cms)

Other opportunity missed

$25.8 Million (Romero)

190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

Con.Resol1890

ElephButte1894

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1896

1897. Olney stop the negotiations because Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co. (Elephant Butte) threatening to demand the US Gov.

1897.- The secretary of the Interior tried to declared the expiration of the WR to the Rio Grande Dam & Irr. Co. The minister of war tried to declare the Rio Grande/Bravo as a navigable river, and it will be jurisdiction of the Department of War (River and Harbor Act). Harmon accepted the navigability of the Rio Grande, although he didn’t want to contradict his previous verdict (He wrote it, but didn’t sign it).

1897.- Change of Administration. The new General Attorney McKenna demand Rio Grande Dam & Co. The judge ruling in favor of the company arguing in this reach the Rio Grande is not navigable.

April 25th, 1898. US declared the war to Spain. The Rio Grande problem is forgotten. December 30th, 1898, Matias Romero Died.

190018001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

Con.Resol1890

ElephButte1894

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1896

1897-1902 The negotiations fell in the tribunals

1899.- The Supreme Court of the United States revoked the verdict for Rio Grande Dam & Co.

1900.- Mill’s Group come back to the Arena and promoted the Stephens-Culberson initiative (Senate and representative from Texas).

1900.- After the murder of McKinley, the both cameras approved the joint iniciatiave of Stephenns-Culbert.

1901.- Rio Grande Dam & Irr. Co. express his apposition against Stephens-Culberson initiative.

1902.- For the Second time, the Supreme Court revoked the WR permit to Rio Grande Dam & Irr. Co.

1902.- Appears the Reclamation Act, Reclamation Service (Irrigation survey)

18001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

Con.Resol1890

ElephButte1894

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1896

Con.Resol

1900

ElephButte1902

Recla

m.

Act

1903-1905

1903. 10th anniversary of the IBC. Mills made a report of the goals reached .

1904. The Reclamation Act, Reclamation Service (RS) took control of the situation. “…lets solve the problem, … moving aside the International law”. Probably, President Diaz and Ambassador Clayton arrange the terms of the International convention. a) Construction of the Elephant Butte reservoir, b) Planning and Management of the project by the RS c) 60,000 acre-foot (74 MCM), which means water for 25,000 acres (10 100 ha).

In 1904, The Fifth National Irrigation Congress was organized by the RS. Hall presented the project of the Elephant Butte dam showing its benefits compared with Mills Dam. Mexican Engineers approved the project and the inherence in the RS in the management of the project.

1905.- Clark Amendment divides the water between NM and TX through the Reclamation Act., not considering Mexican water rights.

18001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

Cong.Resol1890

ElephButte1894

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1896

Cong.Resol

1900

ElephButte1902

Recla

m.

Act

1906

1905.- Theodore Roosevelt publishes an agreement to determine the questions relatives to the Mexican reclamations, the navigability of the river and if the diversion of water in the US violates the international laws. The study was done in 1 day. An international Note was sent to Mexico referring “ …There is no legal responsibility from the US to Mexico in the water of the Bravo. Although, the US government is willing to engaged a water treaty…as a courtesy” “… The construction of a dam in Engle (Elephant Butte) will violent all satisfactory solution ”

18001500

Pre-Hispanic

Mx Ind.Colonial TX Ind.1838US

Inv.

1848

1853

1880

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1888

Mills Dam

Love1850

Cong.Resol1890

ElephButte1894

IBW

C-

CIL

A

1896

Cong.Resol

1900

ElephButte1902

Recla

m.

Act

1906

Convention

Was the convention Unilateral or Multilateral? How important are the administrations,

functionaries and the timing in a negotiation? How Texas influence the course of the

negotiations? Are Harmon and Vallarta’s Doctrines

Theoretical or Practical?

To be continued …