Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T11:56:57.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Joint Development of International Waters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

William B. Kenworthy
William B. Kenworthy*
Affiliation:
Of the Colorado and District of Columbia Bars
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the past thirty years there has been an increasing awareness that in order to achieve the maximum utilization of available water resources the development of each river basin should be considered as an entity. One instance in which the concept was thoroughly applied, whether or not properly, was the Tennessee Valley Authority. Effective conservation and flood control practices must begin in the upper reaches of a watershed in order to be effective. Normally the best dam sites are located in the more mountainous terrain, distant from the cities and irrigated farm lands.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , July 1960 , pp. 592 - 602
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin, Report to the International Joint Commission Prepared by the International Columbia River Engineering Board, 1959 (Abstract, p. 6).

2 General Convention Relating to the Development of Hydraulic Power Affecting More Than One State, 36 L.N.T.S. 76 (Geneva, 1923).

3 1925 Nile Commission Report, par. 90 (March, 1926).

4 Agreement, United Kingdom and Egypt, Regarding the Construction of the Owen Falls Dam, 226 U.N.T.S. 274 (Cairo, 1949). Plans and specifications, as well as all subsequent contracts for the work, were to be approved in consultation between the appropriate authorities of Uganda and Egypt. Subsequent exchanges in 1952 and 1953 provided for the sharing of construction costs in connection with raising the level of Lake Victoria.

5 Smith, The Economic Uses of International Rivers 150 (1931).

6 See, for example, the Rio Grande Rectification Convention, U. S. and Mexico, Feb. 1, 1933, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 864; 28 A.J.I.L. Supp. 98 (1934). It is expressly stated that costs of the program are apportioned “ i n consideration of the difference existing in the benefits derived by each of the contracting countries.” See also Protocol, Austria and Hungary, Concerning the Hydraulic System in the Frontier Region, 80 L.N.T.S. 68.

7 U.S. working paper for May, 1957, meeting with Canadian representatives concerning the Columbia River Basin (Hearings, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., Upper Columbia River Development 68).

8 In programs of limited scope, convenient formulas may sometimes be found. Thus in 1922 the Central Rhine Navigation Commission agreed to build a weir on the Kembs River which would back water into Switzerland. It was agreed that by way of compensation Switzerland should be conveyed 20% of the power produced. The figure 20% was found to represent the power from the fall produced on Swiss territory through the rise of the water level.

9 Note 2 above.

10 U.N. Economic Commission for Europe, Legal Aspects of Hydro-Electric Development of Waters of International Concern 305 (U.N. Doc. E/ECE/136, 1952).

11 Note 1 above.

12 Dept. of State Memorandum on Certain Aspects of Hydroelectric Development, Hearings, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 75.

13 Declaration on Industrial and Agricultural Use of International Rivers, Seventh International Conference of American States, 1933, 28 A.J.I.L. Supp. 59 (1934).

14 Exchange of Notes, United Kingdom and Egypt, Regarding Cooperation in Meteorological and Hydrological Surveys in Certain Areas of the Nile Basin, 226 U.N.T.S. 288 (Cairo, 1950).

15 Protocol Number 1 to Turkey-Iraq Treaty of Friendship and Neighbourly Relations, 37 U.N.T.S. 281 (1946).

16 U.N.E.C.E., Legal Aspects of Hydro-Electric Development of Rivers and Lakes of Common Interest 192 (U.N. Doc. E/ECE/136, 1952).

17 U.N.E.C.E., op. cit. 50.

18 Dept. of State Memorandum on Certain Aspects of International Hydroelectric Development, note 12 above.

19 Exchange of Notes, United Kingdom and Portugal, Providing for Portuguese Participation in the Shire Valley Project, 175 U.N.T.S. 14 (1953).

20 Press Release No. 380, Appendix I, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Dec. 10, 1954.

21 The following interstate compacts will be found to make provision for a commission to administer a stream. As in the international field, the roles of these bodies vary widely: Belle Fourche River Compact, Art. III; Arkansas River Compact, Art. VIII ; Canadian River Compact, Art. IX; Connecticut River Compact, Arts. II and III ; Costilla Creek Compact, Art. V III ; Pecos River Compact, Art. V; Red River of the North Compact, Arts. VI through VIII ; Sabine River Compact, Art. VII. The texts of all compacts may be found in T. Richard Witmer, Documents on the Use and Control of the Waters of Interstate and International Streams (Washington, D. C, U. S. Govt. Printing Office, 1956, 760 pp.).

22 The River Murray Commission was composed of four engineers, one from each of three riparian states and one from the Commonwealth. See Smith, The Economic Uses of International Rivers 67.

23 Convention Instituting the Definitive Statute of the Danube, 26 L.N.T.S. 175 (1921).

24 U.N.E.C.E., op. cit.

25 Convention between Spain and Portugal to Regulate the Hydro-Electric Development of the River Douro, 82 L.N.T.S. 131 (1927).

26 Bio Grande, Colorado, Tijuana Treaty, 59 XJ. S. Stat. 1219; Witmer, op. cit. 424. As the International Boundary Commission, further duties had been imposed upon this body by the Bio Grande Rectification Convention, 48 TJ. S. Stat. 1621 (1933).

27 10 L.N.T.S 186.

28 Agreement between Syria and Jordan Concerning the Utilization of the Yarmuk Waters, 184 L.N.T.S. 24 (1953).

29 U.N.E.C.E., op. cit. 184. See also Convention between Yugoslavia and Austria Concerning “Water Economy Questions Relating to the Drava, 227 U.N.T.S. 128 (1954).

30 36 U. S. Stat. 2448; 4 A.J.I.L. Supp. 239 (1910).

31 MacKay, Robert A., ‘'The International Joint Commission between the United States and Canada,” 22 A.J.I.L. 292 (1928).Google Scholar

32 Note 31 above.

33 International Joint Commission press release, May 1, 1959. The scope of the investigation undertaken can be seen from Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin, Report by International Columbia River Engineering Board, 1959.

34 Upper Columbia River Development, Hearings, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, IT. S. Senate, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1958.

35 Exchange of Notes Between the United States and Canada Relating to a Study to be Made by the International Joint Commission with Respect to the Upper Columbia River Basin, Feb. 25 and March 3, 1954.

36 Order of Approval of Power Works, Nov. 19, 1952 (St. Lawrence Seaway Manual, XJ. S. Govt. Printing Office, 1954).

37 The Joint Board of Engineers was not actually established until more than a year later, when the necessary steps were taken through an Exchange of Notes Establishing the St. Lawrence River Joint Board of Engineers, Nov. 12, 1953 (St. Lawrence Seaway Manual).

38 Exec. Order No. 10500, 18 Fed. Reg. 7005.

39 Exchange of notes between the United States and Canada, June 7 and 16, 1954, 31 Dept. of State Bulletin 51 (1954).