The Department will observe that the Mexican Government is not prepared
to sanction the immediate execution of the work proposed and stands
substantially upon the note of August 18, last, which was transmitted to
the Department with the Embassy’s despatch No. 983, of August 19,
1925.
[Enclosure—Translation78]
The Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs
(Sáenz)
to the American Ambassador (Sheffield)
Mexico, November 13,
1925.
No. 14763
Mr. Ambassador: I have the honor to reply
to Your Excellency’s courteous note No. 867, of October 27, last, in
which, referring to the recommendations of the International
Boundary Commission contained in Minute No. 61 regarding the
construction of certain cut-offs in the channel of the Rio Grande,
near the City of El Paso, Texas, you state that the officials on
both sides desire that the proposed work be
[Page 583]
commenced as soon as possible, in order to
avoid the danger of inundation in the next flood season.
Your Excellency states that your Government knows from a report of
the American Boundary Commissioner that the opinion prevails pretty
generally along the border that the damage occasioned by the last
flood might have been avoided if the channel had been straightened
in accordance with recommendations contained in Minute No. 61 and
that the said Commissioner also was of the opinion that the works in
question could be undertaken while safeguarding the rights of both
countries through the adoption of adequate precaution by the
International Boundary Commission.
With regard to the efficacy of the proposed works in order to avoid
floods, I must inform Your Excellency, insisting upon what was
stated in my note of August 18, last, regarding this same matter,
that it is the unanimous opinion, both of the experts who planned
the works as well as of those charged with passing judgment on the
project: (1) that what will avoid the risk of floods will be the
construction of works throughout the whole extension of the El Paso
valley and not in one isolated section; (2) that these works, in
order that they may have an assured result and not produce,
down-stream, greater evils than those it is proposed to avoid, must
be started in the lower extremity of the valley and continued
up-stream; (3) that their construction at once would only be
technically permissible because the changes which the cut-offs at
first proposed would produce in the control of the river are of
slight importance. Moreover, upon examination of the project
presented, it is seen that it is not exclusively the cut-offs which
are proposed to avoid floods but the levees (bordos) which it would surely not have been possible to
construct in a good Condition of stability within the season of
torrential rains prevailing between the date of Minute No. 61 and
that of the floods. If, moreover, it is borne in mind that the
proposed works were calculated to hold a maximum flood discharge of
12,000 cubic feet per second, and that the flood which took place on
September 1, last, registered 13,500 cubic feet per second, it will
necessarily be deduced that even upon the completion of the works
the flood would have taken place on account of their insufficient
capacity and that, consequently, the general opinion prevailing on
the border, referred to by the American Boundary Commissioner, has
no foundation.
With respect to safeguarding the rights of both nations by adequate
precaution on the part of the International Boundary Commission, I
must inform Your Excellency that it is precisely the proposals
regarding sovereignty over the portions of land segregated by the
cut-offs and the various bancos formed at the very site of the
cut-offs which I have considered to be the precautions or, rather,
decisions of
[Page 584]
the
International Boundary Commission necessary as a prerequisite so
that, by orderly procedure, the cut-offs may be authorized. It is
solely the desire to avoid the development of new complications in
addition to those already existing which has impelled my Government
to proceed in the manner in which it has proceeded, it being very
far from its purpose to prevent the construction of works which it
considers and always has considered of the greatest urgency and
utility, especially if the study and its realization is extended so
as to secure the defense of the entire El Paso valley and not
exclusively of the small part now in question.
In summary, taking into consideration that the repetition of floods
will not be imminent until the last third of next year and that less
than a year would be employed for completing the proposed works and
agreeing upon the previous proposals above referred to, I beg leave
once more to insist, in accordance with the contents of my note No.
11089 of August 18, last, that the cases which I have referred to in
that note, and in the present note, should be considered and settled
by the International Boundary Commission before proceeding to the
construction of the proposed cut-offs.
The time employed in this preliminary work would not be lost in the
carrying out of the project, since the volume of the last flood
demonstrated the insufficient capacity of the proposed works and
that, consequently, the project will have to be revised by
increasing its capacity. Likewise, there can be studied during this
time the complete project of defense works in the entire El Paso
valley.
I hope Your Excellency’s Government will be pleased to agree to the
possibility and justice of meeting the conditions required by my
Government within the time now at our disposal.
Please accept [etc.]
