that now goes to Topolobampo, you have potential to bring many people in this country and back to Mexico, so tourism is the future of this area. But as to farming, when you take out the heart of it, you are really taking away one of their present major industries. What are these people going to do that receive this fair market value? They can move away and get other farmland. Why not let them invest in businesses of this area and make it a "home-owned locally" type of industry? We have all kinds of poverty programs and all kinds of aid to depressed areas. This is a depressed area where the people don't know they are depressed; they have been existing without a water system and now they have a water system but no sewers. But these people are willing to take it, because that is where they want to live. I say give them the chance to take their fair market value money and invest it locally in tourism, in the promise of the future, so they can stay with their families and enjoy the prosperity that this area is bound to have, rather than to chase them away, rather than to force them to lose part of their fair market value through taxation. Give them that 5-year break to invest in other businesses or other properties, not just in the type of property that has been taken from them because they can't go anywhere else locally for that particular property. So I ask you, Mr. Chairman, that when this committee considers this bill, a provision be made in this very unique situation where they are backed up right to the border and hemmed in with no other place to go, that you give them the advantage of the tax break so they can reinvest that money in a business or property, however you want to restrict it, in that locale, so they can share in the future of this area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. White, thank you. You have been very persuasive and articulate. Is the bridge bill you have introduced the one across that spot right there? Mr. WHITE. Correct. Mr. FASCELL. What highway are we talking about? Mr. WHITE. I don't know the name of it. Mr. FASCELL. Are there roads now leading to the river on both sides? Mr. WHITE. Yes, correct. The road that goes up to Marfa, the county seat, and the road that goes into Mexico, I think is a road that goes into Chihuahua and other points. So, Mr. Chairman, everybody is just poised and waiting. They have been waiting for years, because they know this is going to break and this is the focal point of tourism on the border. Mr. FASCELL. Could you give me an estimate of the number of people we are talking about who are going to be displaced? Mr. WHITE. Very few, sir. I judge probably we are talking about 15 or 20 farmers, if I am not mistaken. I am sure one of these gentlemen can answer that. Twenty-three farmers is what we are talking about, so you are not really opening the gates. You are talking about a small number of people, but you are talking about people who have invested their whole lives and generations of lives in this community. 78-203 0-72-2 Mr. FASCELL. That is the major point you are making with respect to the bills. You are not quarreling with the other aspects? Mr. WHITE. No; we are not. We would like to have the Government build us a bridge, but if that not be done, we understand that. We are glad about the flood control. That has been a problem and cost a great deal of money to these people. But this one thing needs to be done: if you are asking people to give up the land, I think you need to give them that break. Mr. FASCELL. You are certainly an eloquent spokesman for your people. How big is the town of Presidio ? Mr. WHITE. About a thousand people. Mr. FASCELL. Is it an organized municipality under the laws? Mr. WHITE. No, sir; they have a county government, and the real government of the town of Presidio is probably the Lion's Club. They are the spark of every community endeavor there. Mr. FASCELL. Where is the county seat? Mr. WHITE. In Marfa. They have a commissioner that lives there, of course. But the people do very well. They try to do what they can for themselves, but when they get hit with this Mr. FASCELL. Is the county government divided into districts? Is that the way they are elected? Are county commissioners elected at large or from districts? Mr. WHITE. They are elected by district, and they have divided up the county like a pie because of some ruling of district court cases. There are four county commissioners and one county judge. Mr. FASCELL. What is the total population of the county? Mr. WHITE. About 3,000 or 4,000, in that area. Mr. FASCELL. Under your system in Texas, is the county a constitutional entity? Mr. WHITE. Yes, it is. There are 254 counties in Texas. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, it is not a creature of the legislature. It would take a constitutional amendment to change the county? Mr. WHITE. Yes; I am sure that is right. Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much. Mr. WHITE. I think the legislature could divide a county, but I think they probably are created by the constitution. But I think the legis lature can divide the county without a constitutional amendment, which has happened in the past. Mr. FASCELL. Do they have home rule? Does the county have ordinance-making authority? Mr. WHITE. Yes; they make rules. Mr. FASCELL. They are not required to go back to the legislature for local acts? Mr. WHITE. No; it depends on the nature, but generally I think they can legislate for themselves. Mr. FASCELL. Has the county commissioner of this county taken any position with respect to this legislation? Mr. WHITE. He would like to see the bridge, of course. Mr. WHITE. I have not received a communication from him on this, but I have talked to the farmers themselves, and invariably they all come up with this one idea. I am not saying they are totally happy with losing their land, but they at least want this one break because they can see they are coming to the end of the road. Mr. FASCELL. Your message is very clear. Thank you very much. Mr. FASCELL, Mr. Friedkin. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. FRIEDKIN, U.S. COMMISSIONER, U.S. SECTION, INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND MEXICO Mr. FRIEDKIN. I would like to have Mr. Gantz with me. Mr. FASCELL. Bring up anyone you wish. Mr. FRIEDKIN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to appear before you again. Mr. FASCELL. It is nice to see you again, Mr. Friedkin. Mr. FRIEDKIN. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my prepared statement for the record, and summarize the important points. Mr. FASCELL. We will accept your complete statement for the record. (The text of H.R. 14573 followed by statement follows:) (H.R. 14573, 92 Cong., second sess.] A BILL To facilitate compliance with the treaty between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, signed November 23, 1970, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "American-Mexican Boundary Treaty Act of 1972". TITLE I—AUTHORIZATION FOR CARRYING OUT TREATY PROVISIONS SEC. 101. In connection with the treaty between the United States of America and the United Mexican States to resolve pending boundary differences and maintain the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as the international boundary between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, signed November 23, 1970, the Secretary of State, acting through the United States Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, is authorized (a) to conduct technical and other investigations relating to: the demarcation, mapping, monumentation, channel relocation, rectification, improvement, and stabilization, and other matters relating to the preservation of the river boundaries between the United States and Mexico; the establishment and delimitation of the maritime boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Pacific Ocean; water resources; the sanitation and the prevention of pollution; (b) to acquire by donation, purchase, or condemnation, all lands or interests in lands required (1) for transfer to Mexico as provided in said treaty; (2) for construction of that portion of new river channels and the adjoining levees in the territory of the United States; (3) to preserve the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as the boundary by preventing the construction of works which may cause deflection or obstruction of the normal flow of the rivers or of their floodflows; and (4) for relocation of any structure or facility, public or private, the relocation of which, in the judgment of the said Commissioner, is necessitated by the project. (c) to remove, modify, or repair the damages caused to Mexico by works constructed in the United States which the International Boundary and Water Commission has determined have an adverse effect on Mexico, or to compensate Mexico for such damages. SEC. 102. The United States Commissioner is authorized to enter into contracts with the owners of properties to be relocated whereby such owners undertake to perform, at the expense of the United States, any or all operations involved in said relocations; to construct, operate, and maintain all works provided for in said treaty and/or title I of this Act; and to turn over the operation and maintenance of any such works to any Federal agency, or any State, county, municipality, district, or other political subdivision within which such project or works may be in whole or in part situated, upon such terms, conditions, and requirements as the Commissioner may deem appropriate. SEC. 103. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States Commissioner is authorized to dispose of by warranty deed, or otherwise, any land acquired by the United States Commissioner on behalf of the United States, or obtained by the United States pursuant to treaty between the United States and Mexico, and not required for project purposes, under procedures to be formulated by the United States Commissioner, to adjoining landowners at such price as he considers fair and equitable, and, if not so disposed of, to turn said land over to the General Services Administration for disposal under the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. SEC. 104. When a determination must be made under the treaty whether to permit a new channel to become the boundary, or whether or not to restore a river to its former channel, or whether, instead of restoration, the Governments should undertake a rectification of the river channel, the United States Commissioner's decision, approved by the Secretary of State, shall be final so far as the United States is concerned, and the United States Commissioner is authorized to construct or arrange for the construction of such works as may be required to give effect to that decision. SEC. 105. Land acquired or to be acquired by the United States of America in accordance with the provisions of said treaty, including the tract provided for in section 106, shall become a geographical part of the State to which it attaches and shall be under the civil and criminal jurisdiction of said State, without affecting the ownership of said land. The addition of land and the ceding of jurisdiction to a State shall take effect upon acceptance by said State. SEC. 106. Upon transfer of sovereignty from Mexico to the United States of the 481.68 acres of land acquired by the United States from Mexico near HidalgoReynosa, administration over the portion of that land which is determined by the United States Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission, not to be required for the construction and maintenance of the relocated river channel shall be assumed by the Department of the Interior; and the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, is authorized to plan, establish, develop, and administer said portion of the acquired lands as a part of the national wildlife refuge system. SEC. 107. The Tariff Act of 1930 (46 Stat. 590), as amended, shall be further amended as follows: (1) The heading of section 322 shall be amended to read: "INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC AND RESCUE WORK; UNITED STATES-MEXICO BOUNDARY TREATY OF 1970": (2) Paragraph (b) of section 322 shall be amended by striking the word “and” at the end of subparagraph (2) ; by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (3) and inserting "; and" in lieu thereof; and by adding a new subparagraph to read: “(4) Personal property reasonably related to the use and enjoyment of a separated tract of land as described in article III of the Treaty to Resolve Pending Boundary Differences and Maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the International Boundary between the United States of America and the United Mexican States signed on November 23, 1970.” SEC. 108. There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State for the use of the United States section of said Commission such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of said treaty and title I of this Act. TITLE II-PRESIDIO FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT SEC. 201. The Secretary of State, acting through the United States Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, is hereby authorized to conclude with the appropriate official or officials of the Government of Mexico an agreement for a coordinated plan by the United States and Mexico for international flood controls works for protection of lands along the international section of the Rio Grande in the United States and in Mexico in the Presidio-Ojinaga Valley. SEC. 202. If an agreement is concluded pursuant to section 201, title II of this Act, the United States Commissioner is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain flood control works located in the United States having substantially the characteristics described in "Report on the Flood Control Project Rio Grande, Presidio Valley, Texas", prepared by the United States section, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico; and there are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State for the use of the United States section of said Commission such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of title II of this Act. No part of any appropriation under this section shall be expended for flood control works on any land, site, or easement unless such land, site, or easement has been acquired under said treaty for other purposes or by donation and, in the case of a donation, the title thereto has been approved in accordance with existing rules and regulations of the Attorney Gen. eral of the United States. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. FRIEDKIN, U.S. COMMISSIONER, INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND MEXICO Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the proposed American-Mexican Boundary Treaty Act of 1972-H.R. 14573, is needed to carry out the United States part of the agreements reached in this new Treaty between the United States of America and the United Mexican States to resolve pending boundary differences and maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the international boundary between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, signed November 23, 1970. The Senate of the United States of America gave its advice and consent to ratification on November 29, 1971. The Treaty was ratified by the President of the United States on December 9, 1971. It was ratified by Mexico on December 30, 1971; and ratifications were exchanged in Washington, D.C., on April 18, 1972. The Treaty includes three major elements: First, the two Governments agree to the settlement of all existing territorial differences and uncertainties including a major dispute, outstanding since 1907, over a part of the Presidio-Ojinaga Valley, about 200 miles southeast of El Paso, Texas. The course of the Rio Grande will be relocated in three sections: one upstream from the towns of Presidio, Texas and Ojinaga, Chihuahua; one downstream from these towns; and one in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. In these relocations, approximately 1,600 acres of land in the Presidio-Ojinaga Valley will be recognized as subject to Mexican sovereignty while 550 acres of the disputed tracts are retained by the United States. Approximately 250 acres will be transferred to the United States by Mexico elsewhere in the Presidio-Ojinaga Valley in recognition of a number of small islands which will pass to Mexico. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley equal parcels of about 480 acres will be exchanged between the two countries. Second, the two Governments agree to the restoration and maintenance of the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as natural boundaries, an objective that has been considered desirable and in the interest of both nations for many years. Incorporated in the Treaty are procedures to guard against future loss of segregated tracts of territory-that is, when a river changes its channel and shifts a land-tract not exceeding 617.76 acres and no more than 100 inhabitants from one side of the river to the other, the country from which it was separated has the right to restore the river to its original channel within three years. If the restoration is not performed, sovereignty passes to the country to which the land has become attached, and the "losing" nation will receive later compensation of an equal area elsewhere in the boundary section of the river. In cases where separated tracts exceed the area or population requirements, the two Govern ments will jointly restore the river-again maintaining the river boundary. Third, the Treaty establishes maritime boundaries between the United States and Mexico in the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. These lines will be based on the equidistance principle established in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone but will be straightened for convenience. They will be drawn to a distance of 12 nautical miles from the coasts without prejudice to the position of either Government as to the extent of internal waters of the territorial sea or of sovereign rights or jurisdiction for any other purpose. |