place pumps on board a tanker, the Argo Merchant, which had run aground near Cape Cod, although severe weather ultimately precluded effective pumping out activities.

Like the Convention, the Protocol does not authorize measures against any warship or against any other ship owned or operated by a State and used only on governmental noncommercial service. Except in cases of extreme urgency, a coastal State exercising the right to take measures under the Protocol is required to consult first with other States affected by the maritime casualty, particularly the flag State or States concerned, and to notify persons whose interests would be affected by the proposed action. Measures taken by a coastal State must be proportionate to the actual or threatened damage to it, and a vessel owner has the right to question the measures taken and receive compensation for unjustified coastal State action. Any controversy over whether action by a State was justified under the Convention, whether compensation is owed and the amount of such compensation is to be submitted to conciliation at the request of any of the Parties concerned and, if conciliation does not succeed, to arbitration, as specified in the Annex to the Convention.

Id. V-VI.

Deputy Secretary Christopher indicated in his letter of submittal that "legislation necessary to implement the provisions of the Protocol is currently being considered by the interested agencies and will be submitted to Congress." Id.

The International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, with Annex, was done at Brussels on Nov. 29, 1969 (TIAS 8068; 26 UST 765; entered into force for the United States on May 6, 1975).

Ocean Dumping

On December 27, 1977, President Carter signed into law the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95–217), which, inter alia, extends the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 to discharges of certain hazardous substances into the oceans beyond the contiguous zone. Section 58 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (91 Stat. 1593-1596) amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to regulate the discharge of hazardous substances in such oceans in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 or natural resources under the exclusive management authority of the United States including resources under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.

Excerpts from President Carter's statement on signing the Clean Water Act of 1977 follow:

Amendments to the oil and hazardous spill provisions of the 1972 act will extend domestic jurisdiction to the ocean beyond the contiguous zone, where the fisheries and other natural resources of the United States may be adversely affected. Oil pollution is a global problem, and accidents on the oceans prove the need for effective international solutions.

We have been working through international forums to achieve broader acceptance for higher worldwide pollution standards. I believe that the legislation I am signing may raise issues of consistency with international law, and I know that many Members of the Congress share this concern. Our clear objective is to achieve maximum consistency with applicable principles of international law regarding the protection of the marine environment and to encourage ongoing and future international efforts to combat pollution of the ocean. If that objective should require amendments to the act that I am signing into law, I am confident that the Congress and the administration will work together next year to make any necessary adjustments.

13 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 1933-1934 (Jan. 2, 1978).

U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea

The U.S. Delegation Report for the Sixth Session of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, May 23-July 15, 1977, summarized the U.S. position and the negotiations on the subject of scientific research as follows:

2. Marine Scientific Research

The Chairman of Committee III, [Alexander] Yankov of Bulgaria, chaired limited discussions on the regime for the conduct of marine scientific research (article 60) and other pertinent articles.... Discussion on article 60 elicited substantial support among the G-77 [Group of 77] for a Yankov test proposal revived from the last session. The text proposal would markedly expand coastal state discretion to deny consent. . . .

The U.S.S.R. again proposed that all marine scientific research. be subject to coastal State consent and suggested deletion of the second paragraph of article 60 (delimitation of cases in which the coastal State may withhold consent), and limitation of article 76 (settlement of disputes) to disputes regarding the conduct of research and not the issue of whether consent should be granted or denied. Both proposals received substantial support from the G-77. The U.S. reiterated its opposition to a general consent regime and said that, in this regard, the RSNT was unacceptable and the Yankov test proposal even more so. The U.S. stressed the importance of marine scientific research to the U.S. and stated that it was one of the most important issues remaining to be resolved.

During the last Committee III session, a text worked out by a cross-section of delegations was discussed. The major features of this text include the following. It adopts the basic consent system but states that, "in normal circumstances," consent shall be granted unless it falls into one of four specific categories of research. Those categories are equivalent to those in the RSNT articles 60 and 64 except that para (c) of article 60 regarding interference with coastal State activities is deleted and made an obligation in a separate paragraph. The restriction on publication (Article 61) is deleted and tacit consent (Article 64) is retained. Compulsory dispute settlement applies to scientific research disputes except for disputes regarding the exercise of coastal State rights and discretion in accordance with articles 60 and 65.

The ICNT [Informal Composite Negotiating Text] also contains a new paragraph requiring only notification for projects sponsored by international or regional organizations if the coastal State has agreed to the project within the organization.

A number of delegations said this text would be a good basis of negotiation and should be included in the Composite Text.

U.S. Delegation Report, 3d U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, 6th Sess., May 23-July 15, 1977, pp. 18-19, Dept. of State File D/LOS. For the revised single negotiating text (RSNT) produced at the 4th Sess., Mar. 15-May 7, 1976, see U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 62/WP.8/Rev. 1/Part III, May 6, 1976, pp. 24-31.

$ 11

Rio Grande

International Watercourses

U.S.-Mexico Boundary Waters

On January 21, 1977, Hugo B. Margain, Mexican Ambassador to the United States, submitted a diplomatic note to Acting Secretary of State Philip C. Habib requesting that the United States depart from the monthly amounts of acre feet of water required to be delivered to Mexico near the city of Juarez by the monthly schedule in Article II of the Convention Providing for the Equitable Distribution of the Waters of the Rio Grande for Irrigation Purposes signed on May 21, 1906 (TS 994; 9 Bevans 924; 34 Stat. 2953; entered into force January 16, 1907). On March 4, 1977, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs William H. Luers responded for the Secretary of State with a note authorizing the U.S. Commissioner on the U.S.-Mexican International Boundary and Water Commission to make such modifications in distribution during the 1977 irrigation season of the waters as may be proper so long as such authorization is regarded as strictly ex gratia.

The body of the Mexican note as translated by the Division of Language Services of the Department of State reads as follows:

In reference to the delivery of water for the irrigation of land in the Juarez Valley during the year 1977 in accordance with the provisions of the Convention of May 21, 1906, between Mexico and the United States, the water needs for the aforementioned land have been calculated by the competent Mexican authorities as follows:

In the event that during this year deliveries are the normal ones stipulated in the aforementioned Convention, I am requesting Your Excellency on instructions of my Government that they be made in accordance with the above table, and if for any reason the competent American authorities decide to impose restrictions on the normal amount of water delivered for irrigation of lands in the United States, they authorize the United States Boundary and Water Commissioner to reach an agreement with the Mexican Commissioner on the volume to be delivered to Mexico and its distribution in the aforementioned Juarez Valley.

Dept. of State File No. P77 0016-2485.

The body of the responding U.S. note of March 4, 1977, follows:

I have the honor to refer to your note No. 45, dated January 21, 1977, which I understand to propose that, as in recent years, the Commissioners on the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, be authorized to agree upon the scheduling of delivery during the current irrigation season of the waters that may correspond to Mexico under the convention of 1906.

The current water supply forecast on the Rio Grande is indefinite. Unfortunately, the Rio Grande snowpack is unpredictable from month to month, and the runoff cannot be estimated at this time with accuracy. Project storage was 451,200 acre-feet on January 31, about 299,500 acre-feet less than that at the same time last year. This compares with the average storage of about 831,400 acre-feet for this season since storage began in Elephant Butte Reservoir in 1915. It has accordingly been decided to begin the irrigation season with a diminished allocation from the water now available for United States project lands.

Although the spring runoff from the watershed does not generally begin until early April, an initial allotment of 1.00 acre

feet per acre of water right land has been made on the basis of current storage in the project reservoirs. This initial allotment represents 33.0677 percent of the average for the base period of 19461950, and the initial allocation to Mexico under the 1906 convention will amount to 19,841 acre-feet.

Since normal deliveries may not be made to project lands in the United States this year and, therefore, as provided in the convention, Mexico may receive a percentage of the 60,000 acre-feet stipulated in the convention, I am pleased to authorize the United States Commissioner to make such modifications in distribution during the 1977 irrigation season of the waters that correspond to Mexico as the Mexican Commissioner may request and the United States Commissioner may deem proper. I am also furnishing the United States Commissioner a copy of Your Excellency's note containing a provisional schedule.

As the Department of State has felt obliged to reiterate on such previous occasions, it cannot regard as desirable a modification of the schedule of water deliveries provided in the convention. The current authorization is made with the well-being of the farmers in the Juarez Valley in mind. The authorization must be regarded as strictly ex gratia. It will not in any way obviate the exact observance of the terms of the convention of 1906.

*

Dept. of State File No. P77 0034-912.

Departmental records indicate that since 1941 the United States has accommodated Mexico in a similar manner, agreeing each year to a modification of the monthly delivery schedule specified in the 1906 convention so that Mexico could make more effective use of its annual water allotment. Art. II of the convention reads as follows:

ARTICLE II

The delivery of the said amount of water shall be assured by the United States and shall be distributed through the year in the same proportions as the water supply proposed to be furnished from the said irrigation system to lands in the United States in the vicinity of El Paso, Texas, according to the following schedule, as nearly as may be possible:

In case, however, of extraordinary drought or serious accident to the irrigation system in the United States, the amount delivered to the Mexican Canal