This arbitration concerned the use of the waters of Lake Lanoux, in the Pyrenees.

The French
Government proposed to carry out certain works for the utilization of the waters of the lake
and the Spanish Government feared that these works would adversely affect Spanish rights
and interests, contrary to the Treaty of Bayonne of May 26, 1866, between France and Spain
and the Additional Act of the same date. In any event, it was claimed that, under the Treaty,
such works could not be undertaken without the previous agreement of both parties.
Lake Lanoux lies on the southern slopes of the Pyrenees, on French territory. It is fed by
streams which have their source in French territory and which run entirely through French
territory only. Its waters emerge only headwaters of the River Carol. That river, after flowing
approximately 25 kilometers from Lake Lanoux through French territory, crosses the Spanish
frontier at Puigcerda and continues to flow through Spain for about 6 kilometers before
joining the river Segre, which ultimately flows into the Ebro. Before entering Spanish
territory, the waters of the Carol feed the Canal of Puigcerda which is the private property of
that town.
On September 21, 1950, Electricit de France applied to the French Ministry for Industry for
a concession, based on a scheme involving the diversion of the waters of Lake Lanoux
towards the River Arige. The waters so diverted were to be completely returned into the
River Carol by means of a tunnel leading from the upper courses of the Arige at a point on
the Carol above the outlet to the Puigcerda Canal.
The French Government, however, while accepting the principle that waters drawn off should
be returned, regarded itself as bound only to return a quantity of water corresponding to the
actual needs of the Spanish users.
Consequently, France was going to proceed to develop Lake Lanoux by diverting its waters
towards the Ariege but a certain limited flow of water corresponding to the actual needs of
the Spanish frontagers would be assured at the level of the outlet to the Puigcerda Canal.
Spain was opposed to any diversion of the waters of Lake Lanoux.
The Tribunal examined the Treaty of Bayonne of May 26, 1866 and the Additional Act, as
well as the arguments brought forward by both Governments. Regarding the question
whether France had taken Spanish interests into sufficient consideration, the Tribunal stressed
that in determining the manner in which a scheme had taken into consideration the interests
involved, the way in which negotiations had developed, the total number of the interests
which had been presented, the price which each Party had been ready to pay to have those
interests safeguarded, were all essential factors in establishing, with regard to the obligations
set out in Article 11 of the Additional Act, the merits of that scheme.
In conclusion, the Tribunal was of opinion that the French scheme complied with the
obligations of Article 11 of the Additional Act. The Tribunal decided that in carrying out,
without prior agreement between the two Governments, works for the utilization of the
waters of Lake Lanoux in the conditions mentioned in the Scheme for the Utilization of the
Waters of Lake Lanoux, the French Government was not committing a breach of the
provisions of the Treaty of Bayonne of May 26, 1866, and the Additional Act of the same
date.
In context of the memorial this was used to establish that the mere obligation to enter into
consultantion does not mean consent.