OCR Text |
Show HUNGRY HORSE PREDICTION 43 cooperation with the states and bears their endorse- ment. "In a project of this magnitude there will always be controversy over some local phases. However, none of the objections is insuperable. The remarkable thing is the unanimity of opinion as to the necessity of action, the basic plan of construction and the principle of basin- wide development and financing contained in the pro- ject report." Just before the Eighty-second Congress passed into history, Chapman and Straus got their crsp plan to the Bureau of the Budget with the recommendation that it be sent up Capitol Hill for action by the Congress. The engineers of the Colorado River Board of Cali- fornia had been working overtime during the winter of 1952-1953 on a comprehensive analysis of the crsp plan. On the basis of this finding, at least four of the Board's six members were for opposing the crsp with all the powers at California's command.* The Board's engineering and economic analysis of crsp thoroughly exposed its infeasibility and made clear its threat to the water rights of California. State Engi- neer Edmonston approved it,54 but there was doubt that Governor Warren ever looked at it. The governor main- tained his previously expressed position, that a fight against the Upper Basin states would only result in creating more enemies for California. * They were the chairman, Fred W. Simpson of San Diego; Evan T. Hewes of Imperial Valley; Walter Bollenbacher, who represented Palo Verde Valley; and Samuel B. Morris of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Franklin Thomas had died, and had been succeeded by Joseph Jensen of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. He favored the "soft approach" advocated by Howard and Engle, but admitted the necessity of opposing the project. New- man stood alone in advocating that no fight at all be made by California. |