OCR Text |
Show 56 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER mission, and lo! it had been discovered that a serious power shortage existed in both the Pacific Southwest and Northwest. The source of this statement also re- mained a mystery. If the crsp plan proposed to sell power in either of these areas it was written in such fine print that no one could read it. And, the authors happily went on, the crsp couldn't begin to satisfy the spiraling power demands of the pro- ject area alone. This was somewhat in conflict with the thinking of the Federal Power Commission, which had found the power needs of the area much smaller than stated by the Reclamation Bureau.67 '"Benefits for all!" was the headline of one Upper Basin pamphlet, and it went on to state that these benefits would be so great that the government would be justified in building the project even if nothing was to be paid back.68 It was an assertion which caused more than one economist to scratch his head. Early in December 1953, an immense gathering called "A Mid-Century Conference on Resources for the Future" took place in Washington, and was attended by representatives from every state. The Colorado River Controversy, the Central Arizona Project, the Supreme Court litigation, and the crsp all were subjects which received their share of attention. It was brought out, and not disputed, that the Recla- mation Bureau plans for the crsp were based largely on records of average stream run-off and precipitation in the Upper Basin. A nationally distinguished consulting engineer, Raymond A. Hill, took it upon himself to |