OCR Text |
Show 82 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER fight that was to make him nationally known as an ex- ponent of sound development of the nation's resources. Hosmer sought to settle the question as to who was to be charged for the evaporation losses occurring in the proposed Upper Basin reservoirs. Larson opined that each Upper state would stand the losses according to the proportion of their allocation. But was there a proposal to charge the Lower Basin states with some of the evaporation losses occurring in the Upper Basin reservoirs? Hosmer wanted to know.100 Larson read from the Upper Basin Compact, which did not go into the matter of whether any such losses were to be charged to the Lower Basin. It dealt with only those losses to be charged to the Upper Basin. Hosmer wasn't satisfied. What about the Lower Basin? Aspinall came to Larson's rescue with the statement that there had not yet been a determination of the matter, as between the two basins.101 "In other words," said Hosmer, "you feel there is a question as to whether or not it would be possible to charge some of this evaporation to the Lower Basin on account of the activities of the Upper Basin?" "I think there is a question," Aspinall replied. Thus, for the first time, it was revealed that the Upper Basin states were considering the possibility of decreasing their compact obligations to the Lower Basin by charging the Lower Basin for evaporation losses that occurred in the crsp. The situation strengthened the foundation of the fears of California that the crsp would damage the vital supply of water to the Lower Basin. Neither of California's senators, Knowland and Kuchel, spent time participating in the House hearings, |