| OCR Text |
Show 190 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER 4 - Arizona, and not California, is plaintiff in the pre- sent pending Supreme Court suit (Arizona v. California), which, like its forerunners, is merely another Arizona effort to read new meanings into the 1922 Compact. The agita- tion about Utah participation is indeed difficult to compre- hend, because all authorities have known from the outset that intervention is absolutely essential for protection of Utah rights. Yet California gets the blame. Utah officials loftily proclaim that they want to keep out of the California-Arizona fight. And so they should. But, unfortunately, they got into the fight five years before the suit was ever filed by integrating the "depletion theory" into the 1948 Upper Basin Compact - thus siding with Arizona. Arizona's strange reversal of tactics hints strongly of a "deal" somewhere. No wonder California is furious. Jiminy Cricket was doing better in Utah than any one from California. "Aqualantes ride to save West's water" shouted the Salt Lake Tribune.211 The headline struck the eye of Rep. John P. Saylor, and he lifted his big frame on the floor of the House of Representatives to remark about it to his colleagues. "A great many self-appointed benefactors," said Saylor, 218 "have ridden the dusty trails of the West. Frequently misjudged and more often misguided, they rallied under the banner of the vigilantes to perform deeds they thought necessary for the improvement of society. "That was in another day when law was a vague and distant force, and order depended on the swiftness of the .44 and the accuracy of the Winchester. "Yet, some of the psychological elements which influ- enced and motivated the early day vigilantes apparently have weathered the sociological changes which have taken place. This is indicated by attempts to form a mass organi- zation called "Aqualantes." |
