OCR Text |
Show THE WESTERN WEB 65 United States-Mexico Treaty, which gave to the Re- public of Mexico in perpetuity 1,500,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water. Arizona had supported the treaty. California had opposed it. He castigated the water agencies of Southern California, blaming them for the controversy. In his statement, Carson had been testifying on a completely different piece of legislation, about a com- pletely different project. He said nothing in fact about the Central Arizona Project. Thus, his arguments did nothing more than add fuel to the fire of the old contro- versy. Millikin, however, was a lenient chairman. He did not insist on relevancy. Carson laid great stress on his contention that the Gila River was the exclusive property of Arizona and should not be included in any decision involving a division of the waters of the lower Colorado. He sub- mitted for the record a photograph of Herbert Hoover, whom he maintained had sided with Arizona as presi- dent of the Colorado River Commission in the 1920s. This assertion would be disputed by California witnesses, but Hoover would make no comment on the matter. After he had got Carson tucked in the record bed, McFarland summoned E. B. Debler, a Denver con- sulting engineer engaged by the state of Arizona.37 Debler made it clear at once that his testimony would be based on his own interpretation of both the project legislation and the Colorado River documents. Debler gave his own analysis of the Colorado River Compact, pointing out that it did not define the term "beneficial consumptive use." On that question, how- ever, he stood with Arizona's definition, which was that water taken out of the river by any state or agency |