| OCR Text |
Show 122 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER gated acre in California with all the water that it could use and every drop that the Metropolitan Water District and the Los Angeles area and San Diego could claim or expect to acquire. . ." After Attorney Wilson of New Mexico had stated that his state supported Arizona,141 the opponents rested. Intent upon completing the hearings by nightfall, Chair- man Case immediately called for rebuttal. Both Ely 142 and Shaw 143 went over the California arguments, sup- ported by the memorials and resolutions from the numerous California municipal and county bodies, chambers of commerce, irrigation districts, the State Grange, and others. "I firmly believe," said Shaw, "that in the last five years these states have spent more time and more money in argument over the issues . . . than would have been required to reach a complete decision of the Supreme Court." 144 Breitenstein took exception, declaring: "We feel that California's talk about development of the river is just a red herring drawn across the trail, just a smoke screen. California's true desire is to do two things: first, to delay deevlopment on the river; and second, if possible, to upset the Colorado River Compact." The California spokesmen elected to ignore him. "We have not considered it to be appropriate on behalf of the proponents of this resolution to discuss before you the motives or the personalities of our opponents, and we adhere to that position," Shaw told the chairman. The hearings ended on that note. As days passed and no action was forthcoming from the House Judiciary Committee, California began to realize once more that it was to be defeated. It was |
