OCR Text |
Show 182 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER less supplemental water is made available, about one- third of the productive capacity of the agricultural land within the potential project area will be lost." There remained no doubts as to the position of the Reclamation Bureau with regard to the controversy. Still smarting from the way Knapp had been allowed to escape from cross-examination, Engle handed in a long paper in which he dissected Knapp's contentions bone-by-bone and scored him for the inaccuracy of his testimony.246 Murdock thought that was enough for the day, and adjourned. April 27, 1949 The biggest Arizona guns had not yet been fired, and the first to be heard was V. E. Larson, the Recla- mation Bureau engineer who was the author of the project report.247 His testimony was virtually the same as that he had given before the Senate committee. It needs no repetition here. The questioning of Larson was long and thorough, especially the cross-examination by Engle, but hardly anything was brought out that was not in the printed record of the Senate hearings. It was Engle's expressed conviction that by spending large sums of public money to prepare a report on the proposed project for which there might be no water right, the Reclamation Bureau had been extravagant. "That is like doing the engineeering on construction of a building before you have title to the lot." Engle said.248 April 28, 1949 For the first time it was brought out how the Recla- mation Bureau decided that a project was economically |