OCR Text |
Show 98 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER had invested in the development of the Colorado River because they believed California's water rights were valid. The Supreme Court should settle the question.80 Millikin kept the first session of the hearings on SJR. 145 going until 1:20 p.m. At 2:45 p.m. he opened the second session. Attorney Howard was California's next spokesman.81 As he testified, considerable activity was taking place outside the committee room. Rep. Sheppard was telling the people of California in a radio address how their water, a heritage more valuable than any other, was in danger of being taken from them. Again Rep. Poulson was denouncing before Congress the interference in the controversy by officials of the Upper Basin states82 His first target was Judge Stone of Colorado, who, he pointed out, was a vice-president of the National Reclamation Association and chairman of its three-man legislative committee The other two members of the committee were J. Hubbard Moeur of Arizona, and E. W. Rising of Idaho. "Thus," he told Congress, "you have a three-man legislative board of a national association dominated by two men seeking to win approval of a project that would saddle a billion dollar debt on the government, and which could only be built by taking water away from California." Judge Stone, declared Poulson, received a salary of only $6,000 a year from Colorado, but he had spent a large part of the past year in Washington, lobbying for the Central Arizona Project. "Who pays for all this travel?" Poulson demanded. "Who pays his lobbying expenses while he is away from his Colorado state job? Has Judge Stone registered as a lobbyist?" |