OCR Text |
Show 124 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER Project would satisfy this requirement. Frankly, we were unable to determine from your report whether or not the benefits actually would exceed the costs. "It seems clear . . . that the proposed Central Arizona Project must be supported by projects and activities not contemplated in the report; in particular, by upper basin reservoirs and a program of land treat- ment. "We cannot help but feel that, in the long run, piece- meal planning and authorization of the basin program will be inefficient and wasteful." Federal Power Commission Chairman Smith also wrote to the Reclamation Bureau, and Poulson cited a part of his letter: "The recommendations of the report for construction of the project are contingent on the establishment of the validity of the claims of the state of Arizona to the right to divert Colorado River water. . . That right is challenged by the state of California. It is expected that the Congress will give full consideration to the divergent views of these two states before providing funds for the construction of the project" Repeatedly in the hearings of 1947 and 1948, the Upper Basin states had expressed the fear that litigation over the Colorado River would delay their own progress, and make it impossible for them to complete a compact among themselves for a division of their share of the river. Suddenly that fear became invalid. In July, 1948, the Upper Basin states reached an accord and signed an Upper Basin Compact. At least one major obstacle to settlement of the twenty-six-year-old contro- versy had been removed. Litigation to settle the differ- |