OCR Text |
Show 150 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER transpired a thousand years or more before, offering as evidence tree rings and other archeological data. Engi- neer E. B. Debler, a previous witness, returned to give full support to his colleague, Nielson.180 Once more, California engineer Matthew presented water data to show that there was not enough water in the river for the project.181 He took sharp issue with the charge that California had designs on the entire Colorado River, telling the committee: 182 "If California ever had any idea that Arizona actually had a just right to the amount of Colorado River water it now claims, or that the amount of water contracted for with the Secretary of the Interior by California agencies was not within the legal rights of California, the bill containing the limitation provision would not have been accepted by California representatives in Congress; the California Limitation Act would not have been accepted; the water contracts with the Secretary of the Interior would not have been executed; the Metro- politan Water District aqueduct would not have been built, and the investment of $550,000,000 would not have been made. "No responsible individual or agency in California has ever taken any action toward . . . taking and using any water to which Arizona or any other state is justly or legally entitled. The claims and plans of Cali- fornia . . . are less, rather than greater, than was anticipated about 1920. No project or use is now con- templated that was not contemplated in the early 'twenties. In fact, plans for some projects which were contemplated about 1920 . . . have been written off, because it has become evident that the water avail- able to California is not sufficient to supply them." |