OCR Text |
Show 34 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER to include all three of its proposed projects, but that construction of them be deferred until "their compati- bility with each other" had been demonstrated. As was to be shown later, the Bureau did not look with disfavor on the suggestion. Any device that would bring approval of any project anywhere in the West, whether it be good or bad, was all right with the Bureau. However, the Bureau saw the wisdom of sticking with its original proposal, that only Navajo Dam be approved. Ambitious as they were, the Bureau planners realized that if they attempted to fulfill the dream of every state the potential cost of the crsp would become so great that even a liberal Congress and a friendly administration would shy away from it. The better policy would be to get started, and then come in with additional projects from time to time. While shouting "Eureka!" about the crsp plan and approving with unbounded enthusiasm the proposed Central Utah Project, the state of Utah's comments contained a curious paragraph. In a letter to the Secre- tary of the Interior, Utah's state engineer, Joseph M. Tracy, said: 35 "While recommending the construction of these pro- jects, we believe such construction should be deferred if it in any way will impede the defense effort or injure our economy. It would appear to be desirable, in view of the shortages of materials and manpower, to defer such projects until these shortages no longer exist." No one would have been surprised if opponents of the crsp had written those words. The costs and demands of national defense were to become prominent argu- ments for delaying Congressional approval of the crsp, |