| OCR Text |
Show 136 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER of California, before the House Committee. Ely argued that many of the issues in the pending Supreme Court case of Arizona vs. California were involved in the crsp legislation, and that the project should be delayed until these had been resolved by the Court. To this argument Breitenstein took violent exception, and told the committee: 152 "Any insinuation that the authorization of the Colo- rado River Storage Project should be delayed until the Arizona vs. California case is decided is an attempt to defeat Upper Basin development. There is no legitimate reason for any delay in this project because of the Lower Basin controversy." In Arizona vs. California the method of charging Indian uses of water was an issue. Should they be charged to the individual states in which Indian users reside? Should they be charged to each basin, or to the entire basin? The government had asserted that Indian claims were prior and constituted a first demand on the water supply. Obviously Breitenstein realized the danger in this assertion, but he tried to brush it aside before the committee. It was inconceivable, he declared, that the United States would ever assert that Indian rights came ahead of the users on the great reclamation projects the govern- ment had built on the Colorado River.153 If the Indians had a prior right to the use of waters, then the nation was in a grievous condition. That was, of course, what Ely had said, and Ely had argued that approval of gigantic projects should await the determination of the Indian issue by the Court. Farmers, Indians, attorneys, businessmen, store- keepers, mayors, aldermen, engineers and professional |
