| OCR Text |
Show 226 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER had taken no part in preparing it. Nor had any of the opponents seen the report,322 and, indeed, had not known it existed until a typed copy was produced by Murdock. He had written it almost entirely by himself, and he had done it in a manner which indicated that it was speaking for the full subcommittee, and not just some of the members. The report said, for example, that the "subcommittee is firmly of the opinion that regardless of the contesting claims of the states which have rights to Colorado River water that the project here recommended should be authorized. . ." 323 That was untrue. The report said that the "subcommittee points out that as to such reimbursable costs, the project will be a self-supporting and financially solvent undertaking." 324 That was untrue. The report said: "The testimony established that the project is definitely feasible, both on the economic and engineering basis." 325 That was untrue. The report said: "It is undisputed that there is a sufficient quantity of water in the Colorado River, avail- able for use in the Lower Basin but not now in use, to supply the Central Arizona Project under S. 75." 326 That was untrue. The report said: ". . . ninety-eight per cent of the costs are reimbursable." 327 That was untrue. Murdock was saved from public exposure, and per- haps from punitive action by the House of Representa- tives, only by the kindness of his colleagues on the com- mittee. No stenographic record was kept at the execu- tive meeting of the subcommittee in which it was demanded that he explain his extraordinary tactics. What explanation he made, if any, was not disclosed. |
