OCR Text |
Show 254 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER believe that it is necessary for this matter to be litigated to get this matter settled." Rep. D'Ewart then disclosed that sixteen members of the committee - more than a majority - had signed a statement in support of Saylor's motion. Such arguments as a loss of interest to the taxpayers of the nation had hurt Arizona, but in the end it was Arizona's failure to convince the committee that she owned the water necessary for the project that had brought defeat of the House bill. The situation in the House Interior Committee was not rigged as it was in the Senate. "We believe," said the statement of the sixteen mem- bers, "that the proposed bill, as presently presented to the committee, would not provide the relief hoped for. We want to be helpful to Arizona and her people in the solving of the present serious water problem. We feel, however, that the bills, in their present form, would not resolve the water problem facing Arizona. We think that the legal question of the right to the use of waters of the lower Colorado River Basin would not be resolved by the legislation; that the adjudication of the water rights should come before authorization of the project, and not following. "The need for adjudication of the rights was admitted by every witness before the committee." Voting against AspinalFs substitute motion were: Aandahl, Baring, Bow, Budge, Crawford, D'Ewart, Engle, Harrison, Jenison, McMullen, Poulson, Regan, Saylor, Taylor, Wharton and Yorty. Total: sixteen.360 Voting for it were ten: Aspinall, Bentsen, Bosone, Dawson, Donovan, Fine, Miller, Morris, Redden and Murdock. |