| OCR Text |
Show 212 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER acrimony engendered, was no newer in the crsp con- troversy than was the evidence presented. All of it had been heard before. Far more significant were events which transpired and situations which developed on the perimeter of the House committee battle. Less than a fortnight after the hearing on S. 1555 had ended, two interesting letters were delivered to the Senate Interior Committee. On was addressed to the chairman, James E. Murray of Montana, and was signed by Donald R. Belcher, Assistant Director of the Bureau of the Budget.253 The circumstances which comprised the history of this letter are worthy of note. On January 20, 1955, Stewart French, chief counsel of the Senate Interior Committee, acting in accordance with the law, had written the Budget Bureau for its views on S. 500, which the com- mittee would soon consider. The reply from the Budget Bureau had not come until March 17, twelve days after the hearings had been completed. Belcher reminded the committee that the administra- tion had sent it a crsp bill containing the projects which both the President and the Budget Bureau thought should be built, and excluding some units called for in S. 500. Therefore, said Belcher, the Budget Bureau's views were known to the committee, and it did not in- tend to submit any views on projects which were not in accord with the President's program. Certainly it had not taken the Bureau from January 20 to March 17 to write the letter. What had happened was this: Watkins and other members of the committee had learned that the Budget Bureau was not going to endorse S. 500. That information, of course, would not |
