| OCR Text |
Show proposed legislation. These fears were based upon the fact that Congressman Saylor of Pennsylvania had indicated that he was going to offer his Bill, H. R. 16075, as an amendment in the form of a substitute for the Committee Bill during debate on the House floor. Mr. Saylor's Bill would provide only for a Lower Basin Project. It would authorize the Central Arizona Project and for repayment purposes would integrate Utah's Dixie Project and the Southern Nevada Project into a development fund to be created by using revenues from the Boulder Canyon and Parker-Davis Projects after their costs have been repaid to the federal government. The Saylor substitute Bill would not authorize any main-stream dam, such as Hualapai Dam or Marble Canyon Dam, would not protect California's priority to 4.4 million acre-feet per year, would not authorize anything with respect to studies of an importation project, would not authorize any of the five Colorado participating irrigation projects, and would not provide for anything like the operation procedures for Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams in Section 601 of H. R. 4671 as approved by the House Interior Committee. The Saylor substitute, had it been given a chance to be offered on the House floor, would have possessed great appeal and might have been adopted, thus nullifying the Committee's reported Bill containing the States' agreements. First, the substitute would have appealed to the economy-minded members of Congress because it would have cost about $1 billion less than the features in H. R. 4671. Second, it would have appealed to the Pacific Northwest Congressional members because it did not provide for any kind of a study of a water importation plan. Third, it would have appealed to those members of Congress, especially from the eastern States, who were influenced by conservation organizations because of the elimination of both Hualapai and Marble Canyon Dams. Death of H. R. 4671 in Rules Committee The bill was kept locked in the Rules Committee. Arizona representatives found it impossible to give assurances that any changes that might be made in H. R. 4671 on the House floor, especially with reference to the California priority of 4.4 million acre-feet, would be reinstated in the Senate and survive the Conference Committee. H. R. 4671 continues to languish in the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives. Until about the middle of August it seemed reasonable to expect that legislation to authorize the Colorado River Basin project would be passed by the Congress in 1966. It is now virtually certain that H. R. 4671 will not be passed in the time remaining before 43 |
