It is not surprising that water projects now determined to be essential did not go unquestioned when proposed. Progress is marked by faltering steps and dissenting views. Even the idea of progress is up for debate. The authorizaion of Boulder Dam is no exception as is shown by the following opinon expressed by Congressman Leatherwood (R - Utah) of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation

In my minority report of last year on this bill [HR 5773, the Boulder Canyon Project Act] I emphasized the fact that it is a scheme to secure construction by the Federal Government of a power project under the guise of a flood control and irrigation measure... A comparatively simple engineering job of flood control and river regulation, which should not cost more than ten to fifteen million dollars, is here made the excuse for an unprecedented engineering experiment costing not less than $125,000,000 and risking at least 200 million more.

Under this bill the federal government is not to stop when it has finished the job of river regulation and flood control, but is to provide a hydroelectric power supply adequate for more than half the present population of California, a domestic water supply for 10,000,000 hoped-for but nonexistent inhabitants of southern California cities, and irrigation canals for hundreds of thousands of acres of new alfalfa, cotton and corn land in the United States and the water for hundreds of thousands of additional acres in Mexico. Political pressure, and not genuine necessity; buncombe, spread by propaganda, and not facts; log rolling trades, but not merit ? all employed over a period of six years ? have placed the bill on the calendars of the Congress.