Many Eastern and Midwestern Republicans were swayed by debate on July 24 when DeFazio claimed that the $710 million worth of pumps, canals and reservoirs meant porkbarrel spending and environmental degradation. Project proponents countered that construction was essential to satisfy a water treaty with two Ute Indian tribes. But some Indians are celebrating the project's setback. "This doesn't have to do with economic and financial benefits for the tribes," says Southern Ute Councilman Ray Frost.
"It's a feather in our cap, a sign that someone in Washington is finally listening to our concerns that we've been used on a water issue."
The amendment may next go to the Senate where Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., vows to secure funding for the project.
* Heather Abel
- Scott Finley on How do Trump and Clinton differ on conservation?
- Harold Johnson on Right-wing militant charged for planting a bomb at BLM building
- Alan Toney on Study finds surprising source of Colorado River water supply
- Harvey H Reading on How do Trump and Clinton differ on conservation?
- Brett Moorhouse on How do Trump and Clinton differ on conservation?