This summary of the 1947-52 legislation deals only peripherally with Bridge Canyon dam; it was a fight, pro and con, over waterworks because they assured water rights. Bridge's fate had become tied to the CAP through history and Reclamation policy. In truth, it could have been separated out, but this was apparently not considered until it was too late and the matter had gone from Congress to the Supreme Court.
Although taken for granted by the central antagonists, others did focus on the dam. The Hualapai wanted to participate, for their profit. There were lingering complaints about the height. Conservation groups fussed futilely over what position to take. NPS and Reclamation played about with (the largely fantasy) numbers on recreation benefits and costs. None of these mattered to the Arizonans, Californians, and other Basin states participants, for whom the only real question was the supply of water and how it was to be secured for their own purposes. So here I will provide only enough story to get us to 1952 when Arizona's first CAP effort, led by McFarland and Hayden and Murdock, was blocked until the Supreme Court settled the water rights. Much of this material comes from the Hayden papers, which might be characterized as presenting dam issues as items to be dealt with so as not to affect CAP authorization.