The authors respond to Representative Morris K. Udall's "Analysis of Alan P. Carlin's Testimony -- 'Economic Feasibility of the Proposed Marble and Bridge Canyon Projects, May 1966'" included in the record of hearings on the Colorado River Basin Project by the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in May, 1966. In the first section, this paper looks at the question of capital charges, two instances where the Udall "Analysis" may have been less than objective, and one additional cost item proposed by the "Analysis." The second section considers other items raised in the "Analysis." The third section attempts to quantify some of the items favorable to the nuclear alternative that the "Analysis" ignored. Finally, in the fourth section the authors compute new benefit-cost ratios at the increased level of quantification suggested by the Udall "Analysis."