Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />appropriation process or whether the block grant program <br />would be more advantageous. <br />While the Domenici-Moynihan proposal received very <br />lIttle consideration in the previous Congress, Mr. McDonald <br /> <br /> <br />indicated that it was his opinion that S. 621 would receive a <br /> <br /> <br />more favorable hearing in the present Congress. He indicated <br /> <br /> <br />that there were two primary reasons for this. First, the <br /> <br /> <br />proponent of the bill, Senator Domenici, was now in the <br /> <br /> <br />Republican majority in the Senat~ which change in majority <br /> <br /> <br />party had also brought about some changes in the chairmanship <br /> <br /> <br />of key subcommittees and committees which would have <br /> <br /> <br />jurisdiction over the bill. Secondly, it was becoming <br /> <br /> <br />increasingly apparent that the Reagan Administration would be <br /> <br /> <br />favorably inclined toward any program which shifted a greater <br /> <br /> <br />share of the cost of government programs on to entities other <br />than the Federal ~vernment. <br /> <br /> <br />There being no questions from Board members or requests <br /> <br /> <br />for additional information about S. 621, Mr. McDonald next <br /> <br /> <br />drew the attention of the Board to a proposal to amend the <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado River Storage Project Act. Mr. McDonald indicated <br />that the proposal had been drafted by Mr. Felix Sparks, <br />Colorado's Commissioner to the Upper Colorado River <br />Commission, who was present in the audience. Mr. Kroeger <br />asked Mr. Sparks if he would explain his proposal to the <br /> <br /> <br />Board. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks indicated that the proposed mandatory <br /> <br /> <br />language (see Appendix Q) was designed to address two <br /> <br /> <br />problems: <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />/' <br />IS <br />