Zoe Lofgren: “I do, however, have grave reservations about the actual language of the amendment and the implications and unintended…”

“I do, however, have grave reservations about the actual language of the amendment and the implications and unintended consequences that might occur. This is a very broad duty that is being imposed by the amendment on the Federal Government. Let me just give an example of why I think it is problematic. In the Clean Water Act we, the National Government, make some very stringent findings about what may and may not be discharged into a stream. For example, discharging arsenic into a river is something that we have tried to control and avoid. Under this amendment, control of the discharge of arsenic into a stream would or could qualify as a taking, because if you are in a business that uses arsenic in manufacturing, and you are constrained from using arsenic and discharging it, you have, in fact, been impaired in the full utilization of your property. It could be a taking under the act. There would be a duty to provide notice to the business under the amendment. I think that would be a very difficult thing for the Federal Government to do.”