Under both the bill and the amendment we proposed, if the use is proscribed for reasons of toxic runoff, nuisance, all those kinds of issues, then it is not a compensable diminution of use. It is only when the use is proscribed for purposes of, as we claim, ESA, wetlands protection, or changes in the ownership or value of the water right.
Discussing the implications of a bill and amendment related to water rights and environmental regulations.
Share
More from William Tauzin
Our purpose in requiring GSA to spread this incremental cost across the entire Federal fleet is, in fact, to remove the cost disincentive for some Federal agencies, to improve EPACT compliance, and to minimize the overall cost to the…
That is why we built an ASP, Average Sales Price, plus a percentage to give the smaller oncology units a chance to buy, in case the larger units buy at a lower price, they could at least get coverage on top of the Average Sales Price to…
Mr. Speaker, again let me read the language of the bill that the gentleman just referred to, that terrible piece of language. It says in effect that in administering the prescription drug benefit program established under this, the…
I got a letter from the Congressional Budget Office indicating that they prepared a preliminary estimate of the impact of the Democratic amendment to H.R. 1, the Democratic plan; and the estimate of CBO of their plan is $1 trillion. So a…
Other voices in this conversation
