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
The gentleman is correct. Like you, I too want to ensure that unapproved products are available in times of emergency. And while we allow the FDA to make products available during such time of emergency, absent such emergency, current law…
The authority allows the Secretary to take control of these facilities only during, and as necessary to respond to, public health emergencies affecting national security. Under the Bioterrorism Response Act passed last year, a public…
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…
Let me join in expressing the sorrow of the folks in Louisiana for your loss in South Carolina. We will pray for his soul. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute in this debate can be summed up rather easily. According to CBO, it will…
Other voices in this conversation
