I would like to make one other comment on the compensation criteria, which people say is absent in this bill. We already passed a law to compensate landowners for wetlands and for the Endangered Species Act, so putting it into the Clean Water Act I think is totally unnecessary. I do want to make a comment about compensation and the Fifth Amendment property rights. If your property is taken away for the public good, you are to be compensated. Everybody endorses that. However, if your property is, in my judgment, reasonably regulated to prevent pollution of your neighbor's property or to prevent public harm, compensation in this area is a whole other different story. Should we compensate people to prevent them from polluting? I do not think we should.
Wayne Gilchrest: “I would like to make one other comment on the compensation criteria, which people say is absent in this bill. We already…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing compensation criteria related to property rights in the context of environmental regulation.
Share
More from Wayne Gilchrest
So that's not clear. Did the border agents supervisors, or do you have any idea who spoke, if there was, in fact, a grand jury, to determine whether or not there was enough evidence?
Greenland is an interesting place because you can go back several hundred years. People were tracking the increasing or decreasing glacier ice cap. So there is a very accurate record. We saw some 20 years ago that the ice cap really…
This is not a perfect bill. There is no utopia in the legislative process. Through consensus and dialogue, we have tried to integrate the ideas of the Members, and we feel very strongly that we have come up with a bill that will improve…
I think this is something that can be worked out on a bipartisan basis, and doesn't need to be one side of the aisle, and doesn't need to be contentious.





