Second, this subsection contains another disclaimer stating that nothing in the bill should be interpreted as affecting any refuge water right in existence on the date of enactment of H.R. 1675. I interpret this provision to mean that nothing in H.R. 1675, including the definition of ``refuge'' in section 3(a), is intended to override, cede, or extinguish any refuge reserved water right which may have been previously created by a past land withdrawal for wildlife refuge purposes. Is that the gentleman's intent and interpretation of this provision as well?
Debbie Dingell: “Second, this subsection contains another disclaimer stating that nothing in the bill should be interpreted as affecting…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of H.R. 1675 on existing refuge water rights.
Share
More from Debbie Dingell
As a staunch defender of Michigan's auto industry, which is still the backbone of the American economy, and someone who cares deeply about the environment, I do not take this vote lightly. I have spoken multiple times to all of the…
I strongly urge my colleagues to protect American citizens and support the ROUTERS Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
as a former chair and proud member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I have worked tirelessly to defend our public lands and wildlife for the benefit of all outdoor enthusiasts. I am here today on the floor to continue to fight for…
I believe that that was a very deliberate effort to vote, and that that person, individual, signed an affidavit saying that he was an American citizen and eligible to vote.





