Home

Blog

How People Voted

44% For, 56% Against

Take Action

Alert Your Friends and Colleagues
Write Your Representative in Congress
Save & Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Yahoo!

Discussion: P.L. 110-114, The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (3 comments ↓ | 10 wiki edits: view article ↓)

  • This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

No discussion on this article yet.


Cost per :

Learn More

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

B4berkley

April 19, 2007, 5:19am (report abuse)

1st of all the government doesn't need any more land. It's not a private business.
2nd, Why is it this mentality is so popular, I should have to pay for people to live in dangerous areas?
My money should help make it safer for someone to live in a flood plain or a coastal town ravaged by some type of catastrophy, wouldn't it be less expensive to just buy them a house
somewhere safer?
My pockets have been stretched with
a penny here and a penny there.
Over 12,000 in income tax this year. ehhh, what's another 98?

GreatDanes

September 28, 2007, 7:54pm (report abuse)

Every thing should be put on hold as they are killing us in this country with all the sneaky bills. Vote NO

wiscobiscuit

October 2, 2007, 9:50am (report abuse)

The Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet and its resultant erosion of critical wetlands and barriers was a (maybe the) major contributing factor in the devastation in south Louisiana. Shutting down this ill-conceived and little-used boondoggle is my tax dollars well-spent. If (when) this legislation is vetoed, this concern must be introduced as a stand-alone appropriation. MR-GO's gotta go.

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)