A victory for your private property rights

On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is rescinding the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) act created by the Obama Administration.  Through WOTUS, the EPA sought to regulate not just water, but an individual’s private land as well.

Its reversal is a substantial blow to this overreaching agency – pushing the federal government out of private property and away from an area of state authority. The elimination of WOTUS will also restore consistency and clarity to the rule of law.

In an article Wednesday, Heritage expert Daren Bakst explained more about this rule:

On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it is going to put an end to the Obama administration’s federal power grab known as the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule.

The Trump administration should be commended for taking this critical action. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, through the Clean Water Act, were seeking to regulate almost every water imaginable.

For example, under the rule, federal agencies could have regulated certain man-made ditches and even dry land that may hold some water only a few days of the year after major rains.

The rule was so broad and subjective, property owners would have had a very difficult time even knowing what was subject to regulation. For that matter, the level of subjectivity was so great that even government officials enforcing the rule wouldn’t have been able to agree on whether specific waters could be regulated.

By trying to regulate almost every water, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers would have been forcing property owners to secure far more permits, including for normal activities such as farming.

Bakst has, for years, been working tirelessly to reverse this disastrous act, from educating lawmakers to spearheading special working groups. In fact, last November he released a report on water policy recommending that the new administration make WOTUS reversal a top priority. President Trump’s case against WOTUS was strongly influenced by Bakst’s work.

Thanks to you, experts like Daren Bakst are able to fight for your property rights and roll back invasive federal policies.

Rolling back WOTUS is a key conservative victory. But we can’t stop here! What other invasive government regulations do you think we should eliminate next? 

 

One mother’s fight against Obamacare

Heritage’s news site, The Daily Signal, shared a story Marjorie Weer, a mother who has been battling against Obamacare regulations so that her son, who has spina bifida, could receive treatment.

This story caught the eye of Vice President Mike Pence and inspired him and his team to bring Obamacare victims to Washington, D.C. so they could share their stories.  Marjorie Weer was one of the mothers invited to speak.

Marjorie fought for six months so her 3-year-old son Monty could receive the treatment he needed. In his case, this was as simple as receiving care from a hospital out-of-state.

Marjorie’s efforts in fighting against the disastrous terms of Obamacare have truly been heroic.

As this report by the Daily Signal states:

During Monty’s short life, the family has had three health insurance plans—under two different companies—largely because of problems caused by Obamacare, Weer says. Those plans offered the Weers few options for insurers in South Carolina and restricted coverage networks outside that state.

And as Marjorie added at the Vice President’s meeting in D.C.:

I’ve jumped through hoops every day for three years. So thankfully they did approve the care, after a long time on the phone, for [Monty] to go to the doctor he wanted to. But he is 3. I have a 17-month-old daughter. I don’t want to be on the phone for hours. I want to pick up Play-Doh off the floor. I want to be a mom to my kids.

As Vice President Pence stated in the meeting, “This is the real story of Obamacare in America.”

Thanks to your support, stories like Marjorie’s can be told.

Read Marjorie’s full story here>>

Do you know anyone like Marjorie who has been negatively impacted by Obamacare’s regulations? If so, how were they affected?