Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870


Tell Your Representatives to Cosponsor S. 2122, the Defense of the Environment and Property Act of 2012

Dear FreedomWorks members,

As one of our million-plus FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your senator and ask him or her to cosponsor S. 2122, the Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012. Introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the bill would reform federal water policy to protect land owners. The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers are dangerously out of control. The Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012 would rein in the powers of the EPA and protect the Constitutional rights of landowners.

Thousands of land owners across America are currently in legal fights with the EPA. Take for example, Mike and Chantell Sackett of Idaho who bought a plot of land to build a house on back in 2006. Mike and Chantell made sure they were following all of the laws before starting to build a house on their property. An Army of Engineers Official even informed them that they did not need a federal permit to do so. However, as soon as they started construction, three federal officials showed up and demanded that they stop building the house claiming the lot was a wetland, protected under the Clean Water Act. The Sacketts’ faced daily fines of $32,000 if they did not remove fill material and replant vegetation. They even faced criminal penalties if they continued to build the house on their own land. Unfortunately, the Sacketts’ case is not unique. 

The Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012 would prevent future abuses from the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The bill would redefine “navigable waters” to explicitly clarify that waters must actually be navigable, exclude intermittent streams from federal jurisdiction and restrain the EPA and the Army Corps from regulating the definition of navigable waters without Congressional authorization. It would further protect the rights of states to have primary authority over the land and water within their borders, prohibit federal agents from entering private property without the express content of the landowner and require the government to pay double the value of the land to any landowner whose property value is diminished by a wetlands designation. 

Landowners should be free to do as they please with their own property. Americans have a fundamental right to private property. I urge you to contact your senator and ask him or her to cosponsor S. 2122, the Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012 today.


Matt Kibbe
President and CEO
[Click here for a PDF version of this letter.]


monty wono

When I read your example of the Sacketts I became pretty well convinced that something tricky was going on with Ron Paul's agenda. You see, it made me think that some people are running around trying to dredge up cases that sound good for his cause. Like, I sorta thought that is wasn't representative of what's really happening. And then to suggest that getting rid of the EPA was the answer, I really started suspecting a (something) in the wood pile, so to speak. It made me start thinking that perhaps Rand Paul wants to get rid of the EPA so that everyone can just do anything he/she wants to do with no real regard for the enviro. I mean, isn't it really sort of true that most conservatives hate the environment anyway? Does pretending to be concerned about the enviro really sell all that well when it's coming from Rand Paul and his ilk who are for complete freedom? Something isn't smelling quite right here Randy. It smells like libertarianism to me!

Kathy Woodring

The EPA is another far left symbiotic partner to this administration - another dictatorial branch of a once basically free country.
GREEN MAKE BELIEVE: Van Jones Admits Left is ‘PRETENDING’ Need for Regulations in Green Movement – VIDEO - Dec 21, 2010 In this video he is encouraging young folks to go to the EPA, and Congress and show your support for the carbon tax/cap and trade. He states there are only 3 options regulation, tax, or permits. Apparently he is saying the carbon [crisis] is damaging the planet; and by not taxing people to put an end to this horrendous atrocity, thereby providing environmentally friendly, [federal,union, and public service] jobs for people, the economy will suffer.
- SOURCE American Electric Power - EPA regulations for coal-fired power plants could force shut downs May 25, 2011 - “New regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency mean a lot of coal-fired power plants will shut down soon, said James Wood, deputy assistant secretary for the U.S. Department of Energy. He said the approval of new rules for air pollution, water pollution and waste disposal could result in the retirement of between 35 and 70 gigawatts of coal-fired power generation nationwide, with EPA predicting much less and some analysts predicting much more...”
-mountainwestmilitia-com America transformed (Cloward-Piven Strategy)


It actually goes deeper than what both of you are suggesting. I use to delineate wetlands as a private consultant in South Carolina and then New Jersey. The truth is there are many issues that require government intervention. EPA's "reach" is in everything from wetlands & landuse to CO2 emissions from tail pipes & global warming; from industrial noise pollution causing grumpy neighbor hoods to toxic metals in historic fill serving as the property for a new daycare. There are alot of issues in air, water, soil, and wetlands that need the EPA. For everything they do wrong like using the Commerce Clause to intrude into everyone's affairs, america could not imagine where we would be without the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, CERCLA, RCRA, and other cornerstones of our nation. What I think the real debate should be about (1) the science behind many of our policies and (2) the socio-economic impacts which come implementing those policies.

Is the wetland part of a stream or ditch for flood water? Is the wetland classified as high priority like prarie potholes which in the mid-west provide the only water for breeding amphibians in early spring? You can't just destroy a tributary for your new bridge or dredge wetland so you can put a dock on your waterfront property.


The only trick going on, is an EPA that is out of control. Libertarians don't hate the environment anymore than a progressive hates babies. Libertarians believe in strict property rights, which would solve all of your environmental controls. If someone is polluting downstream, that has an impact on my property, and the law should step in to stop it. Life, liberty and property. Or would you rather have a corrupt cap-n-trade system? Where, if you can pay for it, you can afford to pollute. The EPA is an independent regulatory agency that has nearly unlimited and unelected power to do whatever it wants in the name of environment. That smells like communism to me!