A new federal bill – the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, or H.R. 1505 – is being touted by some as a smart move to protect America’s northern border and by others as a dangerous abandonment of federal environmental protection laws.
According to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, “Under current law, DHS [Department of Homeland Security] has the authority to waive various environmental and land management laws when conducting certain activities related to border security. The bill would provide a broad waiver of those laws for all such activities conducted within 100 miles of U.S. land borders and would eliminate the requirement that DHS consult with DOI [Department of the Interior] and USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] before carrying out those activities. The provisions of the legislation would expire five years after enactment.”
According to a USA Today article entitled Border security bill sparks debate, “The measure also waives the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Clean Air Act.”
The article goes on to state, “Zack Taylor, vice-chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the core principles of border security are national public safety. He said no other laws – including environmental protection – should supersede those principles.”
This September, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), released a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It states, “CBP is charged with the dual mission of securing the nation’s borders while facilitating legitimate trade and travel through the legal ports of entries (POEs). …Its priority is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, but it is responsible for deterring all cross-border violations, including illegal immigration and the trafficking of human beings, narcotics, and other contraband.
“…The purpose of the proposed action is to provide CBP with the flexibility to expand or alter its activities as needed to maintain effective control of the northern border….”
The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement outlines five alternatives under consideration: 1) no action (being considered merely as a baseline of comparison with the other alternatives), 2) development of new facilities such as border crossing stations and housing, 3) expanding deployment of surveillance and communication technologies such as remote sensors, short-range radar, remote and mobile video surveillance and communications systems, new cameras, and upgrades to stationary communication systems, 4) construction of new infrastructure such as barriers and access roads, and 5) a flexible alternative that would allow CBP to implement a combination of the other alternatives.
“It is impossible to predict what measures will be needed at any point in time,” the PEIS states, “and the needed mix is likely to change constantly because the threat environment changes constantly. Accordingly, the Flexible Direction Alternative would allow CBP to pursue the optimal mix of facilities, technology, and tactical infrastructure….”
Potential environmental impacts are being evaluated on air quality, biological and water resources, geology and soils, noise, climate change, land use, aesthetic and visual resources, socioeconomic resources, cultural and paleontological resources, environmental justice, protection of children, human health and safety, hazardous materials, utilities and infrastructure, roadways and traffic, and recreation.
Areas affected in Cook County would include the Superior National Forest and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Grand Portage National Monument, and Grand Portage State Park.
Cook County’s response
On November 15, 2011, the county board approved a letter to U.S. senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken and U.S. Representative Chip Cravaack stating, “The Cook County Board of Commissioners has concerns over the proposed legislation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to enhance its program of security along the United States’ northern border with Canadas’.
“Specifically, we are concerned about the negative environmental impacts of implementing a plan with little or no regard to the environmental protection laws already in place. And, we are opposed to the potential abuse of federal authority and the lack of public process by this proposed action.
“We believe it is very possible to protect both the environment and our national security without this legislation. Environmental laws were enacted in the best interest of the public and no one agency should be above them. Any exception given to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security should be limited in scope.”
Leave a Reply