Access to federal lands
Republicans in Congress are considering granting Border Patrol nearly unlimited access to federal land along the U.S.-Mexico border by waiving nearly 36 federal laws and regulations.
Congressional Republicans, as part of broader immigration legislation, are considering granting Border Patrol nearly unlimited access to federal land along the U.S.-Mexico border by waiving nearly 36 federal laws and regulations.
Currently, the secretary of Homeland Security has the sole authority to waive those laws to build barriers along the southwest border.
The Securing America’s Future Act — which includes other provisions to strengthen border security and address the ending of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program — would extend that authority to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and apply it to infrastructure, such as access roads, technology and fixed surveillance towers.
At issue are more than 30 million acres of federal land located within 100 miles of the border, the jurisdictional limit for CBP enforcement.
Currently, Border Patrol must go through a lengthy authorization process to access national forests and wildlife refuges, even when carrying out enforcement practices such as remediating border tunnels or erecting vehicle barriers in ecologically sensitive areas.
The change, proponents say, would allow federal law enforcement to bypass red tape and secure the border more effectively.
“While our agents spend time seeking and waiting on authorization from federal land managers to make sure environmental impacts are addressed, criminals trample through environmentally sensitive areas leaving tons of garbage and waste along their paths,” U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, RAlaska, said during a hearing last week of the House’s Natural Resources Committee.
‘No review, no accountability’
At issue are more than 30 million acres of federal land located within 100 miles of the border
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, introduced the legislation with Arizona Rep. Martha McSally and three other Republican lawmakers. It
addresses most of Trump’s demands on immigration reform and border security. But it has not gained much traction in the House.
The portion of the act that would waive federal land restrictions for CBP has been met with fierce opposition from Democrats and environmentalists, who say it would harm protected lands and hurt border communities. The Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act are among the laws that would be waived.
“We’re asking about a unilateral authority to an agency with no review, no accountability, and no responsibility for any negative consequences,” said Rep. Raúl Grivalja, of Arizona, the ranking Democrat on the committee. “This is all a tactical response … justified by some level of political hysteria.”
The debate mirrors wider disagreement over construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, as President Donald Trump has advocated to bolster border security.
Trump’s plan for a wall, which involves the waiver of 36 federal laws, is being challenged in court by environmental groups.
‘Takes the handcuffs off of agents’
Thursday’s hearing featured testimony from law enforcement, border residents and conservation groups.
Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, said granting Border Patrol greater access to federal lands “takes the handcuffs off of agents.” He said it can take years to get approval from land managers, and that in the meantime smugglers can use the area without regard to the environment.
“Our inability to build access roads along and on the line, including secondary roads, diminishes agent mobility while patrolling, ultimately prevents agents from being as effective as they can otherwise be,” Judd said, adding that in some instances “the United States in essence has ceded approximately a quarter mile of U.S. territory to criminal enterprise including drug and human traffickers.”
Scott Nicol, the co-chair of the Sierra Club’s Borderlands Campaign, said while trash left behind by border crossers is a problem, destroying habitats to make way for barriers and roads along the border would have a more-lasting impact on the environment. Full custody of the land should remain with land managers, and not Border Patrol, he said.
Nicol, who lives in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, several miles north of levee walls intended to thwart border crossers, also said waiving environmental laws near the border creates a double standard that hurts border residents.
“Someone in the interior of the nation has the protection of the Safe Drinking Water Act, but the Safe Drinking Water Act was waived to build the (levee) border wall,” he said. “All of my drinking water has to come through that to get to my home, because all of my drinking water comes out of the Rio Grande.”
Nogales rancher Dan Bell said the presence of Border Patrol on nearby federal lands such as the Coronado National Forest has been reassuring, and improved the land.
His ranch, west of Nogales, includes 10 miles of border with Mexico, two of which have bollard-style fencing. The remaining eight miles have barbed-wire fence.
“When we started grazing there, there was so much illegal activity and trash and trails and trespassing from Mexican cattle, we were unable to actually go in there because utilization levels of the grass were already hit,” Bell said. “Once Border Patrol established a presence on the border, put in a portion of the bollard-style fence, we were able to start using that the next season. It healed that quickly.”