Securing the Border While Protecting the Environment

Today, we informed a federal judge in Washington that I am exercising the authority granted to me by Congress to waive legal restrictions that impede our border security efforts. This means that we’ll soon resume construction of a stretch of fencing near the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) in southeastern Arizona.

I want to stress that it’s not our intention to run roughshod over existing laws and regulations. But, Congress recognized the significance that secure borders have on our national security and provided legal authority for me to waive any restrictions that may impede our progress.

Let me explain the context behind my decision.

The SPRNCA has been a high traffic area for smugglers for several years. In fact, last year over 19,000 illegal entrants were apprehended in the area – 11 percent of whom had criminal backgrounds. Unfortunately, among these illegal entries, there were also 14 deaths. So there is a clear need to establish effective control of this part of the border for security, as well as humanitarian reasons.

But there are also environmental reasons to stop illegal crossings in the SPRNCA. Illegal entrants leave trash and high concentrations of human waste, which impact wildlife, vegetation and water quality in the habitat. Wildfires caused by campfires have significantly damaged the soil, vegetation, and cultural sites, not to mention threatened human safety. Indeed, illegal entry in and around the SPRNCA is such a problem that the Bureau of Land Management has had to impose restrictions on public recreation due to high levels of smuggling activity, vehicle thefts, and assaults.

To stem the flow of illegal entrants across the border in and around the SPRNCA, we began installing tactical infrastructure and pedestrian fencing as part of our Secure Border Initiative. Because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area, we consulted four environmental reviews dating back to the mid-1990s to ensure our construction project would not result in significant impacts to the environment. Two separate federal land management agencies (whose mission includes administering and protecting the SPRNCA) also authorized the department to proceed with construction.

But, now we are enmeshed in a court case which is designed to further delay our construction. That delay will result in more drug and human smuggling through this corridor.

So, I’ve exercised my authority to waive the judge’s order. I think that further delay in securing the border in and around the SPRNCA presents an unacceptable risk to our national security, in addition to the environmental and human problems that will continue to occur if this area of the border is not secured.

To further ensure that our construction minimizes impact on the environment, we’ll be implementing several environmental mitigation measures and best practices. Specifically, we’ll work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to respond to wildlife concerns; we’ll erect temporary river barriers and remove them during flood season; we’ll work to prevent the introduction or spread of invasive weeds and restore temporarily disturbed areas with native plants; and provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

We’ve been mindful about how and when to use our environmental waiver authority. We stand ready to engage the public on the environmental effects of our activities, and to make reasonable accommodations. The process must be sensible and expeditious, however.

We’ve done so when environmental assessments have been exhausted but interest groups still stop or slow down projects by throwing up obstacles or litigation.

National security must take precedence. But, we will continue to carry out these security responsibilities with environmental stewardship. Thanks for reading.

Michael Chertoff