In a move unprecedented in scale, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) received congressional authority to waive numerous cultural and environmental resource laws and regulations to facilitate construction of a 370-mile portion of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, reports the Wildlife Management Institute. The fence is intended to pose a barrier to thousands of illegal immigrants along a course of about 670 miles of the border. It consists of pedestrian and vehicle barriers, roads, guard stations, cameras and lighting. This waiver of authority pertaining to the Fence Security Act of 2006, involves approximately 30 cultural and environmental laws that applied to completion of three smaller sections of the fence.

It is a striking decision considering that the United States is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet there is no similar waiver of laws and regulations for the purpose of military training and preparedness on U.S. lands. The Department of Defense (DoD) must adhere to environmental protection mandates and standards on the millions of acres it uses to train soldiers, airmen and women, and sailors.

Without commenting on national security priorities, the DHS waiver is a troubling approach to environmental protection of southern borderlands. Regardless, the decision has been heralded by members of Congress who view the fence as an effective deterrent to illegal immigration. Conversely, it is panned by others who see it as an expensive band-aid approach to the problem and one that does not address comprehensive immigration policy reform. Critics include some environmental groups as well as private landowners along the fence corridor concerned about the impact on desert ecosystems and private

Without commenting on national security priorities, the DHS waiver is a troubling approach to environmental protection of southern borderlands. Regardless, the decision has been heralded by members of Congress who view the fence as an effective deterrent to illegal immigration. Conversely, it is panned by others who see it as an expensive band-aid approach to the problem and one that does not address comprehensive immigration policy reform. Critics include some environmental groups as well as private landowners along the fence corridor concerned about the impact on desert ecosystems and private property rights.

Illegal immigrants have created myriad trails throughout the fragile desert environment. The land is littered with empty plastic water bottles, food containers, discarded clothing, backpacks and the refuse of hundreds of small campsites. National parks, national wildlife refuges and DoD lands have been transformed from desert wildlands to illegal dumps and human thoroughfares headed north into California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. There is no doubt that these intrusions have thousands of acres of prime wildlife habitat and the infrastructure intended to conserve it. Impacts on threatened and endangered species found on these lands are difficult to calculate.

Nonetheless, construction of a border fence unencumbered by cultural and environmental protections portends another legacy of environmental jeopardy with which public and private land managers will have to contend. Roads, equipment and material-staging areas, construction traffic, fence routing, and grade modifications apparently will be undertaken without regard for environmental protection. However, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as stating that his agency was committed to work that will have "insignificant impacts on the environment and cultural resources." But once the border fence is completed, wildlife migration and travel between the United States and Mexico will be eliminated or altered. Opponents insist that construction can only further compromise threatened or endangered species habitat. Despite Chertoff's assertion of minimal impact, there is skepticism that, in the absence of responsibility to do so, DHS will consider and address environmental issues.

As in most policy decisions, the DHS waiver of cultural and environmental laws will be judged ultimately on its future success in eliminating illegal immigration by way of Mexico, protecting natural resources from abuse associated with this immigration and actually minimizing construction impact on the desert lands that it proposes to protect. The difficulty in predicting the outcome is inherent in policy decisions that pit unresolved social and economic values against environmental impacts rather than decisions that attempt to tackle both issues simultaneously. (saw)