Homeland Security officials can continue to waive environmental laws to speed construction of a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club. The groups had argued that the eco-law-waiving power given to Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff in 2005 was unconstitutional. The fence section named specifically in the lawsuit has already been built; it runs through Arizona's San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, which is home to more than 250 species of migratory birds.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday that it will waive environmental laws in order to finish its 670-mile-long fence along the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of 2008. The waivers will apply to land stretching from California to Texas and will facilitate construction of fencing, towers, sensors, cameras, and roads. Homeland Security has already issued waivers for three portions of fence in Arizona and California. Green activists, who have decried the fence's impact on endangered ocelots and fragile habitat, are dismayed. Says Brian Segee of Defenders of Wildlife, "It's dangerous, it's arrogant, it's going to have pronounced environmental impacts, and it won't do a thing to address the problems of undocumented immigrants or address border security problems." But hey, other than that ...

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

The Department of Homeland Security late last week released rules requiring industries to track and disclose large amounts of chemicals potentially alluring to terrorists. Draft regulations released in the spring had been heavily criticized by Big Chemical for their strictness, so the new regulations say, "Try not to put dangerous chemicals out on the sidewalk with a 'Free for Terrorists' sign." OK, it's not quite that bad, but the rules were lightened up, reducing the number of chemicals to about 300 from 344 and raising the reporting threshold of many. "There are 10 widely recognized ultra-hazardous chemicals. ... To a chemical, their thresholds increased," says Rick Hind of the Greenpeace Toxics Campaign. "When push comes to shove, Homeland Security here folded like a sheet to industry pressure. ... It's clear for whom these laws and loopholes were written." Some Democratic lawmakers have pledged to strengthen requirements next year.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff waived several environmental laws on Monday in order to continue construction of nearly seven miles of the sprawling fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Work on the section that crosses the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area near Naco, Ariz., had been halted due to a ruling two weeks ago that the administration had spent too little time reviewing the environmental impacts of the fence. Chertoff disagreed, saying further delay on border fence construction presents "unacceptable risks to our nation's security." This is the third time Chertoff has waived environmental laws to build sections of the fence. Some of the eco-laws dispensed with are the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Chertoff has also waived various conservation laws, but it's all apparently for the good of humanity. Explaining his deliberations, Chertoff said two weeks ago, "I have to say to myself, 'Yes, I don't want to disturb the habitat of a lizard, but am I prepared to pay human lives to do that?'"

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Well, phew. Ethanol's not to blame for high food prices and a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border will actually benefit the environment. If we can't believe the top federal farm official and the top federal security official, whom can we believe?

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

What are the enviro impacts of a construction project on the U.S.-Mexico border?

Photo: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Bush administration has proposed yet another list of environmental sacrifices that it believes America should make for the War on Terror.

Last year, President Bush pushed through legislation that exempts military training bases from cornerstone environmental protections mandated by the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, in the name of "military readiness." Despite howls of protest from the environmental community and government officials alike -- the unprecedented, sweeping wartime request was unaccompanied by any evidence that America's military strength is at odds with environmental protection -- the Department of Defense insisted on the rollbacks and got much of what it asked for.

Now the Bush administration may be weeks from implementing more environmental exemptions for the sake of "national security," which critics find equally preposterous. The Department of Homeland Security has proposed a directive [PDF] that would enable a raft of agencies under its domain -- including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and more than a dozen others -- to eschew environmental reviews and assessments of their operations, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, if agency officials feel such reviews are impinging on their efficacy. The directive, which does not require congressional approval, would also allow the agencies to conceal information they consider sensitive from a national-security standpoint.

Enviros are aghast, of course. A whole conflux of groups -- including Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Audubon Society, and Ocean Conservancy -- have submitted exhaustive comments criticizing the proposal for its potential impact on the environment and public health. Members of the public can also submit comments on the draft directive through Aug. 16. (Fax to 202.772.9749.)

"What they've proposed is outrageous," said Sharon Buccino, a senior attorney at NRDC, "not just from the point of view of exploiting the issue of national security to bend the [environmental] rules, but because it inhibits Americans' democratic right to the freedom of information -- in this case, information that the American public could use to protect itself from potentially considerable health risks."

NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate and disclose the possible environmental and public-health impacts of their operations, and to give the public an opportunity to weigh in. While there is not one standard formula for implementing NEPA -- each federal agency develops environmental review processes tailored to its own activities, exempting certain provisions when appropriate -- critics say that the DHS has done such a radical tailoring job that it has effectively ripped the requirements to shreds.

"The environmental community isn't opposed to agencies developing their own NEPA procedures that include certain exemptions," said Buccino. "The problem here is that it's being abused to include wide-ranging activities that can significantly harm the environment and public health."

DHS argues that the proposed exemptions will have no significant environmental impact, and are necessary to save time and paperwork and improve the efficiency of an agency that has more important things to worry about.

"Why should we keep having to prepare environmental assessments for operations that clearly have no adverse environmental impacts?" a top DHS official told Muckraker on condition of anonymity. "Our agencies have done these reviews over and over again, only to arrive at the same conclusion -- that the environmental impacts of these activities are insignificant. Why create the needless paperwork? It wastes time and resources." Streamlining this process improves the efficacy of the DHS, said the official, "because we don't have to be expending those resources ... and can put them toward the goal of national security."

Lest the DHS be seen as crying "excessive paperwork" as a way to shirk federal environmental law, spokesperson Valerie Smith was quick to assure Muckraker that the agency "is serious about environmental stewardship," adding this proviso: "We need to strike a balance with the agility required for our homeland-security mission and the genuine responsibility to take environmental impact into consideration."

But take a look at the sorts of activities the DHS considers worthy of exclusion from NEPA and you'll find they have as little to do with national security as Iraq had to do with 9/11.

Will logging stop the terrorists?

Photo: BLM.

For instance, the directive would permit logging of live trees on up to 70 acres and salvage logging projects on up to 250 acres on DHS-controlled lands without so much as a page of environmental review. Similarly, the Border Patrol would be allowed to build roads through national forests with zero public input if DHS decides the projects must be classified for national-security reasons.

The directive would grant a categorical exclusion from NEPA reviews for the use of pesticides on all "buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, and other facilities" under DHS jurisdiction. And Homeland Security agencies across the board would be exempted from environmental reviews for dredging and repair activity within waterways and wetlands under their control.

There's also a proposed exemption for DHS agencies from NEPA reviews of their hazardous and non-hazardous waste disposal. While Homeland Security officials insist that their agencies would still have to qualify for permits at designated landfills or disposal facilities, enviros say that the permitting process is hardly environmentally rigorous, and does not necessarily take into account the impact on surrounding communities or allow those communities to have a say about whether the waste should be dumped in their backyards.

Will concealing pipeline info make us safer?

Photo: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The directive would also allow the DHS to work with the Department of Energy on plans to build new natural-gas pipelines in the U.S. and keep those projects classified if they deem it necessary for the sake of national security. Communities located near proposed pipelines might have no knowledge of the disproportionate security risk they face, nor any opportunity to give feedback. (In a separate but similar rollback last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that the nation's 103 nuclear power plants will no longer be required to reveal security snafus discovered on their premises, lest terrorists get ahold of the information.)

"The DHS directive raises major questions about the fine line between protecting national security and jeopardizing public and environmental safety," said Brian Segee, associate counsel for Defenders of Wildlife, adding that the Bush administration is using fear tactics to roll back protections purely for the sake of cutting corners. "We're all for expediency and keeping secrets when it's necessary, but if our government refuses to tell us that there is hazardous waste in our backyard, or that environmental damage is occurring on our public lands, are we truly safer as a nation?"

Is FEMA really hampered by having to properly dispose of its trash? Does the Border Patrol really need to be able to secretly blaze roads through national forests for the sake of our security? Will we be safer if the feds log more trees or spray more pesticides? Is any of this really going to prevent terrorist attacks on America?

Not likely, enviros say.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Ask Umbra on shower caps, computers, and junk mail

Prominent House Republican Calls for Completion of Border Fence

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee, called on the Bush administration today to complete a major fence project along the westernmost portion of the U.S.-Mexico border despite concerns that such a project could harm habitat for threatened and endangered birds. The California Coastal Commission last month denied the Department of Homeland Security's request to fill in canyons and build fences along 3.5 miles of border that abut the Pacific Ocean. The commission ruled that the security benefits of the $58 million fence project were outweighed by the environmental harm, a ruling Hunter called "reckless and dangerous" in a letter to DHS Secretary Tom Ridge. If overruled, the commission will likely sue, but even if it wins in federal court, President Bush has the power to disregard the decision.

Related Links:

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

A Penny Saved Is…

U.S. petrochemical plants pose security risks to millions of Americans and could be targets of terrorist attacks, but the government has no idea how secure the plants are from such attacks, according to an audit released last week by the General Accounting Office. The audit found that both U.S. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge want the chemical industry to be required to take stock of any vulnerabilities and ramp up security to address them; however, the two officials appear to be holding back on proposing new regulations mandating such changes because of industry threats of litigation. Last year, lobbyists killed a bill in the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), that would have required the chemical industry to beef up security measures.

Related Links:

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Time to Speak Out Against the Biggest Polluters

Why won’t Lisa Jackson/Nancy Sutley visit a mountaintop removal site?