Supervisors: Border fence overrides environmental concerns
SAN DIEGO ---- After a sometimes testy debate, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors gave the federal government its blessing Tuesday to ignore any and all environmental laws to finish building a "national security" border fence through sensitive lands along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The board's majority roundly rejected Supervisor Greg Cox's request to send federal officials a letter supporting building the "triple fence" ---- three fences separated by roads ---- as long as they followed environmental laws and fixed any environmental harm they caused.
Instead, the board voted 4-1 to draft a letter that specifically supports a bill, House Resolution 418, that would allow the director of Homeland Security to waive all state and federal environmental laws to build the fence.
Cox said the county, the city of San Diego, the state and federal governments and the Mexican government have spent nearly $600 million to protect the sensitive ecology of the Tijuana River Estuary, where the last portions of the fence would be built. He said the federal government should not be allowed to throw environmental regulations out the window when building the fence there.
"I support the triple fence, but we ought to abide by our own laws ... as it's built," he said. "We don't need to waive the National Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or any other federal laws."
But other supervisors disagreed.
"I would suggest that when laws impede our national security efforts, then it is important to waive those laws," Supervisor Dianne Jacob said.
HR 418 was recently approved by the House of Representatives, and is being considered in the Senate. U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, added the portion known as section 102 that would allow waiving environmental laws after the California Coastal Commission rejected the U.S. Border Patrol's plans to complete the wall in 2003.>
The Border Patrol plan promised to repair environmental harm by replanting slopes that were cut and filled to build the fence; abandon and replant more than 100 miles of roads now used by the Border Patrol; and restore and enhance sensitive habitats along the Tijuana River.
But the coastal commission ruled the plan would do more harm than necessary to areas that are refuges to more than 370 species of birds and endangered habitat.
The federal government, meanwhile, began building the fence in San Diego County in 1993 and has finished all but 3 1/2 miles running through county and state land in the Tijuana Estuary.
U.S. Border Patrol officials told supervisors Tuesday that the unfinished wall was a national security risk that could allow terrorists to infiltrate the United States.
Cox said he was happy with the Border Patrol's promises to repair the environmental harm.
But he said HR 418 could allow the government ---- and the Border Patrol ---- to ignore those promises.
Cox argued that if the United States could put men on the moon, it could certainly build the security fence without breaking its own environmental laws.
Some public speakers agreed.
"Section 102 (of the bill) would undermine our democracy by exempting this project for, frankly, no good reason, from all the (environmental) rules that we hold sacrosanct," said Laura Hunter, spokeswoman for the nonprofit Environmental Health Coalition.
But Cox and Hunter's objections were drowned out by other supervisors.
"I was just going to stay out of this," Supervisor Bill Horn said. "But after listening to some of these speakers, I don't think they realize that a state of war exists around the globe with terrorists. And we have an open border and we cannot stop the influx who come through here.
"Whether they want to work in our groves or build furniture ---- whatever," Horn said, adding that he thought the unfinished fence made the United States vulnerable to terrorism.
"The environment is important, but not as important as the lives of Americans," he said.
At one point in Tuesday's debate, Jacob said the issue was simple: Did the board support the Border Patrol, or did it "want to throw up road blocks?"
"Well, I'm supporting the Border Patrol today," Jacob said defiantly.
Cox replied, "Well, I am, too."
After the meeting, Cox said he was disappointed in the board's decision. He reiterated that he believed the triple fence should be built, but that the Border Patrol should follow environmental laws.
"The brilliance of the United States is that we do have laws, and that everybody abides by them ---- including the federal government," Cox said.