Homeland Security V. Environmental Conservation: Searching for Balance Along the Arizona-Mexico Border

Abstract

In Southern Arizona, national security and environmental conservation are inextricably intertwined. The Arizona borderlands are home to thousands of acres of federally protected lands and fragile ecosystems. There are also more flora and fauna listed under the Endangered Species Act within these lands than any other region of the continental United States. Aside from the ecological significance of the southwest borderlands, Southern Arizona is also a major drug trafficking and illegal immigration corridor from Mexico. These illegal crossers leave behind thousands of pounds of trash, trample vegetation and occasionally start accidental wildfires. The Border Patrol combats this illegal activity by erecting walls and camera towers, cutting new access roads, burying detection equipment beneath the ground, and driving vehicles off-road. The unintended consequences of border security operations upon the environment are of no small significance either. Border fencing severs wildlife migration patterns, new patrol roads disrupt desert hydrology, and off-road driving creates dustbowl conditions. In March 2015, Senator John McCain introduced the Arizona Borderlands Protection and Preservation Act. McCain argues that Border Patrol agents must get permission to enter some federal lands, which hampers border security. McCain’s bill would grant Border Patrol agents unfettered access to most federal lands in Southwestern Arizona along the international border, including National Parks and wildlife refuges. Even without McCain’s proposed legislation, the Secretary of the *621 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already waived thirty-seven environmental protection laws--ranging from the Endangered Species Act to the Wilderness Act--to strengthen security along the border. Meanwhile, environmentalists contend that this security-driven waiver authority undermines more than forty years of work to build important conservation laws and leaves citizens with no effective means to protest. Herein lies the dilemma: How can policy makers balance the preservation of our nation’s natural treasures with the need to secure our southern border? Even though security and conservation are not mutually exclusive, politicians often frame border security in all-or nothing terms, demanding nothing less than a completely sealed border. But framing the issue in this manner is unhelpful because border security will always be imperfect. As a former Border Patrol agent and park ranger, the author argues there is no such thing as a completely secure border--only a well-managed one. Destroying fragile federal lands in the name of sealing the border is self-defeating. Likewise, demands for an end to all environmental damage along a chaotic border are unrealistic. What we can aim for is a relatively stable and low-risk border while mitigating harm done to the environment. Even though border security and land-management agencies appear to generally agree with this philosophy, many of the nation’s decision-makers with the power to transform the border do not frame the issue with the nuance it deserves.