Feds can waive environmental rules but not us

In the closing days of last year, a federal judge did something unusual by rejecting the efforts of two groups to have U.S. environmental laws enforced.

The ruling involved a section of border fencing in Cochise County being built by the Department of Homeland Security. Two environmental groups, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club, sued to stop the fence along the southern edge of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. They claimed it violated the Endangered Species Act and 19 other federal laws.

In the end, the federal judge in the case shrugged her shoulders and said it was OK for the federal government to violate its own laws because Congress had given the Department of Homeland Security permission to do so in a 2005 law when constructing border barriers.

Congress, as part of the 2005 Real ID Act, said the department could waive various legal hindrances to speedy construction of border barriers. That is what was done in this instance, as well as others, including fencing in our region along the Barry M. Goldwater Bombing Range.

The environmental groups had argued that the Cochise County waiver amounted to a partial repeal of the laws protecting the environment and that the 2005 exemption was unconstitutional.

The judge's interpretation was interesting. She decided the exception for border barriers and roads was narrow and therefore did not really amount to a partial repeal, as claimed. In other words, it is OK to violate a little bit of the law, as long as Congress says it is OK.

This case shows the hypocrisy of our government leaders. They are perfectly fine with imposing overzealous environmental restrictions on private individuals and on private property owners, but refuse to follow the rules when it applies to their own interests.

Some will claim this is a national security issue and it therefore trumps environmental concerns about the destruction of wildlife and the environment. We agree, but making that decision also establishes the fact that there can be other interests that are more important than environmental concerns.

In our view, this includes individual rights and property rights. Is someone who loses their livelihood or the ability to make full use of their property due to environmental laws of less importance that border fences? Of course not.

Yet, that is exactly what Congress, and the federal judge supporting the 2005 law, are saying. Our lawmakers placate the environmentalists by passing laws which take away our innate rights, but refuse to accept the same limitations on the government. It is a farce.