Ral Grijalva of Arizona joins Center for Biological Diversity in call for environmental analysis that could delay any structure for several years
A US congressman and environmental group have filed the first litigation targeting Donald Trumps plan to build a 30 ft wall on the US-Mexico border.
The suit, brought by Congressman Ral M Grijalva of Arizona and the Center for Biological Diversity in the US district court for Arizona, seeks to require the government to undertake a comprehensive environmental effects analysis before beginning construction.
Such a review would probably take several years to complete, delaying indefinitely the fulfillment of one of Trumps signature campaign promises.
It will take a significant amount of time to thoroughly analyze[ the impacts of the wall ], and thats the level, supposed Randy Serraglio, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity.
What we learned about the border wall in the past 10 times is that its tremendously expensive, it doesnt project, and it does a tremendous amount of damage, Serraglio supposed. The people in the United States have the right to know what the damage is going to be, what its going to cost, and whether the government has going to be effective. Those are topics the Trump administration is not interested in answering.
The lawsuit invokes the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental review of major federal programs.
The Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, who the hell is named as defendants, declined to comment on pending litigation.
Trump began his presidential campaign in June 2015 with the promise of international borders wall to keep out Mexican immigrants, whom he characterized as offenders and rapists. In the first week of his administration, he signed an executive ordering calling for homeland security to begin immediate construction of the wall.
Homeland Security had now been begun a bidding process for contractors to build prototypes for the multibillion-dollar programme. Still, a lack of interest from major structure firms and a lack of funding from Congress may mean that the proposal never moves beyond a border wall beauty pageant expected to take place in San Diego this summer.
American environmental laws are some of the oldest and strongest in “the worlds”, and they should apply to the borderlands just as they do everywhere else, Grijalva, a Democrat, said in a statement. These constitutions exist to protect the health and well-being of our people, our wildlife, and the places they live. Trumps wall and his fanatical approaching to our southern perimeter will do little more than perpetuate human suffering while irrevocably shattering our public lands and the wildlife that depend on them.
Serraglio said the existing perimeter fencing had already caused substantial environmental damage, including flooding and corrosion.
In July 2008, a heavy thunderstorm rendered a damaging flash flood at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona after the border fencing avoided ocean from flowing away naturally.
On the same day, perimeter infrastructure was responsible for the deaths of two people and$ 8m in shatter to Nogales, Mexico, when ocean was trapped on the south back of the border.
Expanding construction on the border could worsen the flooding problems, in addition to threatening the survival of species such as jaguars, ocelots, and wolves, Serraglio supposed. Additional environmental degradation would probably be caused by the construction of new roads and infrastructure to enable construction of the wall in remote wilderness fields.
The Department of Homeland Security rendered an environmental impact proclamation about perimeter implementation programs in 2001.
Thursdays suit is not the first time Trumps plans have attracted legal challenges. Both of Trumps attempts to impose a travel censor on several Muslim-majority countries have been blocked by federal judges. On 5 April, 17 states sued to attempt to block Trumps efforts to rescind climate change regulations.
Whats happening now is not driven by any rational analysis of perimeter security needs, supposed Serraglio. Its driven by Donald Trumps ludicrous campaign rhetoric, and that is not a voice basis for public policy.
Read more: http :// www.theguardian.com/ us