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 lawsuit 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 exhaustively analyze[ the impacts of the wall ], and thats the phase, mentioned 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 work, and it does a tremendous amount of damage, Serraglio mentioned. 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 subjects 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 called as defendants, declined to comment on pending litigation.
Trump began his presidential campaign in June 2015 with the promise of a border 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 has since begun a bidding process for contractors to construct 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 laws exist to protect the health and well-being of our people, our wildlife, and the places they live. Trumps wall and his fanatical approach to our southern borderline will do little more than perpetuate human suffering while irrevocably shattering our public grounds and the wildlife that depend on them.
Serraglio said the existing borderline fence have really caused substantial environmental damage, including flooding and corrosion.
In July 2008, a heavy thunderstorm produced a damaging flash flood at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona after the border fence prevented ocean from flowing away naturally.
On the same day, borderline infrastructure was responsible for the deaths of two people and$ 8m in shatter to Nogales, Mexico, when ocean was trapped on countries of the south side of the border.
Expanding construction on the border could exasperate the flooding questions, in addition to threatening the survival of species such as jaguars, ocelots, and wolves, Serraglio mentioned. 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 produced an environmental impact proclamation about borderline enforcement the programmes in 2001.
Thursdays suit is not the first time Trumps policies have attracted legal challenges. Both of Trumps attempts to impose a traveling ban on several Muslim-majority countries have been blocked by federal magistrates. 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 borderline security requirements, mentioned Serraglio. Its driven by Donald Trumps ridiculous campaign rhetoric, and that is not a clang basis for public policy.
Read more: http :// www.theguardian.com/ us