CONTAINER Act: Border States Can Bypass Feds to Erect Temporary Border Structures

The CONTAINER Act lets Border States—those touching Canada or Mexico—put up temporary structures on federal land along the border without getting the usual federal permits. Think of it as cutting through red tape to get things like barriers or surveillance tech in place faster.

Fast-Track Border Security

This bill is all about speeding up how border states can respond to security concerns. Instead of going through a lengthy federal approval process, states just need to give a 45-day heads-up to the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture (depending on who manages the land). The law (Section 2(b)) specifically waives the need for "special use authorization," which is usually required for any kind of development on federal lands.

For example, if Arizona wants to quickly put up temporary barriers in a known smuggling corridor that crosses National Forest land, they wouldn't have to wait for the Forest Service's typical permit process. They'd just notify the Secretary of Agriculture and, 45 days later, could start construction.

How Long is 'Temporary'?

These structures can stay up for a year initially. After that, states can request 90-day extensions. Here's the kicker: extensions must be approved if U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) says the border isn't under "operational control." (Section 2(c)). "Operational control", as defined by the old Secure Fence Act of 2006, means stopping all illegal entries – a pretty high bar.

So, a Texas rancher bordering a national park might see temporary structures become semi-permanent if CBP consistently reports that the border isn't fully secured. This could mean ongoing construction, noise, and changes to the landscape, even on protected federal land.

The Bigger Picture: Feds vs. States

This bill touches on the constant push-and-pull between federal authority and states' rights, especially on border issues. By giving states more power to act on federal land, it could lead to faster responses to security threats. But, there are also some real questions to ask.

For example, what counts as a "temporary structure"? The bill doesn't define this, leaving it open to interpretation. Could a state put up something substantial, claiming it's "temporary," and then keep getting extensions? Also, while this aims to boost border security, there's a potential for environmental impact. Building on federal lands, even temporarily, could disrupt wildlife and ecosystems. This is especially true as the bill covers land managed by agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service (Section 2(a)), which are specifically tasked with conservation.

It could also lead to some interesting situations. If a state like California, with different border priorities than the federal government, decides to use this law, what conflicts might arise? And how will federal agencies, like the Bureau of Land Management, balance their land management duties with these new state-driven security measures?

Ultimately, the CONTAINER Act is a fast track for border states, but it raises some serious questions about the long-term effects on federal lands and the balance of power between states and the federal government.