The recent sale of Berks and Schuylkill county warehouses to the federal government has left Lehigh Valley officials wondering how local and state authorities could block or regulate the operation of federally owned detention centers.<\/p>\n
Legal options appear to be limited, but Gov. Josh Shapiro is asserting the state\u2019s environmental review powers, and local officials are exploring their regulatory roles as opposition to detention center expansion grows.<\/p>\n
After the $87.4 million sale of a 527,000-square-foot warehouse in Upper Bern Township<\/a> and the $119 million sale of a 1.3 million-square-foot former warehouse in Tremont Township<\/a> to the federal government, Lehigh Valley residents and politicians are closely monitoring Berks and Schuylkill counties to see how local and state officials respond.<\/p>\n It remains unclear what options remain after property sales are final, but officials have raised concerns, including questioning whether water and sewage infrastructure at the rural sites can handle a large influx of detainees and security staff.<\/p>\n The Shapiro administration sent a detailed letter to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security<\/a> outlining how the proposed detention centers in Berks and Schuylkill counties would \u201cviolate legal requirements applicable to public drinking water, sewage and water pollution,\u201d adding that \u201cstate authorities will not issue required permits that would violate these legal requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n If similar proposed warehouse conversions were to expand into the Lehigh County Authority\u2019s service territory, staff know they too could be called upon to help determine whether detention center operations will put undue pressure on local resources.<\/p>\n \u201cLCA\u2019s decision to serve any new development, including a change in use of an existing customer, is based on an engineering review of our system\u2019s capacity to supply the water and sewer services requested,\u201d LCA CEO Liesel Gross said in an email. \u201cThe specific uses that are allowed in any community are decisions that must be made at the municipal level after careful consideration and community dialogue.\u201d<\/p>\n As Upper Bern Township has no municipal water system, state authorities there approved construction of an on-site water well to serve a limited number of warehouse employees, but further review is needed to authorize the well\u2019s operation, the Shapiro administration\u2019s letter states.<\/p>\n Federal government proposals to house up to 1,500 people at the now-vacant site would require more than 10 times the permitted pumping rate, the letter adds.<\/p>\n In Schuylkill County, installing a 7,500-person detention center in Tremont Township would triple the number of public water users and create an unreasonable demand on an already drought-burdened system, the Shapiro administration\u2019s letter states.<\/p>\n Drought conditions in December and January forced the Schuylkill County Municipal Authority to seek emergency state permits to bulk haul drinking water, the letter adds, noting that the authority will soon complete a years-long effort to add a water source to its system and is unlikely to find another readily available additional source.<\/p>\n The letter also details concerns about sewage capacity at the Berks and Schuylkill county wastewater treatment plants that would serve the proposed detention centers, as well as outlining the limits of the emergency service departments that provide fire and police services to the rural sites targeted for warehouse conversions.<\/p>\n Safely converting a warehouse to a detention center would also mean allowing the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry to ensure compliance with international building codes, the letter states.<\/p>\n Federal law requires the immigration enforcement agency to adhere to environmental regulations, the letter argues, stating that the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act are federal laws that make government agencies responsible for meeting federal, state and local requirements regarding safe drinking water and the control of water pollution.<\/p>\n The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection would have to review the federal government\u2019s plans to draw from public water systems, develop water sources or bulk haul water, the letter states. DEP officials deferred comment to the governor\u2019s office.<\/p>\n Read the full letter from the Shapiro administration to DHS:<\/p>\n Although Pennsylvania officials, including U.S. Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, say they are still awaiting answers from DHS<\/a>, New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte\u2019s office published an agency memo it received titled \u201cICE Detention Reengineering Initiative<\/a>\u201d that claims the federal government has already addressed environmental concerns with its engineering reviews of the proposed new detention center sites.<\/p>\n ICE has conducted impact studies in line with the National Environmental Policy Act and has determined that engineering solutions exist to any current deficiencies in electricity, water and sewage capacity, the memo states.<\/p>\n In contradiction to Pennsylvania officials\u2019 findings, the ICE memo states that selected facilities have sufficient water supply. The memo does acknowledge that larger proposed detention facilities will need waste water processing upgrades and states that agency engineers will engage local water authorities to plan infrastructure expansions.<\/p>\n \u201cOur engineers believe the proposed solutions listed above, and the contingencies, will provide no adverse effect on the community and surrounding properties for each facility identified,\u201d the memo states.<\/p>\n While Shapiro\u2019s office has focused on state powers to enforce environmental regulations, further municipal or county regulatory authority could hinge on whether the federal government chooses to own and operate its new detention centers or whether it employs private companies.<\/p>\n In early February, Howard County revoked the building permit for a detention center in Elkridge, Maryland<\/a>, citing state law that mandates public notice and hearing requirements for privately owned detention facilities.<\/p>\n Public pressure as strategy<\/p>\n Some elected officials who acknowledge their post-sale legal options are limited believe public pressure campaigns can restrict the expansion of detention centers.<\/p>\n Lehigh County Executive Josh Siegel rallied support from county commissioners, township officials and school board members to endorse a letter asking industrial property owners not to sell to ICE<\/a>.<\/p>\n Northampton County Executive Tara Zrinski also released a letter discouraging industrial property owners from selling to the federal government. Her letter was not endorsed by other elected officials<\/a>.<\/p>\n Industrial property owners value their long-term relationships with municipal authorities, and elected officials can highlight the disgust their constituents feel regarding inhumane detention center conditions to discourage owners from selling to the federal government, Siegel said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe bully pulpit is probably the most important thing that we can really use,\u201d Siegel said.<\/p>\n Oklahoma City provides one clear-cut example of Siegel\u2019s strategy working.<\/p>\n After the U.S. Department of Homeland Security notified the Oklahoma City planning department of its intention to convert warehouse property into a \u201cprocessing center\u201d for ICE, city officials pushed back, requesting that federal officials participate in a public approval process involving resident input.<\/p>\n The city\u2019s statement<\/a>, published Jan. 20, acknowledged its limited legal authority, noting that \u201cthe Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution has been construed to exempt the federal government from local land use and building code regulations\u201d and that \u201cfederal law explicitly exempts detention centers from local zoning regulations.\u201d<\/p>\n