Vermonters will have another chance to comment on a controversial federal proposal to line the northern border with video surveillance cameras.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection will reopen the public comment period Sunday, after pressure from Vermont’s congressional delegation and broad concerns about privacy rights and a lack of local input.
The new comment period will end June 17, according to the agency, about three months beyond the original deadline.
In a statement Friday, U.S. Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and U.S. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said they were pleased by the decision.
“These potential impacts need to be fully vetted before any such plans move forward, and this 60-day extension will afford Vermonters their right to be heard on this critical matter,” the three said in a joint statement.
The federal proposal, announced in February, calls for eight camera sites in Vermont and two in New York.
Towers equipped with video cameras would be installed in Derby, Franklin, Richford and Troy. Antennae bearing the equipment would be added to existing buildings in the village of Derby Line and in Highgate.
The highest tower, in New York, would reach 180 feet, while towers in Vermont would reach a maximum of 120 feet.
Border officials have said the surveillance systems would allow them to better monitor illegal crossings and smuggling along the U.S.-Canada boundary, especially in more remote areas.
But residents, local leaders and Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan have raised concerns that the cameras would compromise the privacy rights of people living under their watch. Some have questioned whether the presence of the towers would lower property values. And many have expressed the feeling that federal officials made little effort to talk to communities about the plan.
“Do we really think D.C.’s got the best interests of the community of Derby Line in mind when they’re making some of these decisions?” Welch asked at a press conference this month, saying federal officials shouldn’t operate in a vacuum.
State Rep. Brian Smith, R-Derby, said Friday he was pleased with the new comment window.
“I don’t think the feds did give people enough warning that that was their plan,” said Smith, who, as a member of the Derby Selectboard, brought up the privacy concern.
Smith said federal officials were not required to extend the deadline, calling the decision a welcome courtesy.
After the press conference in Derby earlier this month, Smith and other officials were invited to a private meeting by area Border Patrol agents, he said. The agents “indicated that they will be more transparent with the local governments,” he said.
Keith Beadle, a Derby Line Village trustee, believes residents will be glad to learn of the extension — “the main reason being that nobody knew anything about it until the period was just about over.”
Beadle said he learned about the plan from news reports, counter to the claim by federal officials that they had touched base with local governments.
“No such thing happened,” he said. “And here we were at the end of the comment period.”
Despite the time extension for comments, Beadle remains wary about whether the public’s voice will make a difference.
“When push comes to shove, who actually has the authority to stop this?” he asked.
Public comments can be submitted to an email or physical address listed on the project page.
