Leaders blame lost business deals on border fence

November 2, 2009
KGBT Channel 4 news
by Rafael Carranza

BROWNSVILLE -- The controversy over the erection of a border fence continues with business groups saying it has a negative impact, while Border Patrol insists it is vital for security.

Border Patrol said the fence is near completion in the Rio Grande Valley. So far, 45 miles out of the planned 52.12 miles have been completed.

However, city and economic development groups said the wall is breaking some business deals for the area.

"This wall killed a multi million dollar development, residential development and commercial development because the land is now inside the wall which makes it worthless," said Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada.

He added that the fence goes “against the principles established by NAFTA.”

One Brownsville resident with the Brownsville Economic Development Council is also blaming the face for the loss of another multi-million dollar project.

"It was a project in the retail sector, they were planning to build some stores along the river levee, incorporate the river with that one project," Salinas said.

The Brownsville business expert said the retail project would have been substantial for the city.

He was unable to provide numbers, but he said it was comparable to a mall.

"It could be several million dollars in sales tax revenue that the City of Brownsville will not be getting, pretty much because of the border wall," he said.

But the Border Patrol said the fence is extremely important for the region's safety.

Regional Border Patrol Spokesman Juan Lopez said the fence is already bringing benefits.

He said Border Patrol agents are already seeing a 21 percent decrease in apprehensions so far, compared to this same time last year.

Meanwhile, Salinas said the business in the region will adapt to the fence.

"We're just going to have to learn to live with this wall that we have here on the border," he said.

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=371266

Budget, border fence keep S. Texas preserve closed

Associated Press / Houston Chronicle
October 23, 2009

BROWNSVILLE, Texas — A south Texas nature preserve won't reopen as scheduled this fall after it was left in limbo for more than a year by plans to build a border fence.

The Sabal Palm Audubon Center has been a popular destination with bird watchers and home to a rare native stand of Sabal palms along the Rio Grande. The Brownsville Herald reports Friday that the center will remain closed at least through the end of the year.

The border fence, which isolates the preserve between the river and the fence, continues to create uncertainty. However, Audubon Texas Executive Director Bob Benson says the more immediate problem is a lack of funding.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6682764.html

Border fence divides more than nations, landowner says

Corpus Christi Caller-Times
October 10, 2009
by David Sikes

BROWNSVILLE — Ray Loop and his family have a rural Brownsville address. But the family also lives on the Mexico side of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Tactical Infrastructure project.

Translation: They live south of the infamous Border Fence. The Loop homestead is among hundreds of properties suffering the misfortune of being between a massive 18-foot steel wall and the Rio Grande.

More than 400 Texans have had land condemned by the Feds for the wall’s right of way. The U.S. government has erected about 70 miles of fence in the Rio Grande Valley alone. But that’s not half the problem, Loop said.

In some areas this wall is a mile or two from the river, effectively enclosing large tracts of land and greatly reducing their values. Why not build it closer to the river? An international treaty prohibits a wall of this magnitude from following the exact path of the Rio Grande because the barrier might push floodwaters into Mexico. Along certain stretches of the border, though, there is no fence for miles. These gaps are difficult to explain, but speculation is that influential landowners along the border got special exemptions and no fence.

Homeland Security also has enjoyed special legal exemptions and regulatory waivers from such high federal authorities as the Environmental Protection Agency and others.

Loop said real estate inside the wall is now difficult to insure because of uncertainty, and that many financial institutions refuse to accept these properties as collateral for loans.
For the past 17 months the Loop family, who has farmed this land for three generations, has been fighting a legal battle to address a variety of concerns.

Essentially they’re fighting to include favorable fine print written into a pending agreement with Homeland Security. Details such as access to their land sit high on the Loops’ list of fine-print items.

The fence, which actually is a wall of hollow steel pipes concreted six feet into the ground and then filled with additional concrete, will be fitted with gates. Right now, the location of these gates are represented as gaps in the wall.

And nobody in government can tell the Loops whether their gate will be electronic or padlocked. If the gate is not electronic, then Loop’s little girl won’t be able to open it when she walks to the school bus stop. It’d be too heavy.

If the gate is operated by an electronic keypad, then should Loop tell his daughter the code? Loop wonders how valuable these gate codes will be to drug smugglers and what these ruthless criminals might do to gain the number sequences.

Loop can’t even get the government to tell him whether he’ll have 24-hour access to his home and crop fields. Or whether a U.S. Border Patrol agent must be present when the gates are opened. He wants such details written into the agreement.

Loop farms about 2,000 acres of some high-tech and diverse produce that sometimes must be harvested at night. It’s all behind the gate.

What about his workers? Will they have unlimited access to the farm? Or must everyone undergo extensive background checks? Will the Feds limit the number of folks with access privileges?

The government also hasn’t told Loop whether his dove hunting operation will be allowed to continue or what security level might trigger the prohibition of guns behind the wall.

Other concerns include fire safety. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also has concerns about wildfires and the safety of firefighters and wildlife caught behind the fence. But on a personal level, Loop wonders whether local firefighters and other emergency crews will get through the gate in time to save his burning home or tend to his family’s health.

And not every landowner within the wall has an access gate. In some cases, adjacent property owners will be forced to borrow a neighbor’s gate to access their own land.

What a mess.

http://www.caller.com/news/2009/oct/10/border-fence-divides-more-than-nations-landowner/

Unlawful Border Entry Prevention Act calls for 350 more miles of barriers

Brownsville Herald
July 22, 2009
by Laura Martinez

While construction on the border fence in Cameron County is at a standstill because of pending lawsuits, at least one local landowner is surprised by a California congressman’s introduction of legislation that calls for more fencing construction along the United States-Mexico border.

The bill, known as the Unlawful Border Entry Prevention Act and introduced Wednesday by U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, gives Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano discretionary authority to build 350 miles of additional reinforced fencing where she deems is necessary. More than 650 miles of fence have already been approved along the U.S.-Mexico border.

If approved the legislation would amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

The location of the proposed fencing would be up to Napolitano, said Joe Kaspar, spokesman for Hunter. He added the DHS would also have the option to decide if it would be second-layer fencing or an additional 350-miles of fence.

Kasper said the legislation has bipartisan support.

Co-sponsoring the legislation are Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, Bart Stupak, D-Mich., Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., Ed Royce, R-Calif. and Brian Bilbray, R-Calif.

"How ridiculous" this additional fence legislation is, said Cameron County landowner Pamela Taylor, whose home on Nogales Road will be affected by the border fence that has already been authorized for construction.

"If the first fence didn’t work what makes him (Hunter) think two fences are going to work?" asked Taylor.

Taylor wonders how much money is being spent on the initial fence and where funding would come from for additional fencing should the legislation be approved.

"There are so many things we need to put the money into," such as health care, Taylor, 80, said. "We worry too much about the (activities in) Mexico. We need to worry about the United States."

Hunter cites the ongoing border violence and illegal drug and terrorist activity for his sponsoring of the legislation. The current fencing mandate does not provide the DHS with the authority to construct additional fencing, after Dec. 31, 2009, the bill states.

"As the last few remaining miles of border infrastructure are completed and we work to strengthen our overall security presence on the Southwest border, it is important that DHS continue to receive and retain the necessary tools to do its job," Hunter said in a press release. "This includes the authority to gain immediate and operational control of the border through the construction of additional infrastructure."

Hunter said enforcement along the border has been strengthened because of the border fence and has allowed the U.S. Border Patrol "to refocus its efforts as needed. Simply put, fencing works."

U.S. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, said he plans to monitor the bill closely, as it makes it way through the Committee of Jurisdiction, which will review the bill.

"The process for a bill becoming law is long and uncertain; nonetheless, those of us who represent congressional districts along the U.S.-Mexico border know firsthand we don’t need 350 additional miles of fencing," Ortiz said in a prepared statement. "I strongly stand against this bill, and should the bill make it to the House floor, I plan on voting against it."

The current fence’s construction is part of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which is part of the government’s comprehensive immigration reform that includes securing the nation’s border. DHS is overseeing the fence’s construction.

In Cameron County, 34.8 miles of fencing is planned. While some portions of fencing are in place on South Oklahoma Road, some are pending because of ongoing lawsuits. The lawsuits are scheduled to be addressed July 31, before U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen.

Additional fencing in the county is visible along Military Highway, also known as Highway 281. Much of the fencing in this area was constructed earlier this year.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/border-100211-entry-calls.html

Valley Woman Uses Words To Battle Border Wall

KVEO Channel 5
July 2, 2009
by Cristina Rendon

BROWNSVILLE - One woman is hoping a popular slogan can be turned into a message for others.

Pamela Taylor has adopted the state slogan for fighting litter on highways, "Don't Mess With Texas" to forward her battle.

She's had a big sign built, and staked it outside her home near Monsees and Old Nogales Road.

"These signs are like a silent war for my family and myself, because we know we're going outside of the fence." says Taylor.

The sign says "Please don't mess with Texas, with an unecessary border fence". She hopes it sends a message to the contractors putting up the steel poles.

Taylor says she will keep the sign up, even when her home is on the other side of the 18 foot tall fence.

http://www.krgv.com/content/news/story/Valley-Woman-Uses-Words-To-Battle-Border-Wall/h0BPnalkWE6l8jcScizJSg.cspx

Both sides of the fence

Victoria Advocate
June 28, 2009
Gabe Semenza

Eloisa Tamez is the first Texan who refused to sign federal paperwork that would allow U.S. Homeland Security to build a border fence in her backyard.

As hundreds of other Texas landowners like her soon learned, citizen defiance rarely trumps eminent domain.

Now, as contractors erect the last portions of U.S. border fence in the Rio Grande Valley, Tamez speaks out again. The government took the 74-year-old's land, she said, but federal authorities will never silence her voice.

Her story illustrates the emotional damage suffered when a steel border fence splits an ancient family plot in two.

Environmentalists, municipal and business leaders, each with their own concerns, cry out, too.

While critics voice deep-rooted concerns, U.S. Border Patrol agents from San Diego to Brownsville say the fence works. All along the Southwest border, it does its job, they say.

In the slippery fight to secure this country's borders, one thing is certain: Never in U.S. history has a wall on home soil divided so many people.

PARTIAL INCARCERATION?

Tamez pointed to where she once picked tomatoes as a child. Each nook holds a memory. She lives where her ancestors, her father, farmed the land.

Her family has owned this land, 15 miles west of Brownsville, for 246 years. The king of Spain granted the family 12,000 flat, grassy acres in 1763.

Steadily, her family lost the soil to the Mexican War of Independence, the U.S. annexation of Texas and the Great Depression.

In 1936, the United States and Mexico signed a treaty and formed the International Boundary and Water Commission. Federal contractors then built a levee, a dirt mountain that winds just north of the low-lying river delta to keep floodwater from devouring U.S. homes and businesses.

The levee is only 100 yards south of her home.

The boundary water treaty forbids construction on U.S. soil south of the levee. New structures here could deflect floodwater into Mexico. So it had to be, by law, that contractors built the border fence into, on top of or north of the levee.

The 20-foot-tall border fence is the first thing Tamez now sees when she steps outside. The steel barrier splits in two the last three acres of her family's original 12,000-acre tract.

"Pretty, isn't it," she said, smirking. "Everybody's land was split by the levee. What happened then is similar to what happened now."

A handful of Valley homes and an estimated 36,000 acres, most of which is privately owned, rests south of the border wall.

To reach the portion of her land blocked by the wall, Tamez must walk 3,200 feet west, or 2,200 feet east, along a dirt federal right-of-way to one of two pedestrian gates. Farmers who move cattle take similar routes.

Tamez lives in El Calaboz. The Spanish word means "jail."

"We have partial incarceration, don't we?" Tamez said.

BULLDOZING RIGHTS, LAWS

Congress ordered the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2006 to secure one-third of the country's 2,000-mile border with Mexico. The design called for 370 miles of pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers.

Contractors will finish the last 30-mile stretch in the Rio Grande Valley by year's end.

Before the first wall sections went up, talk about its impact alarmed Tamez and others.

"When you think about the border, you're talking about the river. But I'm a mile from the river. I didn't think it would affect me," Tamez said.

In August 2007, a U.S. Border Patrol agent told Tamez her land was in the path of the proposed wall. She needed to sign a release form so engineers could survey her land.

Landowners from Brownsville to Granejo received similar calls. In Hidalgo and Cameron counties, two of the country's poorest and most uneducated counties, many residents signed release forms out of fear.

Tamez, though, has a PhD. The widow is an associate professor of nursing at the University of Texas at Brownsville. She couldn't reason away the fear, despite her education.

"My whole body was shaking. Yes, this wall was going to happen right in my backyard," she said.

Despite her fears, she refused to sign the paperwork. Her courage prompted confidence in many others. Three-hundred Texans declined to sign the federal paperwork.

Corinna Spencer-Scheurich is a lawyer with the South Texas Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit group that represents a number of Valley landowners who can't afford hefty legal defenses. She represents Tamez.

"In the beginning, a lot of people were scared," the lawyer said. "It's already uneasy to live in an area that's so militarized."

In 2008, Tamez was the first to file a class-action lawsuit - Tamez and Benito Garcia vs. Michael Chertoff - against the federal government in protection of her land. She alleged federal agencies wrongfully tried to take her land and infringed on her civil rights.

She held off border fence construction until April 16, just a few months ago. On a Friday, a federal judge in Brownsville condemned her land. By Monday, the fence went up next door and by Tuesday, the steel split her plot.

"They basically bulldozed every right they could," Spencer-Scheurich said. "A lot of people didn't want to rock the boat. Eloisa Tamez stood up and said, 'This isn't right. This is important to me.' "

DAMAGING WILDLIFE?

Infringed property rights aren't the only motivation for opposing the border wall. Activists, environmentalists and business leaders stand against the wall for various other reasons.

Scott Nicol said the wall's $49 billion cost, ineffectiveness and unintended consequences result in an historic debacle. The 39-year-old South Texas College professor founded No Border Wall Coalition to fight construction in the Valley.

"It's irrational. It just smacks of racism," Nicol said. "Somehow, we're scared of Mexico. On a fundamental level, the wall offends me."

For the Department of Homeland Security to build the wall, it needed legislation. Congress passed the Real ID Act in 2005. The act gave authority to waive 36 federal laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, to build the wall in record time.

"It's insane to think immigration violations are more important than the basic rule of law in the United States," Nicol said. "They're saying we'll set aside all the rules of law to build this thing. It's un-American to do that."

Nicol toured the World Birding Center, located at the Old Hidalgo Pump House just south of McAllen. The border fence splits this eco-tourist destination in half, blocking visitors from enjoying once-accessible nature trails, and wildlife from roaming easily to the river.

Nicol walked up the levee, ran his hands across the rusty steel pickets, and said the fence only pushes immigrants into harsher terrains.

Since construction of the wall began, more than 5,000 migrant bodies were found in the desert, federal records indicate.

Because the fence bisects several national wildlife refuges, animals might face similar fates.

Nancy Brown is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife expert. She said endangered and other animals can no longer easily roam from one side of the river to the other. Weaker animals run into a fence when fleeing predators, and migratory birds lost thousands of acres of brush, she said.

"The wall is doing tremendous damage to the wildlife refuges, which are supposed to be linked by the Rio Grande," Brown said. "They just emasculated that property. It's all damaging to wildlife."

DAMAGING ECONOMIES?

Eco-tourism such as bird watching is big business in the Valley. The industry generates $125 million a year and helps boost much of the impoverished region.

Sixty percent of McAllen's retail sales go to Mexican nationals. Valley business leaders fear the wall acts as a "Keep Out" sign to international customers and vacationers.

Chad Foster is mayor of Eagle Pass. He's also the chairman of the Texas Border Coalition, a group of judges, politicians and business leaders who oppose the fence.

"We support border security. We advocated the removing of cherizo cane, hiding spots on the banks. We supported technology, light towers and more Border Patrol agents," Foster said.

The federal government sued his city as it did Tamez to build the wall. Like most who lost their fight with the government, Foster said politicians far away in Washington, D.C., made decisions here without fully realizing the realities on the border.

"One size does not fit all. Of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico, Texas enjoys 1,250 miles. We have a very defined border, the river," he said. "In Arizona, where there is no definitive border, I can see where you might need to establish a physical border. Building a fence sounds good to Middle America, but it will only slow immigrants."

U.S. Border Patrol estimates the fence slows illegal immigrants between four and six minutes.

John McClung calls the fence, then, a costly speed bump. The president of the Texas Produce Association, which represents citrus growers, said the wall is ineffective.

"It was hopeless from the beginning," he said.

From the view at his home near the Santa Anna Wildlife Refuge, which is split by the wall, he said the design is too porous. Because the border wall is and will be erected in Texas in various spans - a mile stretch here, four miles there - the gaps are glaring holes in a $12 million-per-mile blunder, he said.

"The wall all along was a political statement in which deadbeat ideologues in D.C. could go back to their constituents and say, 'Look at what we did.' A real monument to idiocy," he said. "It's a total federal boondoggle."

GIVE BORDER PATROL A FIGHTING CHANCE

Not everyone in the Valley opposes the border fence.

In Granejo, a 500-member community in which most residents are related, the border wall begins at one end of town and stops at the other. While most in this tight-knit, one-road town oppose the wall, dozens didn't. Just west of McAllen, Granejo was a hotbed for illegal drug and human smuggling.

"Things changed. There were a lot of robberies here in Granejo," said Manuel Olivarez, 65. "Little kids were coming from Mexico and they were robbing us during noontime. Since that wall was built, it stopped the robberies. It stopped crime."

Mario Olivarez, a 54-year-old who lives near his brother, agrees.

"It has curbed the crossing of illegal immigrants through my land. At times, there'd be 15 or 20 people hiding back there," he said. "The only option they have is to go around us. It's made it more peaceful at night around here."

Chris Simcox, founder and former president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said the wall works. His group patrols the Southwest border to spot illegal immigration.

In Arizona, he said, the wall forged a noticeable dip in the number of illegal crossings.

"It gives Border Patrol a fighting chance," Simcox said. "When it comes to sovereignty and safety, the environmental issues pale in comparison to the need for the wall."

THREE-PRONGED ATTACK

From Brownsville to San Diego, U.S. Border Patrol agents say the wall works. Claude Knighton, a spokesman for U.S. Homeland Security, notes the wall is just one component of the Secure Border Act.

"We wanted to get effective control of the border, to reduce illegal immigration," Knighton said. "That means having the right mix of personnel, technology and infrastructure. We know the fence won't stop anyone. It's there to slow."

As part of the three-pronged initiative, the number of Southwest Border Patrol agents increased from 13,297 in 2007 to 15,422 in 2008, a 16 percent spike.

Remote and mobile surveillance systems, in-ground sensors, aerial technologies, retrofitted vehicles and new patrol roads also help agents to catch illegal immigrants, who now have a smaller, more scanned playing field in which to cross, he said.

"Apprehensions are down from 2005. We think we can attribute that to the systems," Knighton said.

Along the Southwest border, total apprehensions of illegal immigrants decreased by 20 percent from 2007 to 2008, a sign supporters say fewer people are entering into this country.

The system appears to be a success in Arizona.

DECREASE IN ILLEGAL CROSSINGS

In the Yuma Sector, the Border Patrol's model sector, numbers are striking. In 2005, agents there caught 138,000 illegal immigrants. Last year, they caught 8,600, a 94 percent dip in apprehensions.

Michael Lowrie is a Yuma Sector Border Patrol agent.

"The wall has helped. They are trying other places," Lowrie said. "They figure it's too hard to come in through Yuma. We have so few coming in every day, we have the space, time and money to prosecute everybody."

Unlike in Texas, where the wall sporadically dots its 1,200-mile border with Mexico, 117 of the Yuma Sector's 126 border miles are protected by barrier. Most of the fence went up on federal land.

"Local crime is down. It cut down on car chases and stolen vehicles, too," Lowrie said. "Everything decreased."

In the neighboring Tucson Sector, agents tell similar stories. In 2006, Tucson Sector agents caught 392,000 illegal immigrants. Last year, they caught 317,000. Of its 262-mile border with Mexico, 220 are lined with border barriers.

"We have had a dramatic decrease each year," said Michael Scioli, a Tucson sector agent.

In the Rio Grande Valley, agents report fewer apprehensions in areas where the wall is in place. Apprehensions in this sector are down 25 percent, to 41,000, from last year.

"The gaps are working as planned because it's moving illegal activity away from communities," said John Lopez, a Rio Grande Valley border agent. "The fence moves traffic to areas where we can react more safely, effectively. It's safer for us to apprehend someone in an open field than it is in a neighborhood, and it's safer for those communities, too."

AN EROSION OF DEMOCRACY?

Critics say the shaky U.S. economy is the culprit for fewer Border Patrol apprehensions. Fewer jobs deters immigrants better than any fence does, they say. Others say elimination of the Border Patrol's catch-and-release program scares away immigrants, who, if caught, now face potential prison time.

U.S. citizens also face new realities. The joke in the Valley is that landowners will need a passport to visit their land south of the wall.

Tamez, the first Texan to fight the federal government for her land, has yet to walk on her land south of the giant steel fence.

In September, she walks again into a courtroom to fight for just compensation. U.S. Homeland Security wants to pay her for the footprint of the wall, and the 100-foot right-of-way. Tamez wants the devaluation of her property to be included in the tab.

The government sought a little more than one of her three acres. Because she wasn't consulted, she doesn't know just how much they took.

With so little land left of her family's original 12,000 acres, she grasps at the last bit of soil she links to a rich heritage.

"This symbolizes an erosion of democracy. We've gone to other parts of the world and said, 'Tear that wall down.' Are we at war with Mexico?" she said.

Inside, her living room appears to have remained unchanged in decades. On one wall, an old Curtis Mathis TV; on the other, an aged flower-print sofa. She crossed her legs and bobbed her right foot.

"The government has done it before," she said. "They take my land, but they will never take my voice. We're drained, exhausted, emotionless. We have been abandoned by our own country."

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/28/gs_fatal_funnel_14_062809_54666/?news&fatal-funnel

County border fence construction a third complete

Valley Morning Star / Brownsville Herald
June 14, 2009
by Laura B. Martinez

BROWNSVILLE - Joe De La Garza established his mom-and-pop store back in 1966 on South Oklahoma Road in rural Cameron County.

It wasn't too long ago that he and his grandchildren would walk up and down the levee, across the street from his store, for exercise.

Things have changed, De La Garza said, as he watched a construction worker use a backhoe to remove dirt for the continued construction of the border fence.

"It's all nonsense," De La Garza, 73, said as he looked at the 18-foot tall brown border fence in front of his store, De La Garza Grocery.

The border fence is 2½ miles away from the Rio Grande, he said, and that is just wrong. Landowners like De La Garza were under the impression the fence would be built 180 feet from the river, not from his storefront, he said.

"What the heck are they doing out here? It doesn't look right," De La Garza said.

The fence's construction is part of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which is part of the government's comprehensive immigration reform that includes securing the nation's border. The Department of Homeland Security is overseeing the fence's construction.

Last Thursday, the Texas Border Coalition penned a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to halt the fence construction so his administration could review the nation's border security policy.

"Without such an order, construction will proceed, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a border security tactic that fails its basic purpose in defiance of realistic, proven alternatives," said Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster, chairman of the Texas Border Coalition.

The letter is signed by dozens of local politicians, including Brownsville Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr., Cameron County Judge Carlos H. Cascos and state legislators Eddie Lucio Jr., Eddie Lucio III and Rene Oliveira.

In the interim, fence construction in Cameron County is visible up and down South Oklahoma Road a few miles outside the Brownsville city limits, except along some sections of the road where pending lawsuits against the fencing temporarily have halted building, at least for now.

Although De La Garza doesn't like the fencing, he knew it was just a matter of time before it would be built because the government was determined to build it whether the residents liked it or not.

"It's not going to stop the people" from trying to come across, De La Garza said, adding that it in fact could increase illegal immigration since there could be fewer U.S. Border Patrol agents patrolling the area because of the fence.

De La Garza sees Border Patrol agents driving around the area about every 15 to 20 minutes or at times once an hour.

"They (Border Patrol) might say, ‘We got a fence now, so we don't have to worry because people aren't going to come across,' " the local businessman said. "This is not going to stop them. I don't think so."

In Cameron County, 34.8 miles of fencing are planned. As of June 5, 11.7 miles of fencing had been completed, said Claude R. Knighten, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Washington, D.C. Roughly 9.3 miles of fence are slated to be built along South Oklahoma and Southmost roads, with 3.4 miles to be constructed on South Oklahoma and 5.9 miles on Southmost.

From her front door about a mile away, Otalia Perez sees the landscape De La Garza now sees.

Perez from her front door could see the levee, with acres of green land shortly behind it.

All she sees now is a brown barrier known as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's border fence, blocking her view of everything located right in front of her home.

"We feel closed in," Perez, 73, said of the barrier erected weeks ago in front of her home. "It's sad, very sad."

As an American flag hoisted on a flagpole waves proudly in her front yard, Perez contends that nothing could be done to stop the fence's construction.

Simply put, the government was going to build the fence whether the residents liked it or not, she said.

http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/fence-53982-border-garza.html

US-Mex border fence completion eludes government

Associated Press
June 10, 2009
by Christopher Sherman

BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) — Nearly six months after the U.S.-Mexico border fence ordered by the Bush administration was supposed to be finished, its completion is in limbo while a judge waits for answers to questions about private property in the fence's path.

About 630 miles of the promised 670-mile-long vehicle and pedestrian barrier is complete, with the unfinished portion in deep south Texas where opposition is fierce and the government has struggled to get the land it needs.

The biggest unfinished segment is a 13-mile stretch that runs east of Brownsville through rich farmland toward the Gulf of Mexico.

While the government has taken steps to smooth the project's path — such as paying to relocate 300 native palm trees from a section near Brownsville — some of its promises are coming under intense scrutiny.

Government possession of several pieces of farmland needed for that final stretch was suspended last month by the judge.

Government lawyers are now scrambling to meet the judge's orders and provide written answers to landowners' most basic questions: What precisely is the government taking, and how will property owners access the thousands of acres of land stranded between the border fence and the Rio Grande?

The answers to those questions could have implications for the dozens of cases scheduled for trial next year to determine how much the government will pay landowners.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen had, until recently, assumed — as did many landowners — that gates the government planned in the fence would always be there to provide access to property on the other side. The Rio Grande's sharp curves and the border fence's relatively straight path leave large swaths of farmland isolated between the river and the fence.

But lawyers for several landowners suggested that the government could someday close or remove the gates. The potential loss of access begged the question of whether the government should pay for not only the land under the fence but also the land stuck between the fence and river that would become worthless.

Hanen asked Justice Department lawyers to lay out the physical land they're taking as well as access to other land.

"Because if I can't get through it (the gate) or I can't get to it without driving 10 miles down the road, I mean, you've taken the back 40," Hanen said during a hearing last month. "If there's not going to be a gate, then that changes the rules."

In that case, Hanen said, every landowner would argue to a jury that the government was taking all of their land down to the riverbank.

"We felt absolutely compelled to raise these issues with the court and every landowner out there whose property is being taken by the government should do the same," Kimberli Loessin, attorney for several property owners covered by the judge's order, said in an e-mail Wednesday. "Otherwise, lawsuits move forward, fence gets built, and compensation gets determined without the government ever admitting to what it is really taking away from landowners."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Hu told Hanen last month that a delay could cost the government $10,000 to $15,000 per day because the construction contract was already awarded and crews were set to begin work. However, the government has itself now asked for an extension until June 19.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVdixxxUKMR4V7LXmPSdHppIur5QD98O0BJ01

Brownsville City Commission to stand up to feds on border fence

Brownsville Herald
May 18, 2009
by Emme Perez Trevino

The City Commission today might issue a loud, strong message that, in Brownsville, there is "zero tolerance for bullying."

That statement, in the form of a resolution, would be directed to local, state and federal agencies and officials from President Barack Obama on down, in firm opposition to proposed construction of a fence between Brownsville and Matamoros.

The statement would come on the heels of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's move last week to take possession of 15.919 acres of city land amid negotiations with city officials.
"No more bullying! Time to leave the gross dysfunctionality behind! Your conduct has been and is unacceptable to us!" the proposed resolution states. It also is aimed at DHS, the federal agency charged with the border fence project, and calls for good-faith negotiations.

The City Commission is scheduled to consider the 10-page resolution at its regular meeting today, starting at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 1001 E. Elizabeth St. The agenda reflects that Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr. and Commissioner Edward C. Camarillo placed the proposed resolution on the agenda.

The resolution asks proposes halting o negotiations between the city and DHS regarding construction of temporary fences on the East Loop levee and between the Gateway International Bridge and the B&M International Bridge as an alternative to a permanent structure. The property would revert to the city when the city provides replacement barriers, including construction of a new levee. Under the negotiations, the temporary fence would be removed by DHS, if funding is available. Otherwise, it would be the city's responsibility and the city would bear the cost of the replacement barriers.

The resolution proposes that city officials rescind any prior negotiations or agreements with DHS, and "recognizes that the latest proposed agreement would be too costly for Brownsville taxpayers to absorb on a federal project that it (the city) should not be forced to accept or pay for."

The resolution points out that the federally mandated "one-size-fits-all" border fence is "irrational" and that technology and more manpower, as recommended by the U.S. Border Patrol sector chief, should be applied instead.

The resolution notes that, "we, in Brownsville, stand in unity, steadfastly, with unbowed heads, earnestly and vigorously seeking, in good faith, a just and peaceful outcome to the ongoing" border fence crisis.

The proposed resolution also notes that the city would hire an attorney to fight DHS in federal court, "in the event that the DHS does not recognize us as equals."

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/city-98160-resolution-proposed.html

Ortiz opposes seizing city land for border fence

Brownsville Herald
May 17, 2009
by Emma Perez-Trevino

As the U.S. Department of Homeland Security moved to take possession of city property for a border fence between Brownsville and Matamoros, U.S. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz expressed his displeasure.

"I am not pleased," Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, said of DHS' move amid negotiations with the city on a proposed levee-temporary fence alternative. Ortiz's spokesman Jose Borjon said Friday that the congressman had asked DHS not to begin proceedings to take possession of city land.

The Brownsville Herald also learned that Ortiz is attempting to obtain funding for the levee-temporary fence alternative.

This comes on the heels of DHS' trip to the federal courthouse May 12 to file the motion to take possession of 15.919 acres of city land, although DHS officials say talks with city officials continue in an effort to reach an agreement on a temporary fence.

Under the proposed agreement, DHS would build temporary fences on the East Loop levee and between the Gateway International Bridge and the B&M Bridge. Control of the property would revert to the city when the city provides replacement barriers, including construction of a new levee.

The temporary fence would be removed by DHS if there is funding. If there were no federal funding, its removal would be the city's responsibility. The city also would bear the cost of the replacement barriers.

"But at what cost to the city?" Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr., who favors developing a dam as a natural barrier, said of the proposed agreement on the table.

The mayor said the cost to the city could be as much as $13 million and that the city does not have the money.

Ahumada said that instead of fighting among themselves, city officials should have been using the time to strategize in opposition to the border fence.

Ahumada also said that Ortiz had initially supported the weir project as a barrier and wondered why the congressman is now supporting a temporary fence. Borjon said that Ortiz continues to support the weir project, but not as an alternative to the fence.

Regarding the motion for possession that DHS filed, Ahumada said, "What do we do now? What I've said all along; we should be looking for a third party to mediate and that is U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen."

The federal case is before Hanen's court.

DHS' motion is slated to be on Hanen's court docket June 1.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/city-98127-fence-ortiz.html

Texas town survives despite new border barrier: Residents say security fence has done little to stop immigrants from coming

February 25, 2009
Associated Press / MSNBC

GRANJENO, Texas - When the government announced plans to build a new fence along portions of the Mexican border, residents of this sleepy town along the Rio Grande feared the barrier would cut them off from their backyards and even destroy some homes.

Nearly two years later, the project is almost finished, and the village of Granjeno has managed to hang on — as have the illegal immigrants who still pour through town by climbing over or walking around the nearly two-mile barricade designed to keep them out.

Instead of building a steel fence, the government agreed to turn an existing earthen levee into a stronger concrete one, which was supposed to both keep out illegal traffic and offer the village improved flood protection. The levee is now taller, with a sheer 18-foot drop on the side that faces Mexico.

"The wall is going to help us in the future for a big flood. We're not against that," said Daniel Garza, 76, a lifelong resident. "But border security it ain't going to help. It's getting worse."

This village of 330 people was founded on Spanish land grants in 1767, and most residents are descended from three families who survived the Spanish, the Mexicans and the short-lived Republic of Texas to become Americans. They live in modest frame houses and often take walks down toward the Rio Grande in the evenings.

In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security planned to build a double- or triple-layer fence as much as two miles from the river on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande. Residents feared their community would wither if it were divided by the fence.

The original plan would have restricted access to the river and to valuable farm land. Parts of the fence would have run straight through existing houses or back yards.

By using the levee as a barrier, the government eliminated the need to take any private property. Now the $20 million concrete barrier is nearly done. The houses have been saved, and families still have river access.

Increased foot traffic
But most residents say the barrier has done little to stop immigrant traffic. Some people have reported large groups of illegal immigrants simply running around the ends of the levee or climbing over the top.

Garza, who lives at the eastern end of the barrier, said he's seeing more traffic than ever.

Before construction began, Garza would see a couple of people run by his house at a time. Now they move in groups of as many as 50, he said.

"Up here you don't just see a few. You see bunches."

The fence does not cover the entire border. It leaves large open spaces between. When planning where to build the segments, the government targeted places such as Granjeno, where an illegal immigrant emerging from the Rio Grande could blend into the population.

The goal was to force immigrants into open areas where Border Patrol agents could more easily intercept them.

"It has diverted smugglers to the east and the west," said Dan Doty, a spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. "We have seen a shift in where alien traffic goes."

Doty said immigrants used to take a path that that led them right through the middle of Granjeno.

"They're no longer able to do that," he said.

But, he said, the number of people apprehended has not increased.

'It's not helping any'
Gloria Garza, Daniel Garza's niece, said she's seeing more immigrants at her home, which is not especially close to either end of the wall.

About a month ago, she said, a young woman stopped at her home to ask for help. She told Garza she had sprained her ankle coming over the wall.

Garza told her she could have just walked around it. "So I guess it's not helping any," she said.

Other residents near the center of the barrier report a decline in foot traffic.

"During the day people would just run through here and at night it was constant barking," Idolina Guzman said, glancing at her dog. "I don't see it as much anymore."

Granjeno's only business, Cabrera's Bar, has seen a booming business from the wall, serving beer to construction workers.

Mary Garza, who used to work in a Border Patrol office, said a more effective solution would be to hire more Border Patrol agents.

Of the wall, she said: "It's not helping at all. It's only costing."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29393568/

Finishing the fence: Construction is more expensive and complicated than first estimated

February 8, 2009
The Monitor
By Jeremy Roebuck

It all comes down to the Rio Grande Valley.

More than a month after the scheduled completion of 670 miles of security fencing across the country's southwest border, nearly
70 miles remain unfinished — almost all of it in South Texas.

And while plans are moving forward, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security says building the fence here has been more challenging, more expensive and more time-consuming than originally thought.

"We've run into several obstacles — whether they be logistical or problems with land acquisition," said Lloyd Easterling, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. "But we're continuing to follow what we've started."

As of Jan. 23, contractors had completed 601 miles of pedestrian and vehicle barriers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of West Texas.

But despite the recent completion of nearly 16 miles in Hidalgo County, the remaining segments set to go up in Starr, Hidalgo and Cameron counties have hit various snags.

Unlike other states where borderlands are largely publicly owned, Texas' southern extremes are divvied among private landowners. The hodgepodge of ownership rights has forced the federal government to take dozens of individuals to court to seize the necessary land. Many of those cases remain unresolved.

In Starr County, concerns that the barrier could pose a flooding risk in the event of heavy rains have prompted a review of engineering specifications. Some have called for a barrier that could be removed if needed to aid water flow.

And in a report issued in September, Homeland Security estimated costs for South Texas construction could rise because of the high price of gas, labor and construction materials here.

Some of those costs — such as gas — have dropped sharply in the intervening months, said spokeswoman Angela de Rocha. But because several contracts were awarded during the bubble, the government is locked into paying higher rates.

BY THE NUMBERS

The segments of pedestrian fencing completed across the Southwest border by Oct. 31 cost an average of $3.9 million per mile, according to a report issued last month by the U.S. Government Accountability Office — $1.7 million more per mile than Congress had originally projected.

Although no official estimates are available for Rio Grande Valley fencing, the almost complete Hidalgo County hybrid levee-wall project will cost somewhere near $9.5 million per mile — a $3.9 million-per-mile increase from initial estimates, according to county statistics.

Contractors expect to finish the project — which combines the mandated border barrier with needed levee enhancements — by the end of the month.

Cameron County unsuccessfully lobbied for a similar hybrid levee-wall project but the federal government has opted to move forward with more traditional fencing there. So far, contracts have been awarded for its 11 planned segments and construction could begin as soon as next week, Easterling said.

In Starr County, where Homeland Security still has not produced a final engineering plan for nearly 13 miles of fencing slated to go up, officials have learned to stop asking questions, County Judge Eloy Vera said.

"We're hoping it gets delayed permanently," he said. "We're playing possum for now and hope they just forget about us."

CONSTRUCTION CONTINUES

Fence critics like Vera had hoped the election of President Barack Obama would signal a change in their political fortunes. Some even grasped at the hope that the new administration would halt construction.

While the president voted for the fence as a senator, he expressed doubts about its effectiveness while on the campaign trail. Once elected, Obama quickly selected then-Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a once vocal detractor of the plan, to head his Homeland Security Department.

But neither has said much of anything since taking office. At her Senate confirmation hearing, Napolitano even said she could see a role for fencing around urban areas.

"It helps prevent those who are crossing illegally from blending immediately into a town population," she told senators.

IS IT WORKING?

Despite continued controversy in the Valley, Homeland Security spokesman Easterling says the project has already proved effective in reducing illegal immigration in other parts of the country. The fence has worked as one weapon in an arsenal of strategies that helped reduce immigrant apprehensions nationwide by 18.4 percent between fiscal years 2007 and 2008.

U.S. Border Patrol agents reported declines as high as 78 percent in sectors such as western Arizona and 60 percent for far West Texas and New Mexico, where fencing segments have been up long enough to have had an impact on immigrant crossings.

But the Rio Grande Valley Sector — which stretches from western Starr County to the Gulf of Mexico — was one of only two border regions to report an increase in apprehensions last year. The other was San Diego.

The Border Patrol uses apprehension rates as a rough gauge of effectiveness for border security policies. However, the numbers can paint a skewed picture. A lower apprehension rate could just as easily mean more immigrants are slipping past agents.

Fence critics say the Valley's 2.8 percent increase in apprehensions proves illegal crossers have shifted their routes to stretches of border with fewer obstacles.

The areas with the sharpest declines in apprehensions are those employing several successful security strategies, including increased Border Patrol presence and harsh policies promising federal prosecution for all illegal crossers.

"It's hard to give the fence all the credit," Easterling said. "It's not just any one thing. It's the right mix."

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/miles_22968___article.html/grande_country.html

Ahumada: City commissioners cut DHS border fence deal behind my back

Rio Grande Guardian
February 7, 2009
by Steve Taylor

AUSTIN, February 7 - Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada has accused city commissioners of cutting a deal behind his back with the Department of Homeland Security to allow a temporary border fence to be built in the city.

Ahumada is urging opponents of the border wall to “make their voices heard” at a hearing next Thursday when the issue will be discussed. The meeting takes place at 6 p.m. in the city chambers.

“Discussion and negotiations were held with DHS representatives without my participation or knowledge. I have found out about these discussions by repeatedly asking to be kept informed,” Ahumada told the Guardian.

“I am urging all patriots to attend next Thursday’s hearing to make sure their voice is heard by the city commission and DHS.”

Ahumada said he is concerned that much of the discussions at Thursday’s meeting will be held behind closed doors, thereby curtailing public involvement.

“The item will be discussed in executive session but will have to be acted on during the public session. I, for one, believe that this subject matter should be discussed entirely in open session,” he said.

Details of the exact location of the temporary border fence have not been made public. Ahumada said he understands the agreement between the City and DHS would allow for the removal of a temporary border fence in specific areas once the City has completed certain economic development projects.

“Based on the information received, this agreement would return title and possession of this property to the City upon removal of the fence. It was stated that the federal government gained title to this property through condemnation proceedings filed on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security,” Ahumada said.

“Neither the citizens of Brownsville nor I had previously been informed that the federal government had gained title to any city property, information which obviously was withheld by this commission and city management who, it appears, allowed this to happen through continued secret negotiations with DHS.”

Ahumada said such a move runs counter to the strong opposition to the border fence plan voiced by Brownsville residents at a public meeting on July 1, 2008.

Brownsville Mayor Pro Tem Charlie Atkinson and City Manager Charlie Cabler defended their role in the DHS negotiations in exclusive interviews with the Guardian during Brownsville Day at the state Capitol earlier this week.

“DHS has met with the city manager,” Atkinson confirmed. “Basically, they laid it on the line. Either we put up a permanent fence or you come up with another option.”

Atkinson said he and other city commissioners had no alternative but to come up with another option.

“We are trying to build our East Loop that goes from Veterans Bridge to the Port of Brownsville to get the trucks out of the inner city. They (DHS) have conceded to us that we can have a temporary fence. They (DHS) said once you have built the East Loop you can take it (the border fence) out. They will put that in writing to us.”

The alternative, Atkinson said, was stark. “DHS builds a permanent fence and they take the land. Those are the only two options we have.”

Atkinson said he “appreciates” the concerns of Brownsville residents opposed to the border fence.

“Nobody wants a fence in Brownsville. Nobody does. But when the federal government has you the way they have you, you have got to work with what you have. That’s what we are trying to do,” Atkinson said.

“I know the mayor stands on the border and says gimme no fence, I want no fence, but we have been lucky to talk to DHS and keep them away from Brownsville for this long.”

Atkinson said other border cities that did not negotiate with DHS have not fared as well as Brownsville. He cited Eagle Pass, where a border fence has already been built. “All those cities that fought against the fence got the fence first. It’s like the federal government says, ‘Oh, you want to fight against me, bam’.”

City Manager Cabler agreed. “We are the last location for them (DHS) to identify the fence and where they are going to put it. They have already done that. We need to, through the city commission, get people to understand whether you want this or you want that,” he said.

Cabler explained how the negotiations with DHS transpired.

“We have negotiated with Homeland Security for the last few years. The last meeting we had, they made clear to us that have ownership of the property already. Not possession, but ownership. There’s a difference, right? Possession is nine tenths of the law,” Cabler said.

“Our negotiations with them have been to find a way for us not to lose the property for ever. They then introduced the idea of having some type of a temporary barrier or fence, probably a fence.”

Cabler explained that the border fence would come down once one or two key economic development projects start.

“We need to decide on two issues,” Cabler said. “We say no and we lose a property, they (DHS) say forever, because once the federal government takes a property it’s gone or we agree to a temporary fence that can be removed at the time we are ready to do construction, either the downtown revitalization project or the East Loop project.”

Ahumada questioned what guarantees the City has that DHS will honor any agreement to remove the fence at some point in the future. “Given the current state of the economy and the exorbitant cost of the construction of the border wall, does it make any sense for DHS to spend so much time, money, and effort building a wall, only to tear it down? The citizens of Brownsville expected this commission to defend and protect their property rights and these developments are an outright betrayal of that trust,” Ahumada said.

Ahumada said he would be laying out his opposition to any deal with DHS at Thursday’s meeting. He said any deals agreed with DHS would undermine the City’s decision to join a lawsuit filed against DHS over the border fence. Last month, the City wrote a friend-of-the-court brief supporting El Paso County in its lawsuit challenging Homeland Security’s efforts to build a border wall.

“I strongly oppose the fence and any agreement that will allow the fence to be built for the many reasons I will state at the meeting. To name a few, it will cause irreparable harm to our ecological corridor, adversely impact future development of our river walk and eliminate our damage claims should the fence be built by force. It will also affect the federal lawsuit filed by TBC and the amicus brief by El Paso,” Ahumada said.

Among the community groups expected to attend Thursday’s meeting are the church-based Coalition of Amigos in Solidarity and Action (CASA) and the No Border Wall coalition. These groups are particularly concerned that Hope Park, the downtown city park overlooking the Rio Grande, could be sacrificed to DHS.

Elizabeth Garcia, founder of CASA, said Hope Park has become a “symbol” for Brownsville’s opposition to the border wall.

“These are our elected officials, and they should be representing the concerns of their constituents,” Garcia said. “This community is still overwhelmingly opposed to the border wall, and our city government should support that sentiment.”

Garcia said that if the City wants to “compromise” with DHS, it should do so in federal court, just like the University of Texas at Brownsville and dozens of landowners have done.

“We hope that, just as UTB did, our commissioners will fight before they compromise. It will be wrong for them to reach a deal behind closed doors, without informing the public and without giving the community at large the opportunity for some input,” Garcia said.

Garcia pointed out that Brownsville residents have forced the City to stop negotiations with DHS in the past.

“Last summer, the Brownsville City Commission considered a contract, drafted by the Army Corps of Engineers that would have turned over $93,500 worth of municipal property to build the wall,” Garcia said.

“One clause of the contract would have allowed the federal government to condemn the city’s property, and force the City to assist the government in the condemnation rather than fight to keep their property. When word of the contract was leaked, outraged Brownsville residents packed the city commission meeting, forcing them to table the deal.”

Merriwood Ferguson, a Brownsville resident and No Border Wall coalition member said any elected official who refuses to stand up for the citizenry against the border wall would “have no backbone.”

Ferguson said landowners are “standing up for their rights against the condemnation of their property” and that the precedent they have set should be matched by city commissioners.

“We did not elect them to have them give up Hope Park without a fight,” Ferguson said.

http://www.riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=23

Money on the line: Business provides steel for border fence

Brownsville Herald
January 27, 2008
Kevin Sieff

The city of Los Fresnos, known for its rodeos, biannual Elvis festivals and small-town feel, is rarely embroiled in regional or national controversy. But with a local construction company now aiding in the construction of the border fence, the barrier has become a sudden, if unexpected, topic of conversation around town.

Just outside of Meyn Sandblasting, near the intersection of Highway 100 and Paredes Line Road, the metal beams, each more than 20 feet long, are piled high. Soon, they'll be transported to Granjeno, where the border fence is being built atop Hidalgo County's levee system.

Meyn Sanblasting, a 30-year-old family business, received a subcontract from Harlingen-based Ballenger Construction to provide the fence's beams and aid in the erection of the barrier.

Ballenger received a $21 million contract from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to build the 1.76-mile Granjeno segment. Ballenger representatives could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.

"With the economy the way it is, I'd be stupid to turn down the job," said Mike Meyn, the owner of Meyn Sandblasting.

Meyn wouldn't disclose how much the contract is for, but said he expected the fence to be a boon to the local economy. Despite his mixed feelings about the fence, Los Fresnos Mayor David Winstead agrees.

"I'm not happy about the way they're doing it," Winstead said, "but somebody has to provide material, and it might as well drop into the community."

But some local residents don't want their city to be at all associated with the project.

Armando Drocio might be unemployed, he said, but working on the border fence is not what he considers a respectable job.

"We're all brothers," he said, while searching for jobs at the city's public library. "We should be investing in something else."

U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Lloyd Easterling told the Associated Press that 601 miles of the 700-mile project along the U.S.-Mexico border had been completed as of a week ago. Sixty-nine miles of the fence - including a stretch of about 40 miles in the Rio Grande Valley- still must be built along the border to meet the goal set during the Bush administration.
Most Valley residents are still unrelenting in their opposition to the fence, even as the project nears its completion.

"Sure, it will help the local economy," said Lynn Bassford, a Los Fresnos resident. "They'll have to hire people from the community (if and) when they tear the thing down."
-----------
NUMBERS:

Ballenger received $21 million to build the 1.76-mile Granjeno segment.

Fencing costs averaged $7.5 million per mile for pedestrian fencing in 2008 - up from earlier estimates of $4 million per mile, according to the Government Accountability Office

There will be 70 miles of fencing in the Rio Grande Valley

In Hidalgo County, the fence will be 18 feet tall.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/fence_94151___article.html/border_meyn.html

Joining Forces: Brownsville Joins El Paso County's Lawsuit Against DHS

Brownsville Herald
January 12, 2009

The City Commission joined other cities and counties throughout the U.S.-Mexico border in backing El Paso County in its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's waiver of state and local laws in order to build a wall along the border.

In joining the amicus brief, Brownsville and other affected cities and counties are not a party to the lawsuit, but are making the court aware that the issues before it also affect them.

The cities and counties noted that the waivers of state and local laws by a non-elected federal official of any statute that the officials sees fit in order to accomplish a given goal " . . . raise profound, unanswered questions . . ."

The commission majority voted Monday to join the brief under the understanding that the deadline to join is today. If not, the issue would be presented to the full commission at a future meeting.

But following the commission's special meeting Monday, Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr. said that he was "ecstatic" that the commissioners present, Anthony Troiani and Edward Camarillo, approved his request. Commissioner Charlie Atkinson abstained while remaining commissioners were not present.

"This gives us one more opportunity to come together as a commission and community and oppose the border wall," Ahumada said. "Brownsville has nothing to lose and everything to gain by joining the brief."

Atkinson said he abstained because he was not sure what all the information entailed.

"It was put to us pretty quick," Atkinson said, adding that he would have hoped for a week's notice.

FINISHING THE WALL: County says project 'substantially' done

The Monitor
December 26, 2008

The border fence is nearly done in Hidalgo County.

The vertical posts required by the federal government for border security are in place along almost all of the 20.26 miles of levee-fence, and the concrete barriers intended for flood protection are up in more than 80 percent of the project.All that remains in those places is welding steel caps onto the posts, sodding the ground along the fence and putting down caliche roads for U.S. Border Patrol agents.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security declared four segments of the county's levee-fence substantially complete in the past month, and county officials say the remaining six segments should be done by Jan. 31.

That timeline would mean Hidalgo County would barely miss the upcoming Wednesday deadline set by Congress when it passed the 2006 act mandating construction of 670 miles of fence along the southwest United States, but the levee-fence would be finished days after President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

Obama said in early December that he wants to evaluate what's working along the border before considering whether to finish what remains to be built of the fence when he takes office.

Along most of the border, there may not be much left to reconsider.

ALMOST DONE

Nowhere has construction on the border fence been slower than in the Rio Grande Valley.

Homeland Security has met widespread opposition in Starr and Cameron counties as it contended with hundreds of condemnation lawsuits and flood-control issues along the Rio Grande.

But progress in Hidalgo County has been steady since the department compromised with county officials earlier this year to fold levee improvements and fence construction into one project.

Under the levee-fence plan, Hidalgo County agreed to contribute $44 million to the project - or about 24 percent of its cost - with the county's Washington representatives promising to support a bill in Congress that would reimburse the county.

With the funding in place, Homeland Security agreed to incorporate its fence into the International Boundary and Water Commission's levees to bypass land acquisition battles and make improvements to levees the IBWC claims are unsafe.

Comprised of a U.S. Section and a Mexican Section, the IBWC is responsible for coming up with bi-national solutions to issues that arise during the application of treaties between the United States and Mexico regarding flood control and other issues in the border region. The U.S. Section is a federal government agency and is responsible for maintaining the flood control system in the Valley.

The levee-fence that has been built in Hidalgo County incorporates the Border Patrol's tactical requirements - a wall of posts sunk deep into the earth and rising up to 18 feet from the ground - into concrete levees meant to keep at bay a swollen Rio Grande and expensive flood insurance premiums.

Hidalgo County officials said throughout construction that they were opposed to the border fence for social and economic reasons, but they argued it was best to partner with Homeland Security to make improvements to the levees.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency announced last year that parts of Hidalgo County south of Expressway 83 would be designated a special flood hazard area if the levees were not fixed, potentially costing property owners up to $150 million in annual premiums.

With the 20 miles of levee-fence and improvements to an additional 13 miles of regular levees scheduled to be complete by mid-January, the western portion of Hidalgo County will be protected from Rio Grande flooding, said Godfrey Garza, the general manager of Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1.

About 20 miles of river levee on the eastern side of the county still need improvements to avoid the FEMA flood designation.

"For us, it's a levee project. It's all we care about," Hidalgo County Judge J.D. Salinas said last week. "Hidalgo County is not in the business of American immigration. We're in the business of protecting our residents from floods and protecting our economic development."

OBLIGATED?

Despite starting construction a month behind schedule as the county reached a final agreement with Homeland Security on the levee-fence plan, the construction crews building the structure have run into few problems, Garza said. Permit issues relating to gas lines did slow construction, however, on two segments near Peñitas that will be the last to be finished.

The only border fence segment in Hidalgo County not scheduled for completion by the end of January is one Hidalgo County isn't building.

Homeland Security halted a two-mile segment of standalone fencing near Los Ebanos in November because of flooding concerns.The department also halted about 13 miles of fence in Starr County because of similar concerns.

The biggest question mark in border fence construction lies with Hidalgo County's neighbor to the east.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced this week that it had completed 526 miles of the border fence by Dec. 12, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said 600 miles should be complete by the time Obama takes office.

Of the remaining 70 miles of fencing expected to be left along the entire U.S.-Mexico border, almost 40 of it will be in Cameron County.

The work in that county has stalled as landowners fought condemnation suits in court and its government tried, unsuccessfully, to mimic Hidalgo County's levee-fence.

Homeland Security said Cameron County's proposal to combine the Rio Grande's levees with the planned border fence was not feasible with the International Boundary and Water Commission already planning levee improvements in the Cameron County area.The decision to reject Cameron County's request also came back to the issue of funding: Hidalgo County went to the feds' table with $100 million in bond money, but Cameron County did not offer any funding in its proposal.

With the levee-fence alternative dead in Cameron County, Homeland Security awarded three contracts worth a combined $37 million to build the 15- to 18-foot-tall steel barrier.

Border fence opponents took Obama's appointment of Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to be homeland security secretary as a ray of hope that fence construction would be halted, and the Cameron County Commissioners Court even took the step of writing a letter to Obama requesting its stoppage.

But Homeland Security officials insist there will still be a fence built along the rest of South Texas' border with Mexico.

"We're still planning to build fence there," CBP spokeswoman Angela de Rocha said. "We've got contracts for them. Once you sign a contract, you're obligated to do that work."

NO REGRETS

A line of 18-foot posts encased in an imposing concrete barrier stretches on for two miles on both sides of the Progreso-Nuevo Progreso International Bridge.

The two segments - a total of about 4.5 miles split only by the bridge that allows American access to an array of touristy goods on the other side of the border - were declared "substantially complete" by Homeland Security earlier this month.

With the levee-fence nearly finished in Hidalgo County, officials said they will turn their focus toward getting reimbursed for the $44 million they invested in the project.

Even with the delays in Cameron County and the slim possibility that a new presidential administration could change course on the fence, Hidalgo County's Salinas said his county made the "hard decision" to partner with Homeland Security on the levee-fence.

"If they were going to spend money in Hidalgo County, we might as well make it a project that's going to hold water," Salinas said. "And that's what we tried to do."

http://www.themonitor.com/news/county_21391___article.html/fence_hidalgo.html

Texas landowners win small victory on border fence

Associated Press / Houston Chronicle
December 18, 2008

McALLEN, Texas — Dozens of South Texas landowners whose land is being condemned for the border fence scored a victory when a federal judge ordered that juries will decide the value of their property rather than an appointed land commission as the government had requested.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen set the stage for a series of trials to begin in March with his order signed Wednesday. While the trials will be restricted to determining how much the government pays landowners for the property, it gives Texas landowners their first opportunity to take an issue related to the border fence before a jury.

"I'm proud of him, he's doing his job," Eloisa Tamez, a landowner facing condemnation near Brownsville, said Thursday. "To have this kind of news before the holidays is like a Christmas gift for me."

The federal government has filed more than 300 condemnation lawsuits against South Texas landowners to make way for portions of the 670 miles of fencing it is building along the U.S.-Mexico border. So far about 500 miles is up, but it has been slow going in the Rio Grande Valley, where opposition is widespread.

Federal prosecutors had argued that the number of jury trials would swamp the courts, result in uneven payments and be extremely complex. A panel of land experts appointed by the court would be a more efficient option and more fair since it would be difficult to find enough unbiased jurors in an area where the fence has been a hot-button issue for months, the government said.

But Hanen, based in Brownsville, sided with landowners, 28 of whom are set for trial next year and all requested juries. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not immediately return a call for comment.

"This court is a firm believer in the jury system and the ability of everyday citizens to set aside their personal beliefs, biases and prejudcies to decide cases solely on the evidence presented within the context of a court's instructions," Hanen wrote in his order.

Hanen also cast doubt on the government's claim that about 80 cases will eventually need juries to determine land values. He suggested that even among the 28 cases scheduled for trial so far, similar parcels could be clustered in groups of three to be heard by the same jury. Most property owners settled with the government out of court.

The condemnations range from a quarter acre to more than 12 acres, but in many cases those are just slivers taken from tracts covering hundreds of acres north of the Rio Grande. Land commissions are generally believed to award lower compensation than juries, eminent domain attorneys say.

Each case will offer its own complexities, from calculating the impact on hunting leases to the value of the land left in the no-man's land between the fence and the river.

Kimberli Loessin, an attorney representing some of the landowners, wrote in an e-mail, "Landowners are pleased and believe that Judge Hanen did the right thing."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6172232.html#

Cameron County leaders ask Obama to stop border wall project

Rio Grande Guardian
December 10, 2008

BROWNSVILLE, December 10 - Last week El Paso County leaders wrote to President-elect Barack Obama asking him to stop construction of the border wall and now Cameron County leaders have followed suit.

In a letter sent Wednesday to Obama, Cameron County Commissioners Court said that at a time when the U.S. faces a severe financial crisis it was “irresponsible” to spend “billions of dollars on a wall that will not only scar our environmental landscape but also damage our relationship with communities and countries across the Americas.”

The commissioners, led by County Judge Carlos Cascos, said in the letter that the $6.3 billion the federal government plans to spend on the border wall “would be better spent on developing the infrastructure of the border region.”

The letter from the commissioners came on the same day Obama spoke about the border wall issue, in an interview with reporters from the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times.

Asked if he supported the build-out of the fence and its continued construction, Obama told the reporters that he plans to talk with Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, his pick for Homeland Security secretary. “I want to discuss with her what our best options are, what our best strategy is, do an evaluation about what's working, what isn't working. And then we'll make a determination from there,” Obama said.

The Cameron County letter also came on the same day that the County of El Paso filed an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court on the federal lawsuit that challenges Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff’s statutory authority to issue a waiver of more than 30 federal laws, as well as any state and local laws related to such federal laws, to accelerate the construction of a border fence in El Paso County.

El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriguez is a board member of the Texas Border Coalition, a group comprising border mayors and county judges that has led the fight against the border wall plan.

Last week, El Paso leaders wrote to Obama's transition team urging that the border wall project be stopped. Among those participating were state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, El Paso County Attorney José Rodriguez, who is also a board member of the Texas Border Coalition, and El Paso City Rep. Steve Ortega.

Here is the Cameron County letter to Obama in full:

Dear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on your historic election. We wish you the best and pledge to work with you and your administration over the course of the next four years.

As you well know from your visits during the election all along the U.S.-Mexico border our local economies thrive due to our close relationship with Mexico. In fact, in 2007 alone, the U.S.-Mexico export and import trade totaled $347.3 billion. Texas alone trades more with Mexico than all the European Union combined. At a time when our country faces a severe financial crisis, we believe it is irresponsible to spend billions of dollars on a wall that will not only scar our environmental landscape but also damage our relationship with communities and countries across the Americas. The $6.3 billion that the federal government plans to spend on the border wall would be better spent on developing the infrastructure of the border region.

The recent appointment of Governor Janet Napolitano clearly signifies the importance of immigration reform to your administration. We sincerely hope that our plan will not include the main component of immigration reform to your administration. We sincerely hope that our plan will not include the main component of immigration reform pursued by the Bush administration and DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff--the border wall.

Border walls are currently under construction in all four southern border states, and hundreds more miles of walls called for by the Secure Border Fence Act are in the planning stages. In April 2008, for the fifth time, Secretary Chertoff used the power granted to him by the Real ID Act to waive laws along the border so that walls and roads could be built without regard to public health and safety or environmental protection.

In Texas, condemnation proceedings have been initiated against border municipalities and landowners, in spite of the fact that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 obliges homeland security officials to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, states, local governments, Native American Nations and property owners in communities affected by the wall.

For our country to prosper, we must lead the way in the safe, fast and secure movement of people and products in a post-9/11 world. To achieve success our borders and ports-of-entry need adequate staffing, state-of-the-art technology, modern infrastructure and effective enforcement.

We respectfully ask that you make the cancellation of the border wall on the Southern border a top priority of your Administration. Let us build bridges of friendship, safety and prosperity- not walls of hatred and division. We have the confidence that the CHANGE you have brought will help you lead this great country to a nation of hope and great optimism for our future generations.

Thanks for your leadership on this issue.

Sincerest regards,
Cameron County Judge Carlos CascosCameron County Commissioners Sophia Benavides, John Wood, David A. Garza and Edna Tamayo

http://www.riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=23

Border fence land suits continue despite construction delays

The Monitor
November 16, 2008

Government efforts to seize private land for stretches of border fencing will continue even though construction has been put on hold in parts of the Rio Grande Valley.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security confirmed earlier this month that it has halted efforts to build 14 miles of "movable fencing" in Los Ebanos, Rio Grande City and Roma, pending review by the next presidential administration.

But Justice Department lawyers said Friday they will continue to pursue 240 lawsuits filed against Valley landowners in anticipation for the project's revival in those areas.

"Construction postponement does not affect the outstanding condemnation suits," department spokesman Andrew Ames said via e-mail.

The Department of Homeland Security cited trouble securing private lands in South Texas as one of many reasons that the border barrier would not be completed by its Congressionally mandated Dec. 31 deadline.

Concerns that the movable fence planned in Starr and western Hidalgo counties could pose a flood risk to communities there were blamed for the most recent delay.

Currently, 80 Valley holdouts still have eminent domain lawsuits pending in court. The sticking point for many is fair compensation for their land.

Oscar Ceballos, of Brownsville, believes federal government appraisers undervalued the Cameron County property on which he lives and runs his trucking business.

The Justice Department offered him $1,600 for 0.26 acres of his land. But he and several other affected landowners have asked U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen to let a jury of local residents decide the fair price.

While Hanen has repeatedly indicated that the government is entitled to take the property it is asking for, he has appeared willing to hear the landowners out on the offered prices.

"We believe a jury can take into consideration all of the unique circumstances affecting our client's property - its historical use and its future use," said Ceballos' attorney, Celestino Gallegos of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid. "The city is moving out his way and he both lives and works on the property."

Justice Department attorneys, meanwhile, have suggested their own alternative - a three-member panel of court-appointed land experts that will review each case and settle on a fair price. The same panel could be used to review all of the condemnation lawsuits.

"The government believes that trial before a commission will lead to uniformity and fairness for all landowners," Ames said.

Governments typically opt for such panels in hopes of avoiding the risk that juries will inflate the actual value of the land, said Marc K. Whyte, a San Antonio-based eminent domain attorney who is not involved in the ongoing border fence suits. Valley juries are also notorious across the state for awarding large monetary judgments to individuals over large corporations and government entities, he said.

"This is just an effort to try and control the money the (landowners) are going to win before a jury," he said.

Hanen is expected to make a final decision on how these cases will be reviewed in the coming weeks.

In all, plans call for 70 miles of segmented fencing in the Rio Grande Valley. But so far, construction has only begun in Cameron County. Contractors have been working on several segments of an enhanced levee that doubles as a border barrier in Hidalgo County since the summer.

Border fence construction in Los Ebanos and Starr County could resume again as soon as next year, government officials said.

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/fence_19928___article.html/border_land.html

Cuellar: CBP halts border fence construction in three Valley segments

Rio Grande Guardian
November 7, 2008

LOS EBANOS, November 7 - The Bush Administration has decided not to move forward with construction of the border fence in three parts of the Rio Grande Valley for the rest of the year, U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar has announced.

Customs and Border Protection had wanted to erect almost four miles of “movable” fencing in Roma, almost nine miles of fencing in Rio Grande City, and just less than two miles of fencing in Los Ebanos.

“It’s not going to happen. Customs and Border Protection has decided not to move forward with their plans for the rest of the year. The reason they gave was engineering and hydraulic concerns,” Cuellar told the Guardian on Friday evening.

Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos are in Cuellar’s district. Other border counties in Cuellar’s district, such as Zapata and Webb, were not slated to get a border fence. Asked for his reaction to the news, Cuellar said: “This is a big victory.”

The reason CBP wanted to erect movable fences in Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos was due to concerns that a permanent fence could cause flooding on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande during a hurricane or tropical storm. If that had happened an international treaty with Mexico would have been violated.

Cuellar said that before his untimely death in a plane crash in September, Carlos Marin, head of the U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, had insisted that CBP do not proceed with any fencing in Roma, Rio Grande City, or Los Ebanos that would have increased the chances of flooding in Mexico.

“Carlos Marin, may he rest in peace, spoke about this often to me and his argument has prevailed. He was pretty adamant that no fence be built that could cause flooding and his words have come ringing through now,” Cuellar said.

“The IBWC wanted assurances that a physical barrier could be moved at short notice during the threat of a tropical storm or hurricane. He was concerned about flooding on the Mexican side.”

Cuellar said CBP’s decision not to proceed with fencing in Roma, Rio Grande City or Los Ebanos would allow he and other border lawmakers an opportunity to sit down with the next U.S. president and the next secretary of the Homeland Security to talk about alternatives to a border fence.

“Although, CBP says it will not move forward with the fence for the rest of this year, it really means they will not move forward until after the Obama administration is in office. They are going to wait,” Obama said.

Cuellar is a member of the House Homeland Security Committee. He said he asked CBP to hold off on awarding contracts to build the border fence until the next administration takes office when agency officials appeared at a Homeland Security Committee hearing in September.

“Perhaps they have taken notice. We need to revisit the whole issue of border fencing again. We were told the fencing would cost $3 million per mile and now we learn it is going to cost $7 million a mile,” Cuellar said.

“It is time to look at alternative proposals and I plan to meet with Border Patrol on Monday to talk about sensors, cameras, more Border Patrol agents.”Asked if CBP should look again at its border fencing plans in the districts of other border members of Congress, Cuellar said: “Absolutely.”

Scott Nicol, a spokesman for the No Border Wall group, applauded CBP’s decision not to proceed with border fencing in Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos.

“It is our hope that this will be made permanent by the new administration,” Nicol told the Guardian. “We believe that Cameron County and the rest of the border which is slated for wall construction before the end of Secretary Chertoff’s tenure should also be spared.”

Nicol pointed out that the border fence plan has already led to the condemnation of farmland and municipal property. He said the “walls” that are currently under construction are “devastating” wildlife refuges and “destabilizing” South Texas’ flood control levees.

“$3 billion has been wasted on walls that the Border Patrol says only slow crossers by a few minutes,” Nicol said. “With two wars, a deepening financial crisis, and trillions of dollars of debt, our nation cannot afford to throw more money into this bottomless pit.”

Nicol said the No Border Wall group is hopeful that the decision to spare the communities of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos signals the beginning of a “sane” border policy on the part of the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration.

“The border wall is nothing more than a political prop, a backdrop for politicians who want to look tough on national security. With the election behind us, it is time to move beyond hollow symbols,” Nicol said.

Nicol said the No Border Wall coalition is now calling on President-elect Obama to appoint a new secretary of Homeland Security who will “reject Michael Chertoff’s failures and refuse to play politics with the lives and property of border residents.”

Obama should enact a moratorium on further border wall construction until a non-partisan organization such as the Government Accountability Office can review both the impacts of the walls that have already been built and the foreseeable impacts of proposed walls, Nicol added.

http://www.riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=18