South Texas border fence in limbo amid flooding, wildlife worries

E & E News
January 23, 2013
by April Reese

In south Texas, where the Rio Grande divides the United States from Mexico, three of the last remaining sections of border fence -- approved more than five years ago -- remain unbuilt.

Unlike many existing sections, those in limbo would be constructed within the floodplain. They would stretch a total of 7 miles and skim the southern edge of three Texas towns -- Roma, Rio Grande and Los Ebanos.

Mexican officials, border town mayors, environmental groups, residents and some congressional leaders remain concerned that those projects could potentially push Rio Grande floodwaters into Mexican towns and block wildlife corridors.

After languishing on the back burner for several years, the projects have advanced recently after receiving a needed stamp of approval from an international governmental body. But as many opponents have made clear, the fence Congress authorized in 2006 will not be completed without a major fight.

"I've lived here all my life," said Rio Grande City Mayor Ruben Villarreal, who has governed the city for five years. "The minute you manipulate anything along the river, it affects you, and how that will affect the community is a big concern. It's going to obstruct the natural flow of the water and obstruct wildlife."

If the sections in question are constructed, local officials and residents fear debris will build up along the fence, causing severe flooding and erosion.

At first, officials with the International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC), created to address water-related issues along the border, shared those concerns. But after alterations to the original plans, the agency has changed its mind, said Sally Spener, a foreign affairs officer with the United States' section of the IBWC, or the USIBWC.

"There was a new design that they came up with that did not cause a prohibitive obstruction," Spener said, referring to the Department of Homeland Security, which is charged with implementing the projects. "In other words, it wasn't a solid fence. It was a different design back in 2008."

The fence could also block wildlife from key migration corridors, environmental groups say.

Scott Nichols, who works for the Sierra Club's Borderlands Project and lives in the border town of McAllen, Texas, worries about the fence's impact on rare and endangered species, including the ocelot, whose population has dropped to about 100 breeding animals. If the fence is built, that will be one more barrier hemming in wildlife -- along with roads, buildings and other fencing.

The Department of Homeland Security has already constructed fence segments through prime wildlife areas, including the Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area and the South Texas Refuge Complex, over the objections of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The agencies, along with conservation groups, have worked for decades to purchase and restore habitat in the lower Rio Grande Valley, and the new fencing could severely undermine those efforts, Nichols and other conservationists say.

Villarreal said DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) haven't paid enough attention to what the people who live along the border want.

"At some point, stop asking Washington and start asking border residents, and you'll find a solution," he said, "because we live on the river."

In the end, opponents' best hope of killing the fence in south Texas may be the congressional funding crunch. CBP says it currently does not have the money to pursue the project.

"There is no funding to build any additional fence at this time," said Bill Brooks, a spokesman for CBP's south Texas office. But many locals worry the money will be found in the next few years.

Of rivers and boundaries

Concerns about the fence date back to the late 2000s. In 2008, the IBWC, a binational government agency that deals with water-related border issues, warned DHS that the fence segments in Rio Grande City, Roma and Los Ebanos could potentially cause flooding and shift the international boundary.

Under a 1970 boundary treaty, IBWC -- both the agency's Mexican section and the U.S. section -- must ensure that projects built in the Rio Grande floodplain do not obstruct or deflect the river's flows or exacerbate flooding. In particular, IBWC officials worried that during rainstorms, debris would build up against the fence and turn it into a dam of sorts, diverting flows into Mexican communities (Land Letter, March 27, 2008).
But after consultants analyzing the potential effects of the fence on river flows revised their original model, USIBWC dropped their concerns.

The Mexican section of IBWC, however, remained unconvinced.

"The location, alignment and design of the proposed fence represent a clear obstruction of the Rio Grande hydraulic area, since in the towns of Rio Grande City and Roma, Texas, the fence would occupy nearly all of the hydraulic area on the U.S. side, causing deflection of flows toward the Mexican side," wrote Luis Antonio Rascon Mendoza, principal engineer for IBWC-Mexico, in a Dec. 13, 2011, letter to the USIBWC.

The fence would obstruct 60 to 70 percent of the hydraulic area, and considering the amount of debris that could pile up against the barrier, "the fence constitutes a serious obstruction and deflection of the Rio Grande flows toward Mexico," he wrote.

But last year, engineers for the USIBWC cleared the way for the project to proceed, concluding that the fence would not violate the 1970 boundary treaty.

"After an in-depth and thorough review, the USIBWC has concluded that the proposed fence project(s) will not cause significant deflection or obstruction of ... flood flows of the Rio Grande," USIBWC engineer John Merino wrote in a Feb. 3, 2012, letter responding to the concerns of the Mexican section of IBWC.

The fence would be constructed of 6-inch vertical bollard posts with 4-inch spaces in between. Computer models show that the amount of water that would be directed into Mexico by the fence is "within the threshold limits," partly because some of the flow would pass through the fence, Merino said.

Based on that information, the USIBWC notified the Department of Homeland Security that it had no objection to the three fence projects -- a necessary step for DHS to move forward.

Multiple attempts to reach a DHS representative familiar with the projects garnered no response. DHS has told IBWC it would come up with a plan to keep debris from piling up against the fence during storms.

It is unclear whether the Mexican section of IBWC remains concerned about the project. In a brief phone conversation, Mendoza referred an inquiry from Greenwire about Mexico's position on the project to a spokesperson, who did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.

Despite the USIBWC's assurances, local opposition in the United States remains strong. At a meeting held by USIBWC in Rio Grande City late last summer, the majority of the crowd of residents and local officials questioned the agency's conclusions.

"How can you really tell us it's going to work 100 percent?" said Aleida Garcia, of Los Ebanos, a small community that lies within the floodplain, according to an Associated Press account of the Aug. 29, 2012, meeting. "Because we're talking about people, communities, families."

Jose Nuñez, supervisory civil engineer with USIBWC, said in response that "whether the fence is there or not, you're still in the floodplain," according to AP. He reiterated that the computer model used by the agency's engineers to analyze the project's hydrologic effects suggests that the fence will not create a significant obstruction.

The fence is unpopular in other areas of Texas, as well. In places where CBP tried to avoid building in the floodplain, the new 18-foot barrier has cut off landowners from some of their private property, including farmland. Some landowners have sued over DHS's use of eminent domain to allow construction through private property.

Securing the border?

The fence projects in limbo were authorized as part of a larger border reinforcement effort mandated under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. It called for construction of a total of about 700 miles of fence along sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, which spans 1,954 miles from Texas to California. The barrier was needed to "make the border more secure," President George W. Bush said in signing the legislation into law on Oct. 26, 2006.

Around the time the Secure Fence Act was passed, Congress also gave its stamp of approval to the Real ID Act, which allowed more than 30 environmental and cultural laws to be waived by the DHS secretary to expedite construction of the ambitious project. But the south Texas projects still have to comply with international treaties governing actions along the section of the Rio Grande that serves as the border there.

Critics maintain that in south Texas, there is no need for the fence in the first place. Nichols of the Sierra Club points to a June 2008 document drafted to address community concerns as evidence that the CBP itself believes the fence projects planned for south Texas would be overkill. CPB said in the document that at that time, it was able to "effectively control" that section of the border with boots on the ground.

But the agency went on to say it believed further reinforcements would be necessary if illegal activity increased in the Rio Grande Valley sector.

The number of apprehensions in the Rio Grande Valley actually dropped in the ensuing years, however.

According to data provided by CBP, apprehension of illegal border crossers has decreased almost every year since 2008. Apprehensions in the Rio Grande sector went from 134,186 in fiscal 2005 to 59,243 in fiscal 2011.
Some local officials, including Mayor Villarreal and U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), whose district includes some of the area slated for the projects, have called for alternatives to the fence to secure the area, primarily by expanding the law enforcement presence.

"Let's get more money for our local sheriffs and police," Cuellar said in a video posted on his website after a DHS hearing on border security.

Villarreal, however, remains convinced the fence will be built within the next few years.

"I think we'll have to deal with the strong possibility that we'll have a fence to contend with," he said.

Cuellar: No money to build more border walls in Rio Grande Valley

Rio Grande Guardian
September 2, 2012
by Raul De la Cruz

RIO GRANDE CITY, September 2 - U.S. Henry Cuellar says an official from Customs and Border Protection has told him the agency does not have enough money right now to build border walls in Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos.

Opposition from the general public to the border wall plans was evident at a public meeting in Rio Grande City on Wednesday.

“After holding extensive conversations with members of the Starr County community about U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) proposed 14-mile fence spanning Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos, I extended a formal inquiry to CBP requesting an update on the status of the proposed fence,” Cuellar said, in a news release issued Friday afternoon.

“I have received an official response from CBP stating that there are currently no plans to construct this fence due to a lack of available funding.”

Cuellar said that as CBP moves forward, he will “continue facilitating discussions between the agency and the community to help ensure that the concerns of the community are fully voiced and considered.”

The displeasure in Starr County with the border wall plans was evident at a public meeting in Rio Grande City on Wednesday evening. The U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission hosted the meeting to explain why it has given the go-ahead to CBP’s plans for three new border walls.

“It remains my highest priority as your representative to maintain the strength of our border and the security of our border communities. I will also continue fighting against the construction of the fence so this way we can have the right mixture of personnel and technology to better secure our border,” Cuellar added, in his news release.

Meanwhile, in other Starr County news, the North American Development Bank has announced it will hold a $450,000 grant signing agreement next week for a solid waste facility. Congressman Cuellar is slated to attend the event. It is scheduled for Tuesday, September 4, at 1:00 pm at the Starr County Courthouse Annex in Rio Grande City.

The grant signing will involve Starr County Judge Eloy Vera and NADB Deputy Managing Director Alex Hinojosa. NADBank says the grant will help Starr County finance part of its recently built solid waste facility, as well as to fund an operations and maintenance reserve fund and a repair and replacement reserve fund.

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

Border fence opponents up in arms over planned segments

Houston Chronicle
September 1, 2012
by Lynn Brezosky

RIO GRANDE CITY — Some of the most outspoken opponents of the Department of Homeland Security's border fence are up in arms again over segments planned for the Rio Grande floodplains that, to them, seem certain to go up following an about-face by the U.S. half of the International Boundary and Water Commission.

The U.S. arm of the IBWC, the binational agency charged with applying boundary and water treaties concerning the shared Rio Grande, says hydraulic modeling shows the three segments can be built with minimal potential for exacerbating floods. Opponents, including environmentalists, city mayors and people who live and work along the river, fear the paced vertical posts will act as a strainer for flood debris, trapping and pooling water.

"There's a long history of modeling by DHS and by us since 2008," Padinare Unnikrishna, the U.S. IBWC's lead hydraulic engineer, said last week at a citizens' forum on the additional fence lengths planned for western Hidalgo and Starr counties. "It is not affecting the normal flow."

The segments are not currently funded, said Abel Anderson, U.S. Custom and Border Protection's division director for tactical infrastructure. Should they be, constructed contracts are in place to keep them clear of debris.

Residents took the tone of the forum as a sign the new segments were inevitable.

"I heard that the steel is already bought, so the fence is going to go through," said Aleida Garcia of Los Ebanos, a floodplain community where a 1.7-mile segment is proposed. "Actually, we're wasting our time here."

Mexico's opposition

At issue is Mexico's steadfast opposition to the blueprints, as well as Texas communities' wariness of a barrier in a floodplain that just barely contained a 2010 deluge caused when remnants of Hurricane Alex, followed by a tropical depression, saturated the upper Rio Grande flood basin and sent record flows downriver.

Most existing fencing was erected either along Rio Grande levees or farther inland, which did not impede floodwaters. The three planned segments are in areas without levees.

"The Mexican half of IBWC has said no and the U.S. has said no, that this is a flood concern," said Scott Nicol of the Sierra Club's Borderlands Team. "For years, the U.S. half was telling customs and border protection, 'if you want to build this you have to make something that can be removed …' Customs and Border Protection kept saying they can't do that, it's just not feasible … that should mean you just don't do it, then."

The three segments, planned for Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos, total about 13 miles, seven of which are in the flood plain.

Nicol obtained documents in which CBP, stressing the security importance of the segments, in July 2010 urged the U.S. IBWC to find a way to get them built without the Mexican IBWC's nod.

The briefing noted the areas "have historically been subjected to significant illegal border activities" and called the three segments "CBP's highest tactical infrastructure priority."

CBP has said it needs support for a unilateral decision from IBWC and the State Department to proceed with construction.

Worrisome scenario

The result, Nicol said, is a cave-in to DHS that's based on questionable hydraulic modeling.
He said models showing fencing could block no more than 10 percent to 25 percent of floodwater didn't hold up with what happened at a similar structure in Arizona, where fencing trapped a pile of debris 6 feet high.

It's a scenario that worries community leaders like Rio Grande City Mayor Ruben Villarreal - who during the 2010 flood watched anxiously as waters coursed down Mexican mountains, a phenomenon he wryly refers to as "Mexico's Water Dump" - came dangerously close to rising over roadways and encroaching city homes.

"If Rio Grande City ever had the potential of being inundated by water that was it," he said. "It didn't happen, but that taught me the possibility that it can happen."

According to the IBWC's timeline, the Department of Homeland Security by May of 2008 determined that the IBWC's call for fencing that could be dismantled with the threat of high water was impractical.

"The big flaw in your technical explanation is you don't talk to the public; that was the first big error in addressing the whole issue about the fence. Your presentation is lacking on the communication side," Villarreal said.

"I was scared walking in here, but now I'm frightened to death," he said. "Everything you've told me on your statements, your models, there's 10 points to your methodology and if you're off in any of those 10 points … then we suffer consequences and very grave ones, correct?"

'Top down' decision

A 1970 treaty with Mexico prohibits structures only if they obstruct or deflect normal flow, the IBWC's Unnikrishna said, adding that the standards used in the studies "were much stricter and more conservative" than those used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Sam Vale, president of the Starr-Camargo Bridge Company, questioned how the "top down" decision flew in the face of decades of cooperation with Mexico on projects affecting the shared waterway.

"We can't do any construction on the bridge without both sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission signing off on the plan and the hydraulics," he said. "In fact, we almost have to be in El Paso (and) Juarez on the same day and the same time to get everybody to sign off on it. This is obviously in a different category of cooperation, because I thought it was one entity with two sections."

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Border-fence-opponents-up-in-arms-over-segments-3833884.php

Border fence worries residents

Associate Press
August 29, 2012
by Christopher Sherman

RIO GRANDE CITY —Officials from a U.S. agency that monitors the U.S.-Mexico border faced residents Wednesday who are worried about a decision to allow the construction of fence segments in the nearby Rio Grande flood plain.

Engineers from the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission told a citizens forum that hydraulic modeling led the agency to drop its opposition to the project.

But the highly technical explanation did little to allay residents' fears of flooding and concerns that the agency had caved in to pressure from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

"How can you really tell us it's going to work 100 percent?" said Aleida Garcia, of Los Ebanos, a small community surrounded on three sides by the winding river and completely in the flood plain. "Because we're talking about people, communities, families."

Jose Nunez, supervisory civil engineer with U.S. IBWC, said "whether the fence is there or not, you're still in the flood plain." The agency's engineers said the modeling indicates that the fence will not be a significant obstruction, a position opposed by their Mexican counterparts.

The decision affects about seven miles of fencing planned in the flood plain out 14 miles planned for the three combined sections near Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos.

The U.S. has built about 650 miles of border barriers along the 1,954-mile U.S.-Mexico boundary. In Texas, the fence segments have been built more than a mile from the river in some rural areas, but the three segments recently reviewed by the commission would be built closer because all three communities abut the river.

On Wednesday a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman corrected a statement last month in which the agency said no additional fencing in Hidalgo County — where Los Ebanos is located — was necessary, but reiterated there are no current plans to build the three segments because there is not funding. The final fence segment design drawings would still have to go back to IBWC for approval before construction.

Rio Grande City Mayor Ruben Villarreal said he had been worried coming into the meeting, but after 30 minutes of technical presentation, said "now I'm frightened to death." Most attendees, including the mayor, expressed concern about border security, but called for more personnel, not a fence.

The proposal continues to draw opposition from Mexico and its side of the binational IBWC as well.
A 1970 treaty between the United States and Mexico called on both countries to prohibit the building of anything that "may cause deflection or obstruction of the normal flow of the river or of its flood flows."

In July, Jesus Luevano, secretary of the commission's Mexican section, said in an email to The Associated Press that Mexico's position is that the "wall constitutes an obstruction of the normal current ... in terms of the 1970 Boundary Treaty, therefore we continue fighting its placement with respect to the Rio Grande flood zone."

One of the agency's own engineers said as much to a similar forum in 2008.

Al Riera, then the principal operations engineer for the U.S. IBWC, said, "If they (Department of Homeland Security) don't show us they have something in place to guarantee removal of the (fence) panels ... the commission would never agree to something like that."

That movable fence was planned to involve a base of concrete barriers topped with about 15 feet of tightly woven steel fencing that could be removed in advance of floodwater.

The fence that the IBWC approved in February is not movable. It is an 18-foot-tall fence made of 6-by-6-inch steel bollards with four inches between.

Scott Nicol, founder of No Border Wall, a group opposed to the project, said the agency's modeling was built on flawed or wishful assumptions. He showed a large photograph of debris stacked nearly six feet high along a fence segment in Arizona.

"It seems like the change (in the IBWC position) has more to do with pressure from above than facts on the ground," Nicol said.

A July 2010 presentation made by CBP to the State Department noted that these three segments were the agency's highest tactical infrastructure priority. It also stated that "hydraulic modeling is not an exact science."

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2012/aug/29/border-fence-worries-residents/

Forum on border fence plan gets cool reception in RGC

The Monitor
August 29, 2012
by Gail Burkhardt

RIO GRANDE CITY — Many residents, activists and community leaders left Wednesday’s meeting on a flood study for the proposed border fences still full of questions.

The International Boundary and Water Commission, or IBWC, gave a presentation on a flood modeling study that showed that a border fence in Los Ebanos, Rio Grande City and Roma would not cause flooding. About half the proposed 14 miles of fence would sit on a flood plain.

IBWC, the bi-national agency with components in Mexico and the United States that oversee water and boundary treaties on the Rio Grande, hosted the meeting in the Holiday Inn Express in Rio Grande City after receiving questions and concerns from area residents who believe debris would clog up the fence and cause flooding. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security, would be in charge of the fence.

Dr. Padinare Unnikrishna, the lead hydraulic engineer for the U.S. division of IBWC, presented a detailed and technical PowerPoint on the flood study that used two-dimensional modeling.

But about 35 minutes into the presentation, one meeting attendee echoed the sentiment of many in the room of more than 50 people.

“Can I ask a question?” he said. “Does anyone understand any of this?”

And so without further ado, the questions from residents began:

>> “How can you assure us that it’s going to work 100 percent?”

>> “Could that fence actually extend the flood plain?”

Others asked about the possibility of drainage being blocked from going into the river.

The IBWC and CBP officials said drainage systems would be accounted for when the fence is designed.

Rio Grande City Mayor Ruben Villarreal criticized IBWC for leading with a confusing technical explanation and not communicating well with the public.

“Your presentation has been lacking in the communication side,” he said. “I was scared walking in here. Now I’m frightened to death.”

Los Ebanos resident Aleida Garcia said she’s seen how her small community, which sits completely on a flood plain, has been affected by water.

“The debris is bad,” she said. “We saw it. We lived it.”

Jose Nuñez, the supervisory civil engineer, said debris is only projected to build up in 10 percent to 25 percent of the fence, thus not changing the flow of water or causing flooding. The flood study used a model of waters rising to higher than Hurricane Beulah levels in 12 hours.

But Scott Nicol, of the Sierra Club environmental group, questioned why the IBWC did not look at other, lower levels of water or higher levels of obstruction of the fence. He also noted that officials from the Mexican IBWC projected that debris would obstruct 60 percent to 70 percent of the fence and push floodwaters into Mexico.

Nicol, who pushed for the meeting in Starr County, said he’s glad the IBWC and CBP officials held the meeting, but he didn’t leave the event more enlightened.

“They did not answer any of my questions,” he said.

He also noted the reactions of residents who were frustrated they weren’t able to give their input before the study was completed.

“It would have made a lot of sense to have the meeting before the decision was made,” he said.

He challenged the Department of Homeland Security to host public forums about the fence, given that IBWC was only doing the study and does not actually build or fund the fence.

Abel Anderson, the division director of tactical infrastructure for CBP, said the agency has public meetings for the fence once they are in the design phases. Currently there is no money available to build the 14 additional miles of the fence.

Donnie Valdez, a member of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Citizens Forum for IBWC, asked Anderson how the public could give its input on the border fence. Anderson suggested going through the local Congress member’s office.

http://www.themonitor.com/news/reception-63417-fence-rgc.html

Meeting this week for new Starr, Hidalgo border fence

The Monitor
August 25, 2012
by Gail Burkhardt

ROMA — “I’ve got all kinds of questions, but I’ve never gotten any answers.”

Noel Benavides summed up the sentiment of many residents when asked about new stretches of border fencing proposed in Starr and western Hidalgo counties.

Representatives for the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) hope to clear up some of those concerns and questions at a public forum Wednesday in Rio Grande City. The meeting will address an IBWC study that examined a proposed border fence made of vertical posts spaced 4 inches apart near Rio Grande City, Roma and Los Ebanos. IBWC is a bi-national agency with components in Mexico and the United States that oversee water and boundary treaties on the Rio Grande.

The study found the fence would not cause flooding on the U.S. or Mexican sides of the river. About 7 of the 14 miles of proposed fence included in the study would sit on the flood plain.

However, no timeline has been set for when the new stretches of fence would be built.

“There is a requirement for an additional approximately 14 miles of fence, segments O-1, O-2 and O-3 in Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos,” an email from a Customs and Border Protection spokesman sent to The Monitor states. “However, there are currently no plans to construct that fence as funding is not currently available.”

>> View interactive maps of the proposed border fences in Rio Grande City, Roma and Los Ebanos

STUDY RESULTS

The IBWC study results have prompted complaints from residents, lawmakers and activists who point to the commission’s previous reservations about building a permanent fence on the flood plain.

But those views changed after the most recent study was completed.

The study employed advanced two-dimensional computer modeling to show that even with record high flood levels like those of the infamous Hurricane Beulah of 1967, the fence would not cause flooding in either country, according to IBWC reports.

But Mexican IBWC officials object to the fence, noting that it could cause flooding in Mexico if debris caught in the fence make it impermeable, thus pushing floodwater south. Correspondence between the two entities obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request made by environmentalist group Sierra Club shows Mexico’s dissent.

Jesús Luévano, the secretary of the Mexican section of IBWC confirmed that position in an email to The Monitor, but Sally Spener, the foreign affairs officer for the U.S. IBWC, said the study included specifications for debris and still showed that it would not cause flooding.

But Scott Nicol, the Lower Rio Grande Valley Sierra Club conservation chair, cited cases in the deserts of Arizona where heavy rainfall has deposited dirt, plants and other debris to a height of 6 feet along the border fence with a construction similar to the fencing planned in Starr County and Los Ebanos. He also questioned the methodology of the study and said he plans to raise those concerns again Wednesday.

Benavides, a Starr County Industrial Foundation board member and former Roma city commissioner, wants to know how a Texas Department of Transportation drainage project will be affected by the proposed fence. TxDOT plans to widen Arroyo Roma to aid proper drainage and prevent flooding, which commonly occurs in Roma with heavy rainfall.

While good for the city, Benavides worries that the extra water from the creek that flows into the Rio Grande could get stopped up in the border fence.

But Spener said the modeling was tested for much more water and the arroyo plans will not cause flooding. She also noted that gates in the fence are an option for arroyos.

“When we modeled the impact of flood flows we took into account what is considered a major flood, which is the Hurricane Beulah flood,” she said. “We took into account that very volume of flow into the river. It’s a huge volume. It’s far in excess of what any single arroyo would contribute.”



RESIDENT REACTIONS

Starr County and western Hidalgo County residents remember the big floods well.

Police evacuated Los Ebanos, a small unincorporated community south of Sullivan City, in July 2010 during Hurricane Alex. Flood waters swelled hundreds of yards past the river, which surrounds Los Ebanos on three sides.

Rio Grande City resident Jose Roberto Molina, who lives on Water Street about a quarter of a mile from the river, said he remembers floodwaters from Beulah reaching his yard.

The 56-year-old said he would worry the fence might obstruct water that drains naturally downhill toward the river and near his house. But he also is concerned about what he perceives as an increased number of illegal immigrants running through his neighborhood.

“Before, you could sleep with the … door open. Now there’s people coming by every day,” he said, adding that he locks the gate to his driveway each evening.

Rio Grande City school district Police Chief Hernan Garza said immigrants occasionally run through the district’s Fort Ringgold campus, which abuts the river. School police also recently stopped a large drug load passing through the campus. A deflated raft even sat near the river’s edge near school property Thursday.

“I think (a fence) would be a good deterrent,” he said.

Border Patrol agents frequent Benavides’ land, where at least three deflated rafts, presumably used for illegal crossings, were visible along a stretch of the riverbank Thursday.

Still, Benavides is vehemently against the fence. He has been voicing his concerns and requesting information on the topic from federal authorities for years.

“I personally don’t see any use for it,” he said, explaining that he believes the current fences in Hidalgo and Cameron counties aren’t effective at deterring illegal traffic.

He said the fence would cut off about 35 acres of his ranchland, which sits near the adjoining cemeteries on Grant Street southeast of downtown. Benavides, who has allowed the land to revert to its natural state after being farmed, worries about the environmental impacts of a fence.

The Department of Homeland Security waived the normal requirement to conduct environmental studies when building the fence along the river.

Benavides said there is evidence of ocelots and other native threatened species on his 150 acres of land.

“They did not do an environmental study. … Why are they exempt from doing that?” he said, voicing one of his many unanswered questions aloud. “Will it affect the environment? I think it will.”

A Customs and Border Protection representative is scheduled to be at Wednesday’s meeting to answer additional questions, but the bulk of the gathering will include presentations on IBWC’s study.

The International Boundary and Water Commission is not in charge of building the fence and conducted the study to comply with a 1970 treaty between the U.S. and Mexico that prevents anything from being built along the river that would obstruct or deflect normal or flood flows, Spener said.

Merino, the U.S. IBWC principal engineer; Jose Nuñez, the supervisory civil engineer; and Padinare Unnikrishna, the lead hydraulic engineer, will present on the study and answer questions at the forum.

___

 
Gail Burkhardt covers Mission, western Hidalgo County, Starr County and general assignments for The Monitor. She can be reached at gburkhardt@themonitor.com and (956) 683-4462.

IF YOU GO:

WHAT: Public forum on United States International Boundary and Water Commission's hydraulic analysis of proposed border fence near Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos, TX

WHERE: Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites, 5274 East Hwy 83 in Rio Grande City

WHEN: Wednesday from 6 to 8 p.m.

>> Those with questions can contact Jose Nuñez, Chief of the US IBWC's Engineering Services Division, at (915) 832-4710

 

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/new-63300-roma-border.html

IBWC to hold public forum next week to discuss border wall plans

Rio Grande Guardian
August 22, 2012
by Raul de la Cruz

RIO GRANDE CITY, August 22 - The No Border Wall group is urging South Texas residents to attend a key public forum being held next week to disseminate more information on new border walls.

The U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission has approved new border walls for Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos.

“This may be the last chance for Rio Grande Valley residents to ask hard questions of the U.S. IBWC before border walls are built in the floodplain,” said Scott Nicol, a co-founder of No Border Wall.

The public forum is being hosted by the U.S. section of the IBWC. It will be held next Wednesday, Aug. 29, at the Holiday Day Inn Express Hotel & Suites, 5274 East Hwy 83, in Rio Grande City. The forum will start at 6 p.m.

The welcome and introductions will be made by John L. Merino, an IBWC principal engineer. The project description will be made by Jose Nunez, an IBWC supervisory civil engineer. The hydraulic modeling analysis discussion will be led by Dr. Padrinare Unnikrishna, an IBWC lead hydraulic engineer.

Nicol said that when U.S. Customs and Border Protection built identical border walls to those planned for Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos in Cameron County, the U.S. section of the IBWC forced CBP to erect them behind the levees, cutting off thousands of acres of private land and wildlife refuges. “So, why is U.S. IBWC now saying that these border walls will not pose a flood hazard and can sit in the floodplain?” Nicol asked.

Nicol recently visited the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area in Arizona to view similar border walls to those being proposed for Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos. He provided the Guardian with a photo of the border wall in San Pedro.

“In one instance, debris is (as of last Saturday) backed up six feet deep behind the wall. Sediment has filled in behind the debris, raising the floor of the wash to a height around four and a half feet higher than it is on the downstream side,” Nicol said.

“It will be interesting to see how IBWC explains how the Rio Grande during a hurricane-induced flood will deposit less debris than a wash in the sparsely vegetated Sonora desert.”

Nicol questioned analysis by the U.S. section of the IBWC which says the border walls proposed for Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos will block no more than 25 percent of water during a hurricane.

“The flood model that U.S. IBWC's decision is based on claims that these walls will only block ten to 25 percent of flood waters after a hurricane swells the Rio Grande. But, it never explains where that figure came from,” Nicol said.

“Walls already standing in Arizona have blocked floodwaters and caused millions of dollars in damage so why does U.S. IBWC think that nearly identical walls in South Texas will have a different impact?”

Nicol said residents of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos who have friends and relatives living in neighboring cities across the Rio Grande should press the U.S. section of IBWC about the risk of floodwater being deflected into Mexican communities.

“This is the reason that the Mexican half of the IBWC, showing more concern for the safety of Mexican citizens than the U.S. half is showing for citizens of the United States, continues to reject walls in the floodplain,” Nicol said.

Nicol noted that the IBWC is supposed to be a bi-national organization, with approval of structures that can impact the Rio Grande agreed to by both nations. “In unilaterally approving border walls that Mexico rejects the U.S. section is violating the treaty that established the Rio Grande as the border,” he said.

http://www.riograndeguardian.com/green_story.asp?story_no=14

Feds pay $1 million for nature loss

San Antonio Express News
August 7, 2012
by Lynn Brezosky

BROWNSVILLE — Some four years after then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff waived dozens of environmental laws to expedite construction of the controversial border fence, the federal government has paid just short of $1 million for an 8.31-acre slice of land cutting across the northern edge of the Nature Conservancy's Southmost Preserve.

The preserve is home to one of only two large stands of native Mexican sabal palms remaining in the country.

Court documents show the government initially offered $114,000.

“The settlement represents an agreement on compensation for the land that was used for the border fence,” said Laura Huffman, state director for the Nature Conservancy. “That was never intended to and doesn't represent the conservation losses that we've experienced.”

On Monday $978,650 was deposited, just a few weeks before a jury trial to  determine the value of the land.

The settlement agreement was reached July 9.

Huffman said a jury decision likewise would have been based on what could be proven in terms of the value of the land and the structures atop it, with conservation losses remaining an unknown, if not priceless, factor.

The Conservancy purchased the 1,034-acre tract for $2.6 million in 1999, but figures its total acquisition cost to be about $3.1 million, not counting hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in equipment, stewardship, staff and outreach.

“The border fence has fragmented the preserve, from the standpoint that 800 acres of our preserve are now on the south side of the fence,” she said. “And fragmentation of heritage ranches and landscapes throughout Texas is one of the biggest issues and challenges that we face today.”
Some things still need to be worked out.

A gap in the fence, one of the last segments to be completed, has allowed for easy access for preserve caretaker Max Pons, his family, and workers including restoration technicians who care for the native plant seedlings in the preserve's nursery.

Customs and Border Protection plan eventually to install a gate.

“We do not know that they're planning,” Huffman said when asked about keys or access codes. “They've indicated they would be cooperative with us to the strike the right balance, making sure people who need to have access, have it, but not everybody.”

The house where Pons and his family have lived more than 10 years will be moved to the north side of the fence, meaning an end to the round-the-clock, on-site management he provided, particularly for the seed farm.

It will no longer be feasible for university students conducting research in one of the world's most ecologically diverse tracts to stay in lodging that at night will be locked in the no man's land.

Pons on Tuesday joked about being in a "gated community," but said life on the preserve so far has remained much the same in the year or so since the fence was completed.

The Border Patrol remains a constant presence on both sides of the fence.

“I'm not alone,” he said, watching two Border Patrol vehicles move along the dirt road leading to the preserve. As far as unauthorized immigrants? “I still don't see them like I see the animals.”

He said he communicates frequently with the Border Patrol, in part so they know when a new batch of footprints are from student biologists or bird-watchers and not unauthorized immigrants or drug smugglers.

While there are 107 acres of experimental farmland north of the fence, he said he was glad that the ponds, palm forests, and other native fauna — the entire habitat portion — remained intact.

Initial concepts for the fence would have placed it closer to the Rio Grande, a scenario that would have separated wildlife from their lifeblood.

“It's an extremely unique pristine area, made up of really interesting geological formations,” Pons said. “The hills that you see out there are referred to as ‘lomas,' Spanish for ‘active clay dunes.'” And it's part of 50,000 years of windblown and water-carried sediments piling up.

“One of the greatest feelings I have is when university classes come out and we go for a walk, and they look at me and say, ‘Wow, we didn't know this was here,'” he said.

The settlement is one of the last in a slew of condemnation lawsuits the government filed in 2008 to build the fence.

But even as it was reached, environmentalists have begun waging a fierce informational campaign regarding new segments planned to the west.

The segments have so far been stalled by concerns the fence's tooth-like structure could collect debris like a colander, creating flooding nightmares, said Scott Nicol of the group “No Border Wall.”

But the U.S. arm of the International Boundary and Water Commission, the binational commission charged with enforcing treaties sharing the Rio Grande, said recently it would not oppose the fencing, reversing its prior stance despite the Mexican arm's continued opposition.

“For years the U.S. half was telling Customs and Border Protection, ‘If you want to build this, you have to build something that can be removed, something that you can drag out of the floodplain within 72 hours of notice,'” he said. "Customs and Border Protection has said, ‘No, that's not feasible.' That should mean you just don't do it then.”

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Four-years-later-government-pays-out-for-fencing-3770289.php

U.S., Mexico disagree over border fence plan in Texas

Associated Press / Houston Chronicle
July 24, 2012
by Christopher Sherman

McALLEN — An agency that monitors the U.S.-Mexico boundary is agreeing to a U.S. proposal to build border fence segments in a South Texas flood plain, a move Mexico opposes.

The decision by the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission comes despite objections from its Mexican counterpart. Mexico argues the fence would deflect floodwaters to its side of the Rio Grande and violate a bi-national treaty.

The Associated Press on Tuesday obtained a letter the commission sent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection noting it will not oppose the project. The commission says its analysis found that the fence proposed for three areas in South Texas would not be a significant obstruction to river waters. Half of the 14 miles proposed would be in the flood plain.

"When it comes right down to it, the scientific analysis is what we have to fall back on," John Merino, principal engineer with the U.S. commission, said Tuesday.

In his February letter, Merino wrote that after a thorough review, the agency concluded that the project "will not cause significant deflection or obstruction of the normal or flood flows of the Rio Grande" and is consistent with the treaty.

Jenny Burke, a spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said that one of the segments, in Los Ebanos, is no longer considered necessary and more funding is needed to build the other two in Rio Grande City and Roma. Merino also pointed out that the government would have to bring back detailed construction drawings of the fence for approval before proceeding.

Still, the green light for a permanent fence made of spaced vertical steel tubes is a significant reversal for an agency that expressed concerns when the government was still proposing a "moveable" fence in 2008.

A 1970 treaty between the United States and Mexico called on both countries to prohibit the building of anything that "may cause deflection or obstruction of the normal flow of the river or of its flood flows."

In July 2008, Al Riera, then the principal operations engineer for the U.S. boundary commission, told a citizens forum, "If they (Department of Homeland Security) don't show us they have something in place to guarantee removal of the (fence) panels ... the commission would never agree to something like that."

That movable fence was planned to involve a base of concrete barriers topped with about 15 feet of tightly woven steel fencing that could be removed in advance of floodwaters.

Merino said the project had not been analyzed when Riera made those comments. Riera is no longer with the commission.

But a letter from a Mexican engineer to Merino in December 2011 said the project represented a serious obstruction.

"The location, alignment and design of the proposed fence represent a clear obstruction of the Rio Grande hydraulic area, since in the towns of Rio Grande City and Roma, (Texas), the fence would occupy nearly all of the hydraulic area on the U.S. side, causing the deflection of flows towards the Mexican side," wrote principal engineer Luis Antonio Rascon Mendoza.

Jesus Luevano, secretary of the commission's Mexican section, said in an email Tuesday that Mexico's position is that the "wall constitutes an obstruction of the normal current ... in terms of the 1970 Boundary Treaty, therefore we continue fighting its placement with respect to the Rio Grande flood zone."

He added that Mexico recognizes the border fence is a unilateral endeavor, but said it wasn't improving relations between the neighbors.

The U.S. has built about 650 miles of border barriers along the 1,954-mile U.S.-Mexico boundary. In Texas, the fence segments have been built more than a mile away from the river in some rural areas, but the three segments recently reviewed by the commission would be built closer because all three communities abut the river. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security waived a host of environmental regulations to allow speedy construction.

Merino said the disagreement stems from differing assumptions. He said Mexico looks at the fence as a solid barrier like a dam that would not allow water to pass through. U.S. engineers believe water will pass through it as long as it's kept free of debris.

Jeffrey Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, said he will send a letter to the commission Wednesday demanding an explanation for the agency's new position. He noted that the proposed fencing would cut through a national wildlife refuge.

"We don't know the reason that all of these concerns evaporated," Ruch said Tuesday.

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/U-S-Mexico-disagree-over-border-fence-plan-3732206.php

IBWC says 'yes' to border walls in Los Ebanos, Roma and Rio Grande City

Rio Grande Guardian
July 19, 2012
by Steve Taylor

MERCEDES, July 19 - The U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission has confirmed it will not object to plans by the Department of Homeland Security to build border walls in Los Ebanos, Rio Grande City and Roma.

Rodolfo Montero, Rio Grande Valley area operations manager for the IBWC, spoke about his agency’s decision at a meeting of the IBWC’s Lower Rio Grande Citizens Forum in Mercedes on Wednesday afternoon.

Montero said the U.S. would not be breaking any international treaties if it went ahead with federal plans and built permeable border walls in the floodplains of Los Ebanos, Rio Grande City and Roma over objections from Mexico.

Montero said his agency will hold a public meeting in the Valley soon to discuss the border wall plans.

“Mexico may not want the wall for X or Y reason but we have to a sound, technical, advice for us, the U.S. IBWC, to reject it. We are not breaking the treaty,” Montero said, in response to a reporter’s question.

The United States and Mexico are joint partners in the IBWC. Unlike other border walls, those proposed for Los Ebanos, Roma, and Rio Grande City would be in floodplains with levees.

To the dismay of many border residents and environmentalists, IBWC recently announced it would not oppose plans by the Department of Homeland Security to build an additional 14 miles of walls in Los Ebanos in Hidalgo County, and Roma and Rio Grande City in Starr County.

“These three border wall sections, totaling 14 miles, were not built when other parts of the Rio Grande Valley were walled off because of the serious danger they pose to communities on both sides of the river,” said Scott Nicol, a member of No Border Wall and the Sierra Club’s Borderlands Team, in a recent guest column in the Guardian.

“On the U.S. side they could block the exit of flood water into the Rio Grande, bottling it up in towns and farm land and exacerbating the damage that they suffer.”

Nicol said the new border walls could also deflect flood waters towards Mexico, worsening flooding in Mexican communities. “Deflection might even cause the river to settle into a new channel farther to the south, which would effectively change the location of the border,” he said.

Nicol attended the quarterly Lower Rio Grande Citizens Forum on Wednesday. He asked Montero why IBWC had not held any public meetings about its decision on the new border walls. Montero said the issue was addressed by an engineer in the agency’s planning department at the last citizen’s forum in April. This meeting was also attended by IBWC Commissioner Edward Drusina. There were no reporters at that meeting and so there was no news coverage of IBWC’s decision.

Montero also said IBWC will be holding a public meeting in the Valley to talk about the border walls in the near future. He said he wanted to get with Nicol and the Sierra Club to find out a suitable date. Asked by a reporter if the meeting would be in Roma, Rio Grande City or Los Ebanos, Montero said the location has yet to be decided.

Nicol quizzed Montero about the type of border walls that might be built. He said if they are the same as those built in Cameron County they will be susceptible to collecting debris in the event of a hurricane. The walls in Cameron County consisted of six inch wide iron beams with four inches of space between them. Nicol said he wanted to know how it was determined that this type of structure would only prevent ten to 25 percent of flood water passing through during a hurricane.

“From El Paso to San Diego, every time a wall crossed a wash there was obstruction. Debris built up and got up to six feet deep. The wall became impermeable. It became a dam. There is no explanation in the 2011 report for South Texas as to why that wouldn’t happen here,” Nicol said.

Montero responded that Nicol would have to ask the engineers about this at the public meeting.

Responding a question by a reporter about Mexico’s stance on the border wall, Montero said the U.S. and Mexico are sovereign countries. He said the model used in studies conducted by Mexico show a solid, impermeable, wall. The border walls in Los Ebanos, Roma and Rio Grande City will not be impermeable, Montero said. “They have not brought the technical argument. Mexico has to provide sound, technical, advice (why the wall should not be built),” he said.

Former Cameron County Commissioner John Wood is a member of the IBWC Lower Rio Grande Citizens Forum. He has been a fierce opponent of border walls along the U.S.-Mexico border and has visited locations throughout Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to see the impact they have had.

“My experience is whatever DHS wants, DHS gets. It doesn’t make any difference what IBWC or Fish & Wildlife or local Border Patrol agents want. DHS in Washington are going to get what they want,” Wood said.

“They have already decided they do not have to follow any NEPA requirements, they do not have to follow anything. If that is what they want that is what they are going to do.”

Nonetheless, Wood said he encourages communities opposed to the border walls to continue their resistance. “They (DHS) ought to follow their own guidelines but they don’t.” Wood got a laugh from many in the audience when he said that talking to DHS in Washington is like “talking to the wall.”

http://www.riograndeguardian.com/green_story.asp?story_no=9

County Residents Still have Questions About Border Wall

KRGV
September 23, 2011
by Camaron Abundes


LOS EBANOS - People living near the Rio Grande in northern Hidalgo and Starr counties still have many questions about the border wall. The federal government has yet to figure out where it plans to build 14 more miles of border fence.

Ignacio Gutierrez has lived in Los Ebanos for 34 years in the home he built. Over the last six years, he has heard a lot about changes coming, changes-in the shape of a border fence.

"The way of life we live is the way of life. If you put a wall, the problem won't be for us but for the people who want to come here," says Gutierrez.

Gutierrez says he's not sure the wall - and the multi-millions of dollars it will cost to build it - in this region is worth the money. He says he does feel the impact of Border Patrol agents constantly keeping watch on this sleepy little town.

Fourteen miles of required fencing is expected to go up in Starr County, but that won't happen until there's an agreement between the International Boundary and Water Commission and the Department of Homeland Security.

A spokesperson for DHS says the IBWC has already completed a hydrology study of the land. The study was to help experts understand the impact of the wall on the flood plain. They have yet to sign off on any final plans. That means just about everything about the construction remains in limbo.

Gutierrez doesn't know if the wall will ever come or on which side of the fence he'll find his beloved home. There's just one thing he's certain about.

"Bad people that want to do bad will find a way to keep doing it," says Gutierrez.

He says people who want to enter the United States and move drugs and illegal immigrants will keep looking for ways to do it.

Another thing still up in the air is if the federal government will step in to buy additional lands to build the wall in those areas.

http://www.krgv.com/news/local/story/County-Residents-Still-have-Questions-About/_2H9FQI4kUGROMmz4-oi8g.cspx

Feds plan forum on Paisano Drive border fence

El Paso Times
September 22, 2011
by Daniel Borunda

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials will have a public meeting tonight about the environmental impact of the planned construction of an 18-foot-tall border fence at a historic spot off West Paisano Drive.

The open-house-style meeting by CBP Facilities Management and Engineering will be at 6 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Express, 409 E. Missouri in Downtown El Paso.

The planned fence would be behind Old Fort Bliss and where conquistador Don Juan de Oñate is thought to have crossed the Rio Grande at "El Paso del Rio del Norte" in 1598.

"The project will be constructed in the only remaining section of the border in El Paso that does not have a pedestrian fence installed," CBP materials stated. "The fence will reduce illegal cross-border activities in this heavily travelled area of the city."

CBP said the 0.63-mile fence would connect to steel-mesh fencing already along the Rio Grande to the west near Asarco and to the east to the Downtown. The planned fence and an access road would be built in the spring.

The planned fence, named segment K-1B, would be next to the American Canal on U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission land and some private property. Officials said parts of the fence would be removable to allow access to the canal.

In 2008, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security issued a waiver of many environmental laws to speed up the construction of border fences, CBP officials said.Ê

Critics of the so-called border wall argue that the barrier is costly, conveys a hostile message and pushes illegal immigration to remote and dangerous locations.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_18949648

Officials worry border fence expansion will be harmful to El Paso

El Paso Times
February 23, 2011
By Adriana Gómez Licón

Local officials worry that a fence project proposed by Customs and Border Protection near UTEP may leave a flood-control structure isolated, inaccessible and an easy target for vandalism.

"It is one of our most important structures, where we receive our water coming down from the American Canal," said Jesus "Chuy" Reyes, general manager for El Paso County Water Improvement District.

Officials met Tuesday afternoon at City Hall to discuss the impact the proposed border fence would have on El Paso.

CBP plans to fence a .65-mile stretch in the Hart's Mill Crossing area -- south of UTEP and west of Downtown. On the Mexican side, there are poor neighborhoods in Juárez that have been plagued by multiple and drive-by shootings.

The irrigation district has a generator that controls floodgates that send drinking water from the canal to the El Paso Water Treatment Plant between March and October, Reyes said.

What Reyes wants is for the CBP to shift its project south of the American Canal so that it leaves the structure accessible and protects El Paso from floods. The structure would still be on the U.S. side of the border, but it would be fenced off, according to the CBP plan.

So far, CBP officials have told him the project would cost $14 million to $16 million if the plan is changed, compared with $4 million or $6 million if the location stays the same.

Reyes did not invite the CBP to Tuesday's briefing.

"The original design and alignment was problematic due to levee stability issues and perceived real estate issues," said Ramiro Cordero, spokes man for the U.S. Border Patrol.
Cordero said his agency continues to negotiate with the irrigation district and the International Boundary and Water Commission.

The Hart's Mill Crossing area now has no border fence. Fencing from Downtown ends where the flood-control structure is and continues half a mile north.

U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, brother of Jesus Reyes, said that though he wants to see the border protected, the CBP should consult with community agencies.

"It's not a good answer to say it's too expensive," Silvestre Reyes said. "I mean, how expensive would it be if terrorists poison the water or do something else to take out our infrastructure."

Ed Drusina, commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission, said CBP and local agencies will have to find a middle ground to decide the location of the fence.

"I see very clearly the city has a serious concern to protect the water in that stretch of the channel," he said.

"That's why we want to work cooperatively with the city and the DHS," the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the CBP.

El Paso Mayor John Cook said he hopes the CBP rethinks its strategy.

"This is a community issue that impacts our ability to provide water to the community," he said.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_17457266

Former IBWC counsel alleges abuses affecting safety

Brownsville Herald
August 8, 2010
by Emma Perez-Trevino

While water seeps quietly under the foundation of the two dams in the vast water-management system along the Rio Grande, a whistle-blowing lawyer says he has important information that he hopes will filter to the surface before tragedy occurs.

The dam and levee system provides water for more than 3 million people who live along the Rio Grande.

The two dams – Amistad in Val Verde County and Falcon in Zapata County – are operated by the International Boundary and Water Commission, a U.S.-Mexican agency charged with handling issues concerning bodies of water, sanitation, water quality and flood control along the border.

Robert McCarthy, a self-described whistleblower from El Paso who was employed as general counsel for the U.S. section of the IBWC, says he was fired shortly after he made allegations of fraud, waste, abuse and suspected criminal activity within the agency. A judge has backed the firing but McCarthy has appealed the decision and says he is hoping his termination will be declared improper.

In an interview last week with The Brownsville Herald, McCarthy said abuses within the IBWC have compromised operations, including the safety of the dams and the levee system along the Rio Grande.

In the summary of his appeal, McCarthy states: “The agency operates several international wastewater treatment plants, international dams, and other flood-control facilities, all of which are put at greater risk by this tiny cabal (of some employees at IBWC in 2009) that sees no further than their own parochial bureaucratic interests, jeopardizing the health and safety of millions of border residents.”

Representatives of the IBWC have denied wrongdoing and say the agency continues to properly do its work in managing the dams and levees.



THE ALLEGATIONS

McCarthy’s list of complaints about some of the processes within IBWC in 2009 includes claims that certain employees:

* Solicited bids and issued a contract to construct levees with funds received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with architectural designs for which the agency had no contractual rights and which cited state rather than required federal rules and standards. IBWC received $220 million in Recovery Act funds for rehabilitating levees and for flood-control projects.

* Conspired to conceal mismanagement of the $220 million flood-control project funded under the Recovery Act, making false and fraudulent reports to the U.S. Department of State.

* Illegally subsidized a border barrier in Hidalgo County for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with Recovery Act funds intended solely for flood control.

* Chose to build a “cosmetic” levee with $37 million of emergency flood-control funds in Presidio to give the appearance of safety while covering up geophysical reports that the new levee would not withstand another flood.

* Issued an $88 million contract for an expansion of the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant in San Diego, Calif., months before Congress appropriated the funds, then knowingly covered up the violation;

“While senior agency officials help themselves to illegal pay raises, spy on their colleagues with remote surveillance equipment, and routinely abuse agency staff, levees crumble, millions of dollars are siphoned off for projects unrelated to the agency’s mission, and millions of border residents are put at ever-greater risk of catastrophic injury to their health and safety,” according to McCarthy’s appeal.

He also maintains that the agency has downplayed deficiencies at Amistad Dam near Del Rio and Falcon Dam near Roma, saying an inspection in 2007 conducted by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and technical advisers to IBWC found that the entire foundation of Amistad Dam needs evaluation due to the potential impact of seepage from naturally occurring sinkholes.

The reports show that inspectors also noted that Falcon Dam’s entire foundation was in need of further assessment, citing a problem with seepage.

“It’s hard to see what, if anything, has been done since then,” McCarthy told the Herald Thursday.



RUTH RESPONDS

McCarthy’s allegations predate the administration of present IBWC Commissioner Edward Drusina, who was appointed in January by President Barack Obama.

McCarthy is appealing his firing by the former IBWC commissioner, La Feria native C. W. “Bill” Ruth.

McCarthy says Ruth fired him on July 31, 2009, three days after he reported his allegations to an array of federal agencies, including the White House. McCarthy had been with the agency just six months. Previously, he had served as a supervisory attorney with the U.S. Department of the Interior from 1999 to 2008.

Ruth declined to comment on McCarthy’s termination but did address the issue of sinkholes at Amistad Dam and said studies are under way.

“We have been working on that problem and we’ve been with our technical advisers, the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, and Mexico, and the preliminary report has been made,” he said.

Ruth is referring to a report that a panel of technical advisers issued in November 2009 regarding the condition of Amistad Dam and a plan of action.

“The judgment is that we needed to go forward and do additional studies and that is in progress at Amistad, and we were supposed to have gotten started looking at Falcon Dam this year.

“The judgment was that there was no immediate danger and that the dams had been maintained properly and were in a good state of repair, but that these other problems should be looked at, and they are,” Ruth said.

He said they are monitoring Amistad very closely “to make sure that there isn’t any increase in that flow or that there is no change in the flow being monitored coming from under the foundation.”

“You know, every dam leaks to some extent,” Ruth said. “I mean, that is just a natural occurrence. You will never be able to, in my opinion, completely shut it off. But I mean, whatever needs to be done will be done.”

He said that the longevity of the dams proves that they are of sound structure.

“Most of the dam failures that take place take place when the dam is first put into service,” Ruth said. “If there is a problem developing, you need to address it and that is what we are trying to do now – to determine if there is a problem or not.”

The IBWC has refused to release a copy of the November 2009 report on Amistad Dam to The Brownsville Herald, despite a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act.

IBWC’s FOIA Officer Eric Meza on Thursday declined the request in writing, stating that the report on Amistad Dam is exempted from public disclosure because it falls in the category of “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.

“Such record is privileged as reflecting the deliberative process of government, in addition to containing the guidance of consultants acting in the interest of the agency,” he said, noting that the decision could be appealed.



McCARTHY’S SITUATION

Regarding his firing from the IBWC, McCarthy has filed a petition for review by the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Ruth, the man who fired him, declined to discuss the matter, citing ongoing litigation.

However, in the July 31, 2009, termination letter to McCarthy, obtained by the Herald, Ruth said McCarthy’s conduct had failed to demonstrate his fitness for continued employment. He writes that McCarthy had not supported him or the executive staff in a “constructive and collegial manner” in Ruth’s effort to bring unity within the executive staff.

McCarthy’s petition on his firing already has been heard by merit board Administrative Judge David A. Thayer.

IBWC spokeswoman Sally Spener said in a written statement Friday that Thayer on April 9 denied McCarthy’s request for corrective action.

“Judge Thayer found clear and convincing evidence that the agency would have terminated Mr. McCarthy’s employment regardless of his alleged whistleblower disclosures,” Spener said. “Judge Thayer found that Mr. McCarthy’s employment was terminated after he prepared and distributed numerous factually and legally erroneous memoranda.”

Spener also noted that levee rehabilitation projects in Hidalgo County have been designed to meet federal criteria for the 100-year flood and that all construction contracts issued have been in accordance with federal contracting rules and standards.

In a letter she sent to McCarthy’s lawyers last August, Spener described the agency as one that had undergone a significant and positive transformation. Earlier, in 2005, the U.S. Department of State’s Office of the Inspector General had issued a scathing report that found the agency under then-Commissioner Arturo Duran to be grossly mismanaged and lacking oversight.

McCarthy believes there can be no changes within IBWC until it comes under the oversight of a larger agency, such as the Department of State, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

In October 2006, the Department of State’s Office of Inspector General wrote that the IBWC “is simply too small, too isolated, and too vulnerable to management abuse to continue without the protection and oversight of a major government department.”

“The Department (of State) was asked in early 2005 to provide its own solution to the oversight problem and could not do so,” the OIG report further noted.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/water-115220-grande-dams.html

No Border Wall group backs GNEB's letter to Obama

Rio Grande Guardian
December 4, 2009


WESLACO, Dec. 4 - The No Border Wall coalition has backed recommendations about the border fence issue that were sent to President Obama by the Good Neighbor Environmental Board.


The GNEB advises the President on environmental issues that impact the border. In a letter sent to Obama on Dec. 2, the group offered 12 recommendations, including the repeal of the Real ID Act's waiver provision, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, a review by the International Boundary Water Commission, and environmental monitoring and mitigation.


“No Border Wall agrees fully with all of these recommendations, and views their implementation as a good start towards rectifying some of the damage that border walls have done,” No Border Wall coalition spokesman Scott Nicol told the Guardian.


Here are the 12 recommendations contained in the letter:


1) Require that all border security infrastructure projects fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as all other laws including environmental, historic, and archeological preservation laws.


2) Work with Congress to amend the REAL ID Act of 2005 to remove the provisions allowing the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive legal requirements.


3) Fully incorporate adequate environmental review, public participation, and scientific analysis into the design and implementation of all border security infrastructure projects.


4) Facilitate review by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) of projects that may cause deflection or obstruction of the normal flow of rivers or their flood flows, ensuring continued compliance with the 1970 Boundary Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico and other international agreements.


5) Systematically monitor the entire fence and supporting infrastructure for effects resulting from its construction and develop actions to modify, redesign, or mitigate the negative outcomes realized or anticipated by the existing construction.


6) Provide sufficient annual funding via the DHS budget for monitoring, research, and mitigation of the environmental impacts of the border fence.


7) Obtain adequate local stakeholder input for all fence construction, mitigation, and maintenance as well as for associated infrastructure projects, including access roads.


8) In sensitive rural areas that are important wildlife corridors, use barriers and technology that prevent vehicular traffic, control pedestrian incursion, and allow wildlife movement.


9) Aggressively explore the use of information and remote sensing technologies that will enhance border security while reducing the physical footprint of interdiction activities along the border.


10) Ensure adequate funding to DHS/Customs and Border Protection for ongoing training for border security personnel about the local natural environment and significant natural and cultural resources.


11) Identify and implement best management practices to prevent and mitigate the erosion resulting from fence construction and associated infrastructure.


12) Charge the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the binational environmental effects of the border fence and associated infrastructure.

The letter is available here:
http://www.riograndeguardian.com/storypage/storyassets/uploaded5434091204-Good_Neighbor_Obama_letter.pdf

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

Hidalgo County levee system cited in IBWC whistleblower complaint

The Monitor
September 25, 2009
by Jared James

Hidalgo County’s levee system is at the center of a complaint filed Thursday by a former staff attorney at the International Boundary and Water Commission who accuses the agency of failing to follow federal protocol on major projects in the county.

Robert McCarthy, a former general counsel for the bi-national commission’s U.S. section — the federal agency that manages the levee system — filed a whistleblower complaint after he was fired in July.

In the 11-page complaint filed with a civil service board that investigates whistleblower complaints, McCarthy alleges wanton abuses of power at the El Paso-based agency, including illegal wiretapping of employees, a conspiracy to obtain unlawful pay raises and other examples of “gross mismanagement” by rogue employees.

Most notably for local interests, he accuses the agency of breaking the law when it contributed funds to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s levee-wall in Hidalgo County and for using county-owned engineering plans for repair work.

McCarthy, who worked at the IBWC for six months, said the obscure federal agency operates with little oversight from the U.S. Department of State.

“(The IBWC) feel nobody supervises them and they can do whatever they want,” McCarthy said in an interview Friday. “They’re an independent agency and nobody ever calls them out.”

Agency spokeswoman Sally Spener declined to comment on McCarthy’s case or his allegations, explaining they are part of a personnel matter that is under review.

The complaint does not prohibit the IBWC from continuing work on the county’s levees through economic stimulus package funding, she said.

McCarthy said he was fired on July 31, three days after he disclosed fraud, waste and abuse at the agency to four federal oversight agencies.

In a termination letter, U.S. IBWC Commissioner Bill Ruth said McCarthy was fired for failing to act in a constructive and collegial manner with the rest of the staff.

McCarthy’s whistleblower complaint says the agency violated a federal statute prohibiting cost-sharing between two federal agencies when the IBWC contributed $1.75 million in funds for a section of the levee-wall near the Hidalgo pump house.

Cost-sharing with Homeland Security — the federal agency tasked with building the border wall — created substantial risk “because the agency (IBWC) was funded to build flood control barriers, not border barriers,” according to the complaint.

McCarthy also alleges the agency solicited bids for a levee contract under the economic stimulus package using engineering plans prepared for Hidalgo County.

Proceeding based on designs prepared to state regulations for Hidalgo County — instead of to federal regulations — exposes the agency to the risk of design failures or contractual disputes, he said.

Godfrey Garza, the general manager for Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1, said plans for a levee section near Granjeno were turned over to the IBWC with the county’s full support for the agency’s work.

Acting on McCarthy’s behalf, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility — a Washington, D.C.-based group that works to uphold environmental laws — filed the whistleblower retaliation complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board, demanding his immediate reinstatement.

The board will hear the case within 120 days, said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. The State Department Office of Inspector General is investigating the claims McCarthy made before he was fired.

Last month, a news release from PEER labeled the IBWC the worst agency in the federal government, citing a 2005 State Department Office of Inspector General report that concluded “internal management problems have engulfed (the agency), threatening its essential responsibilities for flood control and water management in the American Southwest.”

Spener, the IBWC spokeswoman, responded in writing that problems identified in the 4-year-old report were cleaned up after the White House asked a former commissioner to step down following its release.

Arturo Duran left the post in late August 2005 after serving as commissioner since the prior year.

He confirmed to various news outlets that the White House had asked him to resign in the wake of a scathing report from the State Department’s Office of Inspector General. The report accused Duran of mismanagement and questioned his financial and personnel decisions, saying the agency was consequently in “disarray.”

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/county-31031-hidalgo-levee.html

Fired lawyer complains of border agency misconduct

Associated Press / Houston Chronicle
September 24, 2009
by Michelle Roberts

SAN ANTONIO — A former lawyer for the little-known federal agency that helps control the flow of the Rio Grande and the U.S. boundary with Mexico said Thursday that he was fired after complaining of gross mismanagement, including funds misappropriation and repair of levees that the agency knew would be useless.

Robert McCarthy was fired as general counsel from the International Boundary and Water Commission in July, days after he disclosed his concerns to federal auditing agencies. He complained to the auditing agency after IBWC leadership ignored several written opinions, he said.

"I felt like I was talking to a brick wall. I did put several opinions in writing as these issues were surfacing and never received any positive response," said McCarthy.

Commissioner C.W. "Bill" Ruth, appointed by President George W. Bush in November after the previous commissioner died in a plane crash, cited those opinions in his termination letter, accusing McCarthy of "failure to support me or other members of the executive staff in a constructive or collegial manner."

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a group that advocates for government employees, filed a whistle-blower retaliation complaint Thursday on behalf of McCarthy with the Merit Systems Protection Board. An administrative judge will hear the case and make a recommendation to the board on whether McCarthy should get his job back.

IBWC spokeswoman Sally Spener said the agency, headquartered in El Paso, could not comment on McCarthy's case or allegations because they were part of a personnel matter and under litigation.

McCarthy, who spent eight years as an Interior Department lawyer before joining the IBWC in January, said he was ordered to sign a cost-sharing agreement with the Department of Homeland Security on the construction of levees that would help settle a fight over the border fence in the Rio Grande Valley. But McCarthy felt the arrangement violated federal law prohibiting one agency from subsidizing the purposes of another agency.

In the case of misappropriated funds, "an employee who doesn't report that is just as liable as one who approves it," he said.

McCarthy said he was also concerned about the agency's decision to repair levees in Presidio, Texas, the site of flooding last fall. The agency had consultant reports saying the levees couldn't be repaired and will be undermined by flooding again, but went ahead anyway.

"I call that a 'cosmetic levee.' It looks like they've done something but they haven't," he said.

McCarthy's personnel complaint filed with the merit system board paints the IBWC as an agency plagued by rogue employees and lax standards. Among the other accusations:

_ An executive staff member wiretapped a group of employees after he didn't get a job he wanted in the agency.

_ Several employees received unlawful salary increases over the objections of personnel staff.

_ A pair of executive staff members made false anonymous reports to the State Department about an engineer who attempted to implement changes at the agency.

_ A multimillion-dollar levee contract was solicited under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act without using federal standards, instead plugging in specifications from a local project that may not comply with federal rules.

IBWC, a binational agency responsible for maintaining the international border, is part of the State Department for funding purposes but is supposed to answer directly to the president.

Based on McCarthy's allegations, the General Accounting Office has an investigation pending and is coordinating with the State Department Office of Inspector General.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6635382.html#

Carrizo spraying delayed

Laredo Morning Times
March 26, 2009
By Miguel Timoshenkov

NUEVO LAREDO - Officials with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol agreed Tuesday to temporarily delay aerial spraying of herbicide on carrizo along the Rio Grande until there can be a deeper international discussion of the crossborder impact of such a project.

"We saw the willingness of the U.S. authorities to suspend the use of the herbicide for now," said José de Jesús Luévano Grano, a Mexico representative on the International Boundary and Water Commission, speaking on behalf of the group of agencies that met Tuesday.

"We support their use of mechanical means to uproot the carrizo."

Luévano said Mexican officials are aware that the carrizo, a non-native cane that clogs the riverbanks, consumes great quantities of water and that its eradication could help preserve the vital fluid in times of drought.

But they don't believe using the herbicide containing imazaypr is the safe way to do that.

A new date for starting the aerial spraying has not been determined, but U.S. authorities confirmed that it has been delayed as a result of Tuesday's meeting.

"We don't have a definitive start date," said Roque Sarinana, a spokesman for Border Patrol.

"It's still undergoing negotiations."

Last week, the Laredo City Council granted Border Patrol an easement for carrizo eradication along 1.1 miles of land along the Rio Grande.

The agency plans to try several methods, including the herbicide, to determine which would be the best way to get rid of the plant.

Tuesday, officials from numerous government agencies at local, state and federal levels, on both sides of the Rio Grande met for more than an a hour to discuss the situation and then had a news conference to announce the U.S. agencies' decision to delay implementation of the spraying.

Mexican and U.S. officials will exchange a series of studies within a week.

Once that is done, another meeting will be set up for a strictly technical discussion of the facts and to determine the next course of action.

Environmental officials and experts on both sides of the border will be reviewing the studies because, while U.S. officials believe use of imazapyr does not pose a health hazard, Mexican officials believe it could cause irreversible damage.

At the news conference, Luévano said Mexican officials told Border Patrol that when their agency is going to do something that affects both sides of the river, they should ask the opinion of Mexican environmental authorities.

"The American authorities thought that by conducting their own environmental study, it would suffice as a study of the environment on the Mexican side and that we would be in agreement," Luévano said, but that is not the case.

Luévano said the Mexico-U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission has followed official procedure since the controversy over use of the herbicide began.

He asserted the commission favors eradication of the carrizo, but supports other non-herbicide means of accomplishing that goal.

Carlos Montiel Saheb, director of the city's waterworks system, said his concern over the application of the herbicide has been relieved, at least temporarily, but that there needs to be a clear understanding of the rights of both nations when something is going to affect both sides of the river.

Both sides need to be consulted, he said. In this case, Mexican authorities should have been involved in the discussion.

"Now we will present our case and give a precise explanation of the risks to public health, particularly how it (herbicide) can affect vision as well as cancer-related concerns," Montiel said.

Luévano was clear in stating that the temporary delay didn't mean that the United States was canceling the project, and noted that negotiations are continuing.

It's up to the U.S. side of the International Boundary and Water Commission to provide a detailed study on the use of imazapyr to ensure that it poses no negative effects to the Mexican side of the river, according to a news release from the Nuevo Laredo city government.

http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2009/03/25/news/doc49c9d8ec29612964126658.txt