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/
Showing posts with label US IBWC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US IBWC. Show all posts
Thursday, August 30, 2012
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
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
Sunday, August 26, 2012
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.”
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.
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
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)