Hidalgo County judge launches investigation into conflict of interest

The Monitor
January 10, 2015
by Jacob Fischler

EDINBURG — After a year of battling with the county’s drainage director on various fronts, Hidalgo County Judge Ramon Garcia launched an investigation this week into drainage district subcontracts that went to a company owned by the wife of district Manager Godfrey Garza.

After learning late last year that drainage district contractors in 2007 hired Valley Data Collection Specialists, Inc., a company owned by Garza’s wife, Garcia sent a letter Monday to Garza’s company, Integ Corp., requesting an accounting of all contracts and subcontracts that went to the company since then.

“You, as the Drainage District Manager, are responsible to negotiate with the contractors we hire,” Garcia wrote. “On December 16, 2014, we learned that your wife is the owner of a company (Valley Data Collection Specialists, Inc.) that does subcontracting work for contractors you negotiate with… Therefore I believe there exists a serious conflict of interest in your part.”

In an interview, Garza said he would provide the judge with a response that answered his questions, but added that his wife did not own the company at the time it was subcontracted for county projects.

“We're going to respond back to him on the letter that he submitted to Integ,” Garza said. “And in response to the letter, we should be able to answer the questions that he has. Specifically, the question on Valley Data going back to 2007 — my wife was not the owner then.”

Garza declined to say when his wife did become the owner, saying he preferred to withhold that information until he wrote it in the letter.

But he added: “I never contracted with myself or my interests.”

The issue became public in a commissioners court meeting Dec. 16 when Garcia questioned Garza’s stewardship of public money — as has become routine at the drainage district portions of commissioners court.

“See, my concern is here you are representing us, entering into contracts with the contractors and then the contractors entering into contracts with your company — well, your family’s company,” Garcia said to Garza. “Don’t you really seriously believe that constitutes a conflict of interest?”

Garza said he needed to research the issue and could not answer at the time.

The two have butted heads continually since at least last January, when Garcia learned that an earlier contract with the county had paid Integ — Garcia believed erroneously — a 1.5 percent commission for work on the hybrid border wall-levee system.

Garcia and other commissioners soon thereafter sought to begin a transition to a new drainage district manager who could be ready to take over by the time Garza’s contract expires in February 2015. But commissioners have yet to settle on a job description for the new manager or an assistant manager who could one day replace Garza.

http://m.themonitor.com/news/local/hidalgo-county-judge-launches-investigation-into-conflict-of-interest/article_af2aa6f0-9932-11e4-a7b5-cba304796e84.html?mode=jqm

Downed border fence caused city damage

Associated Press
September 23, 2014
by Astrid Galvan

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) -- A southern Arizona city that spent days cleaning storm-related debris - including parts of trees - from Mexico that knocked down an international border fence is asking the federal government to cover costs.

Nogales Mayor Arturo Garino said the city council has directed its attorneys to work with the federal government in an attempt to regain what it spent cleaning up large tree trunks and branches that made their way from a canyon in Sonora, Mexico, through the border fence and into two trailer home parks and businesses in the Arizona city in late July.

Garino says it was the government's responsibility to open flood gates attached to the tall, steel fence that would have prevented so much debris from making it into the city.

"As a city, you know, we want to make sure that this doesn't happen again. The cause of this was the fence. We have to have some system there that's operational and it's functional," Garino said.

Garino said he couldn't provide an estimate for the cost of the cleanup effort. However, the Nogales International reports that city officials have estimated $23,000 in costs.

Meanwhile, the fence, just west of the Mariposa Port of Entry, remains down because of continuing rainfall, Border Patrol spokeswoman Nicole Ballistrea said. The soil needs to be completely dry before the fence can go back up, she said. The fence stood between 18 and 26 feet high, extended at least 7 feet underground and was reinforced with rebar. The debris knocked down about 60 feet worth of fencing.

"The late hour and sudden onslaught of the storm did not leave adequate lead time for agents to safely release the gates," Ballistrea said. "We'll continue with the repairs once the saturation level has (dropped)."

The storm in Nogales, Sonora, began the weekend of July 25 but largely avoided the American side of the border. Still, debris from a canyon about a mile south of Nogales, Arizona, traveled up to the border and became trapped at the fence. Enough debris piled up that it knocked the fence over. In came tree stumps, pieces of wood, and about three feet of water that flooded businesses on Western Avenue in Nogales and two trailer home parks.

"I remember helping one group pull out a tree that was 12-feet-long, 16 inches in diameter, underneath the trailer," Garino said.

It took the city, county and volunteers three days to clean up the mess.

"That's why we're trying to address the federal government, because if you look at it you would see that if the gates would have opened it would have been a casual flow. The amount of water that fell wasn't enough for it to cause a flood," Garino said.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Downed-border-fence-caused-city-damage--276870361.html

Rainstorm runoff topples border fence, floods Western Avenue

Nogales International
July 27, 2014
by Jonathan Clark and Manuel C. Coppola

Runoff from a monsoon downpour toppled a section of border fence west of the Mariposa Port of Entry overnight Saturday, sending a torrent of debris-filled floodwater down Ephraim Canyon and into yards and homes along Western Avenue.

Leyva Bridge on Western Avenue, just east of the intersection with Interstate 19, was a particular trouble spot. Tree branches, logs and other detritus clogged two culverts under the bridge, and the muddy floodwaters surged out of the wash and into surrounding properties, including that of Raul Origel, immediately south of the bridge.

Origel’s front yard was covered Sunday morning with mud and stones that had been used to line the nearby wash. The water also entered his elevated trailer, reaching a foot in depth and destroying furniture, he said. He does not have flood insurance.

Standing next to a Ford Taurus embedded in the mud – one of five vehicles he owns that were damaged by the flood – Origel complained that the authorities don’t keep the wash clean, which allows for the culverts to clog during heavy runoff.

“There has to be someone, either at the city or county, to take responsibility,” he said.

The downpour began at around 11:30 p.m. Saturday night and was accompanied by intense thunder and lightning. As runoff surged south through the border fence – a structure comprised of interconnected metal tubes with 4-inch gaps that allow water to pass through – debris apparently accumulated behind it, blocking flow creating enough pressure to eventually topple an approximately 60-foot length of the barrier.

From there, the water surged through a pair of culverts and into Ephraim Canyon, combining with more runoff and debris until the wash met Western Avenue at Leyva Bridge.

The segment of border fence that collapsed was built above an existing arroyo, with large gates at its bottom that were meant to be opened to relieve pressure from flooding. The gates did not appear to have been opened. A Border Patrol spokeswoman reached Sunday was not immediately able to provide information on the mishap.

No injuries from the flooding were reported, but a family of five had to be rescued from their car near Leyva Bridge, said Nogales Fire Chief Hector Robles.

When an engine was unable to make it to the car on Western Avenue, NFD sent its Ladder One truck up Interstate 19 to reach the scene from the west. Firefighters then used the bucket at the end of the 101-foot ladder to rescue the family, Robles said.

The Southern Arizona Chapter of the American Red Cross said it is assisting 10 people – a family of seven plus an elderly couple and a single elderly person – whose homes were affected by the flooding in Nogales.

"We are providing temporary lodging, food and clothing and will have the families contact us tomorrow to see what other assistance can be made available to them," the organization said in a statement.

A woman at a property on the south side of the bend at Leyva Bridge said her aunt and uncle were evacuated from their home after floodwaters inside the residence reached the level of their midsections.

The woman, who did not wish to be named, allowed the NI access to her relatives’ mud-filled home on Sunday. Ruined furniture was strewn about the interior, including a refrigerator that had toppled over, and marks on the wall suggested the water had reached approximately 3 feet in depth.
Her aunt and uncle do not have flood insurance, the woman said.

Next door at the Cypress Trailer Park, residents were clearing away mud on Sunday morning and crossing their fingers that once-submerged cars would eventually start.

Three vehicles that had been parked outside Alma Alcaraz’s trailer were flooded and non-functioning, but the interior of her home, where she and four family members waited out the storm, remained dry.

“We stayed because we didn’t have any way to leave," Alcaraz said. “We were really nervous because we could feel the trailer moving.”

Those inside the trailer included two children, ages 5 and 7, she said.

Nancy Rodriguez, who rents a trailer at the park, said that once the rain started, she began taking regular peeks out her window at the wash. Once she saw the water breach the banks, she went to her car and tried to leave, but got stuck instead. So she drove it to higher ground at the park and waited out the storm in her trailer.

“It was very scary. I thought it was a dream or something,” she said.

The water never got into Rodriguez's home, but it left piles of debris underneath and a large log in her front lawn.

“I want the city to do something, because this happens every four years or two years,” Rodriguez said. “Every time it rains, this happens.”

She soon had a chance to deliver her complaints directly to Mayor Arturo Garino when he and Councilman Jose “Joe” Diaz arrived at the trailer park to assess the damage.

“This shouldn’t be happening,” Garino said. “I look at this, and just by the flow and the way the debris is leaning against the guardrails, it looks like the water was trying to get back into the channels. So I think the street was the channel – that’s the problem.

“The Leyva Bridge has to be addressed,” as does a bridge farther downstream near the Circle K, he said. “We need to be able to channelize the water and keep it inside. This is too much.”

Garino said he would put the issue on the agenda for the Aug. 6 city council meeting, and noted that the county government would need to participate in a solution, since it governs the county flood control district, of which Nogales is a part.

Reached by telephone, Deputy City Manager John E. Kissinger said Western Avenue was the only area in the city affected by overnight flooding, and acknowledged that the problem resulted from clogs at Leyva Bridge.

“We have reached out to the IBWC (International Boundary and Water Commission) and have assessed all the major washes in the area and any critical infrastructure that could affect the IOI (international sewage line) and found no problems,” Kissinger said.

Asked if the Santa Cruz County Flood Control District can do anything to prevent this type of problem on Western Avenue in the future, he said, “Other than clearing out the wash on this side I don’t suspect that there’s not much more you can do. I believe that that most of that debris came from Mexico. I’ve been out there hundreds of times and from the border to the hospital you do not see this type of debris – huge tree trunks, pallets, car doors, plastic bottles.

“It is typical of the first flooding or microburst episode to see these things accumulate," he said. "We don’t anticipate a repeat of flooding to this magnitude (this year) because the wash has essentially been flushed of the type of debris that has been accumulating throughout the year and that would cause the water to jump its banks.”

The flood control district developed a $3-million project to construct a detention or retention pond in the Ephraim Canyon area, but it has yet to come to fruition. Garino lamented the absence of a retention pond, saying: “The water flow was just a direct water flow. There was nothing really to hold the water back and let it come slowly.”

Local officials also need to seek support from Nogales, Sonora, since Ephraim Canyon originates on that side of the border, Garino said.

As for the now-wide-open gap in the border fence, Nicole Ballistrea, spokeswoman for the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector, said the agency has procedures for maintaining security during temporary breaches, such as a tunnel or busted fence.

"For any type of breach, or breach with the fence, we do have crews that go out there and repair those," she said. "And we also have agents that work that area to monitor. And we also have cameras that will help us observe that area."

Ballistrea said she would follow up on questions about the extent of the damage and timetable for repair on Monday.

http://www.nogalesinternational.com/news/monsoon-runoff-topples-border-fence-floods-western-avenue/article_6b02dd90-15dd-11e4-991e-001a4bcf887a.html

Valley Mayor Fears Proposed Immigration Border Fence will Clog City

FOX news RGV
September 4, 2013

Born and raised in Starr county, Mayor Ruben Villareal has seen Rio Grande City flow along immigration tides.

But a current issue affects a staple to his city.

“This type of construction is a huge building block of what this city needs to become,” says Mayor Ruben Villareal, Rio Grande City, TX.

Mayor Villareal is talking about a treatment plant that relies on the Rio Grande to supply 700 gallons of water a day to the city.

“Is this different than other cities, this pump? We are one of two pump stations in the entire Rio Grande Valley that I know about that actually draw water straight from the Rio Grande,” says Villareal.

The current senate immigration reform bill calls for around 700 miles of border fencing. Half of which is already in place.

Up until now Starr County has been free of this, but if passed, 18-foot steel columns erected along the banks of this section of the Rio Grande is a very possible reality. As well as a major concern.

“This isn’t a curveball; this is more of a sinker or knuckle ball. When we made the design for this project it was about six years ago, and the idea of having a border fence was so farfetched. It would be like me saying, ‘we’re going to take a trip to the moon and back,” says Villareal.

“With the Rio Grande about a half mile away, the city relies on several irrigation pathways like this to prevent flooding, but mayor Villareal says that with the border fence wedged in between pathways like this and the river, a major concern is that fence becoming a costly obstacle,”

“All of Rio Grande city’s water, it kind of slopes down, everything feeds towards the river. My running and constant worry is that you’ll have some sort of blockage against that fence, because all it is pipes,” adds Villareal.

“The hydraulic modeling that was performed for the proposed fence segments assumed some blockage due to debris build-up. However, CBP contends that from a practical perspective the likelihood of occurrence is small.”

In response, customs and border protection acknowledged the risk for debris build-up but say “the likelihood of occurrence is small.”

“Historically, border fencing installed within the Rio Grande river floodplain has had no debris build-up issues or adversely impacted the floodwaters during a flooding event.” -CBP southwest border
That border fencing currently in place has not, “adversely impacted floodwaters during a flooding event.” But mayor Villareal doesn’t agree with facts based on a terrain that is ever-changing.

“Rivers meander, constantly, the bank that you see here not too long ago was probably about 100 yards further north of us.”

Much like the Rio Grande that hugs south Texas, immigration reform is a constant evolution.
This mayor believes a solution with lasting power needs to have its eyes set on tomorrow.

“I have problems when people tell me that an antiquated, something from the 12th century, that has been tried before all over the world, and has failed throughout the world as well.”

Mayor Villareal has had several talks with senator john Cornyn about this issue. The senator’s office reached out to Fox 2, saying “Sen. Cornyn offered an amendment to the Gang of 8 bill that would require DHS to consult with local leaders before any plans for fencing moved forward.”

He has offered an amendment of the grand of 8 bill that would require department of homeland security to consult with local leaders before any plans for fencing moved forward.

While that was not ultimately adopted in the Senate bill, Sen. Cornyn will continue to work with his colleagues to ensure that his amendment is part of any border security legislation that is considered this Congress.”

That while it was not adopted he will continue to endure that his amendment is part of an border security legislation that is considered.

Those talks will continue tomorrow. Senator Cornyn will be in the Rio Grande Valley, meeting with local officials, including mayor Villareal, about a smarter border strategy.

http://www.foxrio2.com/86891/valley-mayor-fears-proposed-immigration-border-fence-will-clog-city/

Feds may acquire more land for new border fence construction, CBP proposal shows

The Monitor
May 1, 2013
by Jacqueline Armendariz

 
McALLEN — About 100 people in Starr and Hidalgo counties could be impacted under a proposed construction plan regarding the final sections of the border fence, with more than half living at a nursing home, federal documents show.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection draft plan differs from that of the International Boundary and Water Commission, the bi-national agency tasked with regulating the U.S-Mexico border and water releases along the Rio Grande.


The plan also hinges on whether funding is available to finish the job. As recently as March, federal officials said the remaining border fence project was halted due to a lack of funding.

But the border security component of Congress’ comprehensive immigration reform debate opens up the possibility that could change.

The path of the wall likely is not a surprise for residents of the three area communities impacted — Rio Grande City, Roma and Los Ebanos — as federal legislation for the project goes back to 2006.

However, two documents recently released by CBP show a another path for the fence that will likely mean a second round of property condemnations, Scott Nicol, chair of the Sierra Club Borderlands Team, said.
Nicol warns the fence plan will have serious consequences for humans and wildlife, which roam through the nearby federal refuge, because of the flood plains there.

“It’s an issue of CBP saying the water’s just going to pass right through these walls. The evidence with walls of almost the same design, in the past, shows that’s not the case,” he said. “Basically, if you stick a wall in the middle of a flood plain it’s going to act as a dam.”

He points to examples of the same fence construction in Arizona that, in some instances, have clogged with debris that eventually backed up as high as six feet.

The environmental advocacy group obtained the CBP records through the Freedom of Information Act and released them to The Monitor. One is a proposed fence plan dated November 30, 2012 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The other is a CBP Facilities Management and Engineering department planning document from March 1 titled “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Planning.”

The bi-partisan group of senators known as the Gang of Eight rolled out their comprehensive immigration reform bill last month. While the impact of the federal government’s sequestration is felt, the legislation included $1.5 billion for new border wall construction — the final pieces of which were never constructed in the three towns.

When contacted for this story, CBP cited an email exchange with Nicol that had been forwarded to The Monitor. In the email dated March 29, CBP stated it worked closely with the IBWC on the proposed plan to address flooding concerns.

“On February 2012, IBWC’s Principal Engineer issued a letter approving that the referenced fence segments could be built without adversely impacting the floodplain, so long as CBP follows the proposed alignment and design, as well as provides maintenance and provides any future repairs,” the email reads in part.

However, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers plan from November notes areas of deviation, due to various engineering reasons, from the path approved by the IBWC and developed with flood concerns in mind.

Bill Brooks, CBP branch chief of the agency’s southwest border media division, said CBP’s statement in the email confirming fence construction in the three cities has been delayed due to a lack of funding hasn’t changed.

“The so-called ‘Gang of 8’ immigration bill is proposed legislation and we cannot make decisions on or even speculate on the outcome of proposed legislation,” Brooks said in a statement to The Monitor.

This week, an IBWC spokesperson said the agency had not received the border fence plan from November to evaluate it.

CBP notes in one of the documents that the boundary commission agency warns it’s an international treaty violation if flood waters are pushed away from the U.S. into Mexico.

Nicols said that could to happen if the government’s fence path is followed, while gaps in the wall could also flood even more U.S. lands north of the structure during a substantial rain event.

The CBP document titled “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Planning” outlines a timeline indicating that within the next six months the government will notify property owners it wants their land.

The nursing home within the potential condemnation area, according to maps, is likely Retama Manor Nursing Center in Rio Grande City. A staff member who answered the facility’s phone last week said he was not aware the nursing home may need to relocate. A representative for the nursing home’s parent company in Atlanta said no one would be available for comment on the situation until next week.

In an email dated March 29, sent to the Sierra Club and released to The Monitor, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, also said CBP told him fence construction was on hold because of a lack of funding.

Cuellar’s office sent a statement Friday that has no mention of the phrase “border fence” in response to a series of questions from The Monitor on the subject, including whether he is aware of the proposal that might cause nearly 100 residents in his congressional district to relocate.

“It is our responsibility to ensure that our law enforcement officers have the necessary tools and equipment to keep our communities safe,” Cuellar said, in part. “We ought to pass an immigration bill that that enhances border security and ensures a comprehensive guest worker plan to provide opportunities for those hard working individuals and families who have come to our great country.”

Within one of the documents, the government notes 95 percent of cases result in condemnation, meaning property owners are taken to court for their land. Nicol notes most of those who could be affected by the plan won’t likely have the resources to take the government to court to fight for the best price for their land.
“They’re sort of guaranteed to get shafted,’ he said.

The wall, he said, is nothing more than a political prop, particularly when one considers the number of immigrants entering the country illegally has decreased likely due to an economic downturn and increasing cartel drug violence.

“It’s something you can walk in front of a look tough. The fact that it doesn’t do anything doesn’t matter,” he said. “I think it’s kind of despicable to tear up people’s property and wildlife refuges and potentially cause flooding that could ruin homes and drown people.”

 http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_6c0bf08a-b45b-11e2-91e6-001a4bcf6878.html

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

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

Hidalgo County tries again for levee cash

The Monitor
October 12, 2011
by Jared Janes

EDINBURG — Hidalgo County will try once again for federal reimbursement of more than $60 million in levee repairs that commissioners funded using receipts from a 2006 bond issuance.

County officials are planning to travel to Washington, D.C., later this year to ask federal representatives to re-introduce legislation to reimburse the county for its expenses or identify in-kind contributions and other ways to recapture the funds. The county’s congressional representatives have tried twice before to pass legislation to reimburse the county, but the bills have died in committee each time.

County Judge Ramon Garcia said he is hopeful the third time is the charm, despite the apparent intent of federal budget writers to cut costs.

“We’ve got a better shot … if we do something about it,” Garcia said. “If we’re going to wait for the federal government to send us a check, it’s not going to happen.”

Beginning in 2007, Hidalgo County invested slightly more than $60 million into repairing the county’s aging levee system, including about $45 million that was directed toward adding a concrete flood barrier into the Department of Homeland Security’s border fence. The county’s expenditures came after the International Boundary and Water Commission — the binational agency that manages the flood control system along the Rio Grande — told the Federal Emergency Management Agency that it would not certify the levees, putting thousands of Hidalgo County homeowners at risk of having to buy expensive flood insurance premiums.

Garcia said the county’s funds were “well-spent” because they served as a catalyst for a cash infusion through the economic stimulus package that was used to rebuild more than 90 miles of Hidalgo County levees, a project that proved timely last summer when the Rio Grande crested at its highest point in four decades after Hurricane Alex receded.

But the lack of a formal reimbursement agreement between federal representatives and former County Judge J.D. Salinas’ administration has left the county struggling to be paid back after putting the majority of its voter-approved $100 million bond issuance into the federal responsibility of maintaining the levees. The investment shored up flood systems near the affluent Sharyland Plantation neighborhood and the industrial area around the Foreign Trade Zone, but it left other drainage projects included in the bond issuance for flood-prone parts of the county without a direct funding source.

Hidalgo County commissioners asked two lobbying groups — Hollis Rutledge and Associates and Dos Legislative Services — to lead another effort for federal reimbursement. In 2007 and 2009, U.S. Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, D-Mercedes, filed legislation to authorize the IBWC to reimburse state and local governments for expenses on levee improvements.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which maintains flood control systems in the interior of the United States, can reimburse local governments for what they spend. But the IBWC, a little-known federal agency that falls in the oversight of the U.S. Department of State, does not have similar authorization.

Rutledge told commissioners in a presentation Tuesday that he will ask for the legislation to be reintroduced and will also meet with members of the committees where the bills died. He will also explore whether assistance from the North American Development Bank, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and other sources could be directed toward county drainage projects that weren’t completed because their share of the bond proceeds went toward the levee system.

“We’re talking about some serious money that we need to recapture from the bond election,” Rutledge said, later adding that it will be a “difficult process” to receive federal reimbursement.

Godfrey Garza, the general manager for the Hidalgo County drainage district, said passing legislation for local drainage projects isn’t unprecedented. A county lobbying effort managed to get its share of the costs for the proposed Raymondville Drain — a massive channel connecting northern Hidalgo County to the Laguna Madre — reduced from 35 percent to 10 percent, saving the county about $70 million over the life of the project.

The county formed a committee in August to identify the county’s pressing drainage and formulate a plan to fund them. Garza said securing federal funding for the committee’s plans would fulfill the same role as federal reimbursement.

“It’s important that we get those dollars back and use them toward the drainage system that we need,” he said. “If we can get state or federal dollars to do those projects, it’s the same thing (as reimbursement).”

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/levee-55596-tries-cash.html

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

DHS Pushes for Border Fence in Floodplain

Texas Observer
September 7, 2011
by Melissa del Bosque

The Department of Homeland Security is pushing for 14 miles of border wall to be built through Hidalgo and Starr counties even though it could flood U.S. towns and violate a treaty with Mexico.

In 2006, Congress passed its Secure Fence Act mandating the construction of 700 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Hundreds of Texas landowners were sued and their land seized by the Department of Homeland Security.

Residents in the communities of Roma, Los Ebanos and Rio Grande City got a reprieve from construction, however, because of “engineering and hydraulic problems,” according to U.S. Congressman Henry Cuellar, who said in a 2008 McAllen Monitor story: "Realistically and practically, they're basically passing this decision (on the border fence) to the next administration. Certainly, for my constituents, we have a victory."

The “engineering and hydraulic problems” the Congressman alluded to was the fact that the 18-foot impermeable fence would have to be constructed in a floodplain to fulfill the congressional mandate. Building a fence that costs approximately $4.5 million a mile in a floodplain sounds like a joke. And it would be if taxpayers weren’t paying for it, and if it weren’t common practice for the Department of Homeland Security to build fences in washes, floodplains and riverbeds along the border.

Recently, 40 feet of steel border fence washed away during a flash flood in the Arizona desert. This was after the U.S. Border Patrol had been warned by Arizona park officials that the fence would be washed away during the summer monsoon season. Despite their warnings, Border Patrol issued an environmental assessment saying that the fence “would not impede the natural flow of water or cause flooding.”

The destroyed fence constructed by Kiewit Western Co. cost taxpayers $21.3 million to build, according to the Arizona Daily Star.

When it comes to the border wall, the Department of Homeland Security has a history of avoiding scientific data and environmental impacts when it stands in the way of constructing border fence.

The 14-mile section of border fence through Roma, Los Ebanos and Rio Grande City is no different. Several hydrological studies conducted by a private firm Baker Engineering hired by U.S. Customs and Border Protection have shown that an 18-foot impermeable fence in a floodplain will either push floodwaters into Mexico – violating a 1970 international treaty or it will worsen flooding on the U.S. side of the border.

Despite the findings, government documents reveal that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (the DHS agency) which oversees construction of the fence is pushing the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), which has jurisdiction over the Rio Grande to sign off on building the 14-mile fence in the floodplain.

In a February 2010 letter, David Aguilar, CBP’s deputy commissioner applied pressure to IBWC’s Commissioner Ed Drusina to approve the project despite his agency and Mexico’s opposition to constructing the fence.

“Because the Mexican Section of the IBWC has opposed all proposed border fencing

within the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers’ floodplains since the enactment of the

Secure Fence Act (regardless of the expected floodplain impacts), Commissioner Ruth

was not optimistic that the Mexican Commissioner would agree to support the proposed

fencing and indicated during the January 6th meeting that an unilateral decision would

likely be needed to construct the fence segments. We understand that the Mexican

Commissioner did in fact recently inform Commissioner Ruth that Mexico would oppose

the fence segments if formally submitted to them for consideration.

For the numerous reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the USIBWC and

Department of State reconsider your position and approve a unilateral decision to allow

us to proceed with the design and construction of the O-1, O-2 and O-3 fence segments.”

The IBWC was not persuaded, however. “Until other analysis can demonstrate that the fence will not deflect flows or increase water elevation above our criteria we must again deny our support for the proposed alignment of the fence…” wrote Commissioner Drusina to Alan Bersin, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection.

Bersin wrote back asking for a meeting with high level officials from the State Department, the IBWC and USCBP to talk about “challenges” to building the border fence segments “which are urgently needed to secure this area of the border.” One challenge Bersin listed was “Mexico’s recent opposition to border fencing regardless of hydraulic modeling results.”

IBWC met with U.S. Customs and Border Protection two more times. The end result was that CBP paid Baker Engineering to create yet another flood model, to try and prove that a wall in a floodplain was a good idea, says border resident Scott Nicol, a Sierra Club volunteer and author of the No Border Wall blog. Nicol learned of this during a conference call with IBWC officials. He also learned that the Baker Engineering report will be turned over to IBWC any day. If the agency signs off on it CBP could begin construction of the fence. The Department of Homeland Security has already seized several properties in these cities and is making an effort to speed up lawsuit settlements with landowners.

Nicol started looking into the new fence construction after he saw a brief mention of it in a government report last spring. “I thought they’d given up,” he says. “But apparently they were really pushing to get it done.”

Nicol worries that the new fence segments will flood the U.S. communities. He's examined the various Baker Engineering flood models and is especially concerned about the Los Ebanos wall.

“It could have serious implications for local residents,” he says. “There at the split point the river takes a sharp southward bend, while the wall runs due east. There could conceivably be a dry space between the community, which would have water sent towards it by the wall, and the river to its south (near the hand-drawn ferry). Even worse, the wall abruptly turns to the north at the end of town. This could bottle up waters that have been split off from the river, trapping flood water in the community.”

The question for these border communities now is will the IBWC be steamrollered by the Department of Homeland Security? It’s happened before and it could happen again. And if it does, once again U.S. taxpayers and border communities will pay the price.

http://www.texasobserver.org/lalinea/dhs-pushes-for-more-border-fence-in-floodplain#