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 river. Show all posts
Showing posts with label river. 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
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
US border violence: Myth or reality?
BBC News
July 28, 2010
by Katie Connolly
Once upon a time, Spanish settlers named the crossing El Paso Del Norte - the pass to the north.
The border city of El Paso, Texas, lies along the Rio Grande, in the chasm between two inhospitable mountains.
Each day, thousands of people in cars, buses and on foot cross the short bridge that connects El Paso with its Mexican sister city, Juarez, one of the world's most dangerous places.
In the past two years, more than 5,000 people have been murdered in Juarez as drug-related crime has soared.
Politicians, including Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, tend to portray border towns as being pushed to crisis point.
"We see this crime on a daily basis. The federal government must respond more effectively, step up their enforcement and protection of the border before more American blood is shed," Mr Abbott told Fox News.
"It is more dangerous to walk the streets of Juarez, a few blocks from El Paso, than it is to walk the streets of Baghdad. There is a very serious problem that is beginning to bulge at our borders and put American lives at risk."
In mid-July, President Barack Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to patrol the border, just days after a car bomb exploded in northern Juarez, very near El Paso.
Texas Governor Rick Perry called that deployment "grossly insufficient". Many politicians are calling for even more troops.
But the mayor of El Paso, John Cook, isn't one of them.
Second safest city
"The reality is we really don't need the help on this side of the border. We probably have every kind of federal law enforcement agency that you can think of. We're an extremely safe community," Mr Cook says.
Despite Juarez's murder toll, in El Paso, local authorities have recorded just two murders this year. In 2009 there were 11.
"Logically it would seem that if you have violence on one side of the border then you're going to have spillover on the other side," says Mr Cook. "But the reality is that we don't."
According to FBI crime statistics, El Paso is the second safest city in America. Crime rates there have dropped 36% over the past 10 years.
Other cities close to the border, including San Diego in California and Phoenix in Arizona, have similarly experienced declines in violent crime.
Over the same period, federal agencies have beefed up their presence along the border, and a 2,000-mile fence is slowly being constructed.
The fence near El Paso is 16-18 feet (4.9-5.5m) high, made of rust-coloured steel mesh. There are 2,700 border police in this sector, monitoring the border day and night, and a raft of FBI, CIA and drug enforcement agents.
Mr Cook questions the need for more troops, given that current border security levels appear to have been effective at containing drug violence south of the border.
Additionally, both he and local border enforcement officials believe that the leaders of drug cartels do not believe it is in their interest to bring the violence north.
Drug barons know that the response from the US government would be swift and heavy, and further hinder their ability to smuggle drugs into the lucrative American market.
Locals worry that with an even heavier security presence in town, El Paso risks becoming like Cold War Berlin, a riven city, its character disrupted by an imposing divider wall.
They believe politicians who don't live on the border fail to appreciate the deep interconnectedness of cities like Juarez and El Paso, which Mr Cook describes as "one city joined by a border".
So with crime rates declining and the border stable, how has this relatively safe Texan city found itself in the centre of a political firestorm over border violence, and the Obama administration's plans to deal with it?
Politics and fear
Border historian David Romo says it is a pattern. He's seen politicians fanning fears about the border before.
The first calls to build a border fence in El Paso to secure the city came in 1908. Back then, the fear was Chinese immigrants. In World War II, politicians worried about Germans streaming across.
These days, it's Mexicans who fuel unease. Mr Romo says that during times of economic distress, the border and the immigrants who cross it are used as scapegoats. He believes history is repeating itself, and politicians are using the same rhetoric they have for decades.
"It happens that every time an election year comes up, they know that creating fear and hysteria about the border will drive a wedge," Mr Romo says.
"In some ways it's cheap vote-getting. There is this cycle of kind of nativist hysteria that is very profitable for politicians. Nothing gets votes like the politics of fear."
Mr Romo says he's not seen evidence of violence infiltrating the El Paso community. He argues that the immigrants who make a new life across the border are motivated to act within the law because they fear being deported.
While Arizona Governor Jan Brewer blames immigrants, illegal and otherwise, for violent crimes and burglaries, Mr Romo says that, ironically, those immigrants have the most incentive to be law-abiding. They don't want to draw attention.
Bleak outlook
Although fears of spillover violence aren't substantiated by crime data, they are having a real impact on the economy of El Paso.
"From an economic development perspective, it's been very negative for us," Mr Cook said.
He has difficulty convincing new businesses to set up in El Paso because of the violence in Juarez. The first question he gets asked in business meetings is usually "is it safe?"
"They don't pay attention to the fact that we are the second safest large city in the United States," he says.
"We've had people who have looked to locating here with their companies and we have to convince them that it's a safe place. They almost don't believe you."
The longer the violence continues in Juarez, the bleaker the outlook becomes for El Paso, despite its impressive safety record.
For now, there's little more Mayor Cook can do but wait.
America's safest cities, 2009
1.Honolulu, Hawaii
2.El Paso, Texas
3.New York City, New York
4.San Jose, California
5.Austin, Texas
6.San Diego, California
7.Seattle, Washington
8.Portland, Oregon
9.Denver, Colorado
10.Los Angeles, California
Source: CQ Press City Crime Rankings 2009-2010
Cities with highest crime, 2009
1.Detroit, Michigan
2.Memphis, Tennessee
3.Baltimore, Maryland
4.Washington, DC
5.Atlanta, Georgia
6.Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7.Indianapolis, Indiana
8.Columbus, Ohio
9.Milwaukee, Wisconsin
10.Dallas, Texas
Source: CQ Press City Crime Rankings 2009-2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10779151
July 28, 2010
by Katie Connolly
Once upon a time, Spanish settlers named the crossing El Paso Del Norte - the pass to the north.
The border city of El Paso, Texas, lies along the Rio Grande, in the chasm between two inhospitable mountains.
Each day, thousands of people in cars, buses and on foot cross the short bridge that connects El Paso with its Mexican sister city, Juarez, one of the world's most dangerous places.
In the past two years, more than 5,000 people have been murdered in Juarez as drug-related crime has soared.
Politicians, including Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, tend to portray border towns as being pushed to crisis point.
"We see this crime on a daily basis. The federal government must respond more effectively, step up their enforcement and protection of the border before more American blood is shed," Mr Abbott told Fox News.
"It is more dangerous to walk the streets of Juarez, a few blocks from El Paso, than it is to walk the streets of Baghdad. There is a very serious problem that is beginning to bulge at our borders and put American lives at risk."
In mid-July, President Barack Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to patrol the border, just days after a car bomb exploded in northern Juarez, very near El Paso.
Texas Governor Rick Perry called that deployment "grossly insufficient". Many politicians are calling for even more troops.
But the mayor of El Paso, John Cook, isn't one of them.
Second safest city
"The reality is we really don't need the help on this side of the border. We probably have every kind of federal law enforcement agency that you can think of. We're an extremely safe community," Mr Cook says.
Despite Juarez's murder toll, in El Paso, local authorities have recorded just two murders this year. In 2009 there were 11.
"Logically it would seem that if you have violence on one side of the border then you're going to have spillover on the other side," says Mr Cook. "But the reality is that we don't."
According to FBI crime statistics, El Paso is the second safest city in America. Crime rates there have dropped 36% over the past 10 years.
Other cities close to the border, including San Diego in California and Phoenix in Arizona, have similarly experienced declines in violent crime.
Over the same period, federal agencies have beefed up their presence along the border, and a 2,000-mile fence is slowly being constructed.
The fence near El Paso is 16-18 feet (4.9-5.5m) high, made of rust-coloured steel mesh. There are 2,700 border police in this sector, monitoring the border day and night, and a raft of FBI, CIA and drug enforcement agents.
Mr Cook questions the need for more troops, given that current border security levels appear to have been effective at containing drug violence south of the border.
Additionally, both he and local border enforcement officials believe that the leaders of drug cartels do not believe it is in their interest to bring the violence north.
Drug barons know that the response from the US government would be swift and heavy, and further hinder their ability to smuggle drugs into the lucrative American market.
Locals worry that with an even heavier security presence in town, El Paso risks becoming like Cold War Berlin, a riven city, its character disrupted by an imposing divider wall.
They believe politicians who don't live on the border fail to appreciate the deep interconnectedness of cities like Juarez and El Paso, which Mr Cook describes as "one city joined by a border".
So with crime rates declining and the border stable, how has this relatively safe Texan city found itself in the centre of a political firestorm over border violence, and the Obama administration's plans to deal with it?
Politics and fear
Border historian David Romo says it is a pattern. He's seen politicians fanning fears about the border before.
The first calls to build a border fence in El Paso to secure the city came in 1908. Back then, the fear was Chinese immigrants. In World War II, politicians worried about Germans streaming across.
These days, it's Mexicans who fuel unease. Mr Romo says that during times of economic distress, the border and the immigrants who cross it are used as scapegoats. He believes history is repeating itself, and politicians are using the same rhetoric they have for decades.
"It happens that every time an election year comes up, they know that creating fear and hysteria about the border will drive a wedge," Mr Romo says.
"In some ways it's cheap vote-getting. There is this cycle of kind of nativist hysteria that is very profitable for politicians. Nothing gets votes like the politics of fear."
Mr Romo says he's not seen evidence of violence infiltrating the El Paso community. He argues that the immigrants who make a new life across the border are motivated to act within the law because they fear being deported.
While Arizona Governor Jan Brewer blames immigrants, illegal and otherwise, for violent crimes and burglaries, Mr Romo says that, ironically, those immigrants have the most incentive to be law-abiding. They don't want to draw attention.
Bleak outlook
Although fears of spillover violence aren't substantiated by crime data, they are having a real impact on the economy of El Paso.
"From an economic development perspective, it's been very negative for us," Mr Cook said.
He has difficulty convincing new businesses to set up in El Paso because of the violence in Juarez. The first question he gets asked in business meetings is usually "is it safe?"
"They don't pay attention to the fact that we are the second safest large city in the United States," he says.
"We've had people who have looked to locating here with their companies and we have to convince them that it's a safe place. They almost don't believe you."
The longer the violence continues in Juarez, the bleaker the outlook becomes for El Paso, despite its impressive safety record.
For now, there's little more Mayor Cook can do but wait.
America's safest cities, 2009
1.Honolulu, Hawaii
2.El Paso, Texas
3.New York City, New York
4.San Jose, California
5.Austin, Texas
6.San Diego, California
7.Seattle, Washington
8.Portland, Oregon
9.Denver, Colorado
10.Los Angeles, California
Source: CQ Press City Crime Rankings 2009-2010
Cities with highest crime, 2009
1.Detroit, Michigan
2.Memphis, Tennessee
3.Baltimore, Maryland
4.Washington, DC
5.Atlanta, Georgia
6.Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7.Indianapolis, Indiana
8.Columbus, Ohio
9.Milwaukee, Wisconsin
10.Dallas, Texas
Source: CQ Press City Crime Rankings 2009-2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10779151
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Tijuana River Valley Residents Say Border Fence Contributing to Flooding
KPBS San Diego
December 7, 2009
by Amy Isackson
Tijuana River Valley residents say the new border fence is blocking drainage channels. They say rain is washing dirt from the new fence project into flood channels.
The Bush Administration waived all environmental laws to build the fence. Government officials promised to mitigate erosion. However, they didn't water the seeds they planted on the berm in Smuggler's Gulch until late this fall.
Dick Tynan, a rancher in the Tijuana River Valley, spoke with us while peering out his barn door towards the new border fence in Smuggler's Gulch.
Tynan said the bare dirt is creating a major problem.
"The government just dropped the ball on that," Tanyan said. "The water just takes the shortest path and its going to take out more silt as it goes. They've got a backhoe up there now working on it."
Tynan said the drainage channel that City of San Diego emergency crews have been digging is already half full.
He also said roads in the river valley have flooded. He's moved some of his horses to higher ground and is ready to move the rest.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/dec/07/tijuana-river-valley-residents-say-border-fence-co/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
December 7, 2009
by Amy Isackson
Tijuana River Valley residents say the new border fence is blocking drainage channels. They say rain is washing dirt from the new fence project into flood channels.
The Bush Administration waived all environmental laws to build the fence. Government officials promised to mitigate erosion. However, they didn't water the seeds they planted on the berm in Smuggler's Gulch until late this fall.
Dick Tynan, a rancher in the Tijuana River Valley, spoke with us while peering out his barn door towards the new border fence in Smuggler's Gulch.
Tynan said the bare dirt is creating a major problem.
"The government just dropped the ball on that," Tanyan said. "The water just takes the shortest path and its going to take out more silt as it goes. They've got a backhoe up there now working on it."
Tynan said the drainage channel that City of San Diego emergency crews have been digging is already half full.
He also said roads in the river valley have flooded. He's moved some of his horses to higher ground and is ready to move the rest.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/dec/07/tijuana-river-valley-residents-say-border-fence-co/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Hidalgo County levee system cited in IBWC whistleblower complaint
The Monitor
September 25, 2009
by Jared James
Hidalgo County’s levee system is at the center of a complaint filed Thursday by a former staff attorney at the International Boundary and Water Commission who accuses the agency of failing to follow federal protocol on major projects in the county.
Robert McCarthy, a former general counsel for the bi-national commission’s U.S. section — the federal agency that manages the levee system — filed a whistleblower complaint after he was fired in July.
In the 11-page complaint filed with a civil service board that investigates whistleblower complaints, McCarthy alleges wanton abuses of power at the El Paso-based agency, including illegal wiretapping of employees, a conspiracy to obtain unlawful pay raises and other examples of “gross mismanagement” by rogue employees.
Most notably for local interests, he accuses the agency of breaking the law when it contributed funds to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s levee-wall in Hidalgo County and for using county-owned engineering plans for repair work.
McCarthy, who worked at the IBWC for six months, said the obscure federal agency operates with little oversight from the U.S. Department of State.
“(The IBWC) feel nobody supervises them and they can do whatever they want,” McCarthy said in an interview Friday. “They’re an independent agency and nobody ever calls them out.”
Agency spokeswoman Sally Spener declined to comment on McCarthy’s case or his allegations, explaining they are part of a personnel matter that is under review.
The complaint does not prohibit the IBWC from continuing work on the county’s levees through economic stimulus package funding, she said.
McCarthy said he was fired on July 31, three days after he disclosed fraud, waste and abuse at the agency to four federal oversight agencies.
In a termination letter, U.S. IBWC Commissioner Bill Ruth said McCarthy was fired for failing to act in a constructive and collegial manner with the rest of the staff.
McCarthy’s whistleblower complaint says the agency violated a federal statute prohibiting cost-sharing between two federal agencies when the IBWC contributed $1.75 million in funds for a section of the levee-wall near the Hidalgo pump house.
Cost-sharing with Homeland Security — the federal agency tasked with building the border wall — created substantial risk “because the agency (IBWC) was funded to build flood control barriers, not border barriers,” according to the complaint.
McCarthy also alleges the agency solicited bids for a levee contract under the economic stimulus package using engineering plans prepared for Hidalgo County.
Proceeding based on designs prepared to state regulations for Hidalgo County — instead of to federal regulations — exposes the agency to the risk of design failures or contractual disputes, he said.
Godfrey Garza, the general manager for Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1, said plans for a levee section near Granjeno were turned over to the IBWC with the county’s full support for the agency’s work.
Acting on McCarthy’s behalf, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility — a Washington, D.C.-based group that works to uphold environmental laws — filed the whistleblower retaliation complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board, demanding his immediate reinstatement.
The board will hear the case within 120 days, said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. The State Department Office of Inspector General is investigating the claims McCarthy made before he was fired.
Last month, a news release from PEER labeled the IBWC the worst agency in the federal government, citing a 2005 State Department Office of Inspector General report that concluded “internal management problems have engulfed (the agency), threatening its essential responsibilities for flood control and water management in the American Southwest.”
Spener, the IBWC spokeswoman, responded in writing that problems identified in the 4-year-old report were cleaned up after the White House asked a former commissioner to step down following its release.
Arturo Duran left the post in late August 2005 after serving as commissioner since the prior year.
He confirmed to various news outlets that the White House had asked him to resign in the wake of a scathing report from the State Department’s Office of Inspector General. The report accused Duran of mismanagement and questioned his financial and personnel decisions, saying the agency was consequently in “disarray.”
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/county-31031-hidalgo-levee.html
September 25, 2009
by Jared James
Hidalgo County’s levee system is at the center of a complaint filed Thursday by a former staff attorney at the International Boundary and Water Commission who accuses the agency of failing to follow federal protocol on major projects in the county.
Robert McCarthy, a former general counsel for the bi-national commission’s U.S. section — the federal agency that manages the levee system — filed a whistleblower complaint after he was fired in July.
In the 11-page complaint filed with a civil service board that investigates whistleblower complaints, McCarthy alleges wanton abuses of power at the El Paso-based agency, including illegal wiretapping of employees, a conspiracy to obtain unlawful pay raises and other examples of “gross mismanagement” by rogue employees.
Most notably for local interests, he accuses the agency of breaking the law when it contributed funds to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s levee-wall in Hidalgo County and for using county-owned engineering plans for repair work.
McCarthy, who worked at the IBWC for six months, said the obscure federal agency operates with little oversight from the U.S. Department of State.
“(The IBWC) feel nobody supervises them and they can do whatever they want,” McCarthy said in an interview Friday. “They’re an independent agency and nobody ever calls them out.”
Agency spokeswoman Sally Spener declined to comment on McCarthy’s case or his allegations, explaining they are part of a personnel matter that is under review.
The complaint does not prohibit the IBWC from continuing work on the county’s levees through economic stimulus package funding, she said.
McCarthy said he was fired on July 31, three days after he disclosed fraud, waste and abuse at the agency to four federal oversight agencies.
In a termination letter, U.S. IBWC Commissioner Bill Ruth said McCarthy was fired for failing to act in a constructive and collegial manner with the rest of the staff.
McCarthy’s whistleblower complaint says the agency violated a federal statute prohibiting cost-sharing between two federal agencies when the IBWC contributed $1.75 million in funds for a section of the levee-wall near the Hidalgo pump house.
Cost-sharing with Homeland Security — the federal agency tasked with building the border wall — created substantial risk “because the agency (IBWC) was funded to build flood control barriers, not border barriers,” according to the complaint.
McCarthy also alleges the agency solicited bids for a levee contract under the economic stimulus package using engineering plans prepared for Hidalgo County.
Proceeding based on designs prepared to state regulations for Hidalgo County — instead of to federal regulations — exposes the agency to the risk of design failures or contractual disputes, he said.
Godfrey Garza, the general manager for Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1, said plans for a levee section near Granjeno were turned over to the IBWC with the county’s full support for the agency’s work.
Acting on McCarthy’s behalf, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility — a Washington, D.C.-based group that works to uphold environmental laws — filed the whistleblower retaliation complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board, demanding his immediate reinstatement.
The board will hear the case within 120 days, said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. The State Department Office of Inspector General is investigating the claims McCarthy made before he was fired.
Last month, a news release from PEER labeled the IBWC the worst agency in the federal government, citing a 2005 State Department Office of Inspector General report that concluded “internal management problems have engulfed (the agency), threatening its essential responsibilities for flood control and water management in the American Southwest.”
Spener, the IBWC spokeswoman, responded in writing that problems identified in the 4-year-old report were cleaned up after the White House asked a former commissioner to step down following its release.
Arturo Duran left the post in late August 2005 after serving as commissioner since the prior year.
He confirmed to various news outlets that the White House had asked him to resign in the wake of a scathing report from the State Department’s Office of Inspector General. The report accused Duran of mismanagement and questioned his financial and personnel decisions, saying the agency was consequently in “disarray.”
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/county-31031-hidalgo-levee.html
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Carrizo spraying delayed
Laredo Morning Times
March 26, 2009
By Miguel Timoshenkov
NUEVO LAREDO - Officials with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol agreed Tuesday to temporarily delay aerial spraying of herbicide on carrizo along the Rio Grande until there can be a deeper international discussion of the crossborder impact of such a project.
"We saw the willingness of the U.S. authorities to suspend the use of the herbicide for now," said José de Jesús Luévano Grano, a Mexico representative on the International Boundary and Water Commission, speaking on behalf of the group of agencies that met Tuesday.
"We support their use of mechanical means to uproot the carrizo."
Luévano said Mexican officials are aware that the carrizo, a non-native cane that clogs the riverbanks, consumes great quantities of water and that its eradication could help preserve the vital fluid in times of drought.
But they don't believe using the herbicide containing imazaypr is the safe way to do that.
A new date for starting the aerial spraying has not been determined, but U.S. authorities confirmed that it has been delayed as a result of Tuesday's meeting.
"We don't have a definitive start date," said Roque Sarinana, a spokesman for Border Patrol.
"It's still undergoing negotiations."
Last week, the Laredo City Council granted Border Patrol an easement for carrizo eradication along 1.1 miles of land along the Rio Grande.
The agency plans to try several methods, including the herbicide, to determine which would be the best way to get rid of the plant.
Tuesday, officials from numerous government agencies at local, state and federal levels, on both sides of the Rio Grande met for more than an a hour to discuss the situation and then had a news conference to announce the U.S. agencies' decision to delay implementation of the spraying.
Mexican and U.S. officials will exchange a series of studies within a week.
Once that is done, another meeting will be set up for a strictly technical discussion of the facts and to determine the next course of action.
Environmental officials and experts on both sides of the border will be reviewing the studies because, while U.S. officials believe use of imazapyr does not pose a health hazard, Mexican officials believe it could cause irreversible damage.
At the news conference, Luévano said Mexican officials told Border Patrol that when their agency is going to do something that affects both sides of the river, they should ask the opinion of Mexican environmental authorities.
"The American authorities thought that by conducting their own environmental study, it would suffice as a study of the environment on the Mexican side and that we would be in agreement," Luévano said, but that is not the case.
Luévano said the Mexico-U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission has followed official procedure since the controversy over use of the herbicide began.
He asserted the commission favors eradication of the carrizo, but supports other non-herbicide means of accomplishing that goal.
Carlos Montiel Saheb, director of the city's waterworks system, said his concern over the application of the herbicide has been relieved, at least temporarily, but that there needs to be a clear understanding of the rights of both nations when something is going to affect both sides of the river.
Both sides need to be consulted, he said. In this case, Mexican authorities should have been involved in the discussion.
"Now we will present our case and give a precise explanation of the risks to public health, particularly how it (herbicide) can affect vision as well as cancer-related concerns," Montiel said.
Luévano was clear in stating that the temporary delay didn't mean that the United States was canceling the project, and noted that negotiations are continuing.
It's up to the U.S. side of the International Boundary and Water Commission to provide a detailed study on the use of imazapyr to ensure that it poses no negative effects to the Mexican side of the river, according to a news release from the Nuevo Laredo city government.
http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2009/03/25/news/doc49c9d8ec29612964126658.txt
March 26, 2009
By Miguel Timoshenkov
NUEVO LAREDO - Officials with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol agreed Tuesday to temporarily delay aerial spraying of herbicide on carrizo along the Rio Grande until there can be a deeper international discussion of the crossborder impact of such a project.
"We saw the willingness of the U.S. authorities to suspend the use of the herbicide for now," said José de Jesús Luévano Grano, a Mexico representative on the International Boundary and Water Commission, speaking on behalf of the group of agencies that met Tuesday.
"We support their use of mechanical means to uproot the carrizo."
Luévano said Mexican officials are aware that the carrizo, a non-native cane that clogs the riverbanks, consumes great quantities of water and that its eradication could help preserve the vital fluid in times of drought.
But they don't believe using the herbicide containing imazaypr is the safe way to do that.
A new date for starting the aerial spraying has not been determined, but U.S. authorities confirmed that it has been delayed as a result of Tuesday's meeting.
"We don't have a definitive start date," said Roque Sarinana, a spokesman for Border Patrol.
"It's still undergoing negotiations."
Last week, the Laredo City Council granted Border Patrol an easement for carrizo eradication along 1.1 miles of land along the Rio Grande.
The agency plans to try several methods, including the herbicide, to determine which would be the best way to get rid of the plant.
Tuesday, officials from numerous government agencies at local, state and federal levels, on both sides of the Rio Grande met for more than an a hour to discuss the situation and then had a news conference to announce the U.S. agencies' decision to delay implementation of the spraying.
Mexican and U.S. officials will exchange a series of studies within a week.
Once that is done, another meeting will be set up for a strictly technical discussion of the facts and to determine the next course of action.
Environmental officials and experts on both sides of the border will be reviewing the studies because, while U.S. officials believe use of imazapyr does not pose a health hazard, Mexican officials believe it could cause irreversible damage.
At the news conference, Luévano said Mexican officials told Border Patrol that when their agency is going to do something that affects both sides of the river, they should ask the opinion of Mexican environmental authorities.
"The American authorities thought that by conducting their own environmental study, it would suffice as a study of the environment on the Mexican side and that we would be in agreement," Luévano said, but that is not the case.
Luévano said the Mexico-U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission has followed official procedure since the controversy over use of the herbicide began.
He asserted the commission favors eradication of the carrizo, but supports other non-herbicide means of accomplishing that goal.
Carlos Montiel Saheb, director of the city's waterworks system, said his concern over the application of the herbicide has been relieved, at least temporarily, but that there needs to be a clear understanding of the rights of both nations when something is going to affect both sides of the river.
Both sides need to be consulted, he said. In this case, Mexican authorities should have been involved in the discussion.
"Now we will present our case and give a precise explanation of the risks to public health, particularly how it (herbicide) can affect vision as well as cancer-related concerns," Montiel said.
Luévano was clear in stating that the temporary delay didn't mean that the United States was canceling the project, and noted that negotiations are continuing.
It's up to the U.S. side of the International Boundary and Water Commission to provide a detailed study on the use of imazapyr to ensure that it poses no negative effects to the Mexican side of the river, according to a news release from the Nuevo Laredo city government.
http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2009/03/25/news/doc49c9d8ec29612964126658.txt
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Protester stops work on border fence
Associated Press / Houston Chronicle
December 17, 2008
EL PASO, Texas — A 55-year-old Army veteran hunkered down in front of construction crews who were building the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border Wednesday, halting work for about eight hours before she was arrested.
Judy Ackerman, one of about a dozen people at a peaceful protest east of El Paso on Wednesday, was handcuffed by Texas Department of Public Safety Troopers after several hours of figuring out which authority was responsible for removing her.
Ackerman was arrested on a charge of criminal trespass, a state misdemeanor. Ed Hernandez, one of three local attorneys who volunteered Wednesday to defend Ackerman, said the retired Army sergeant major was released from jail late Wednesday afternoon after being issued a summons to appear in court.
Work on the fence resumed immediately after Ackerman was led away. Before her arrest, the white-haired woman sporting a reflective vest and hard had cheerfully chatted with authorities. About 20 workers were milling around the site, leaning against heavy equipment and dump trucks and taking pictures of her with their cell phones.
"They have a job to do, but today their job is to take a break," said Ackerman, who spent 26 years in the Army.
Ackerman crossed a canal before workers arrived and took up a position on a levee where large steel poles were being erected. The levee is in a desolate area several miles east of downtown El Paso, near the 370-acre Rio Bosque Wetlands Park.
"They have this wonderful park here, and the wall is messing it up," said Ackerman, who said she's never been arrested before. "This is life. The river is life. But not the wall; the wall is death."
Ackerman was on land maintained by the International Boundary and Water Commission land, the binational agency that maintains the boundary between Mexico and the U.S.
Al Riera, the principal engineer for the IBWC, said officials there were notified about her presence early Wednesday and told to contact authorities to have her removed. Officials spent several hours trying to figure out the proper authority. Riera said this is the first such protest on IBWC land.
Government officials said Tuesday that 500 miles of fencing has been built along the Southwest border.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6170233.html#
December 17, 2008
EL PASO, Texas — A 55-year-old Army veteran hunkered down in front of construction crews who were building the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border Wednesday, halting work for about eight hours before she was arrested.
Judy Ackerman, one of about a dozen people at a peaceful protest east of El Paso on Wednesday, was handcuffed by Texas Department of Public Safety Troopers after several hours of figuring out which authority was responsible for removing her.
Ackerman was arrested on a charge of criminal trespass, a state misdemeanor. Ed Hernandez, one of three local attorneys who volunteered Wednesday to defend Ackerman, said the retired Army sergeant major was released from jail late Wednesday afternoon after being issued a summons to appear in court.
Work on the fence resumed immediately after Ackerman was led away. Before her arrest, the white-haired woman sporting a reflective vest and hard had cheerfully chatted with authorities. About 20 workers were milling around the site, leaning against heavy equipment and dump trucks and taking pictures of her with their cell phones.
"They have a job to do, but today their job is to take a break," said Ackerman, who spent 26 years in the Army.
Ackerman crossed a canal before workers arrived and took up a position on a levee where large steel poles were being erected. The levee is in a desolate area several miles east of downtown El Paso, near the 370-acre Rio Bosque Wetlands Park.
"They have this wonderful park here, and the wall is messing it up," said Ackerman, who said she's never been arrested before. "This is life. The river is life. But not the wall; the wall is death."
Ackerman was on land maintained by the International Boundary and Water Commission land, the binational agency that maintains the boundary between Mexico and the U.S.
Al Riera, the principal engineer for the IBWC, said officials there were notified about her presence early Wednesday and told to contact authorities to have her removed. Officials spent several hours trying to figure out the proper authority. Riera said this is the first such protest on IBWC land.
Government officials said Tuesday that 500 miles of fencing has been built along the Southwest border.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6170233.html#
Border fence construction halted for hours due to protest
El Paso Times
December 17, 2008
EL PASO - A lone protester at the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park temporarily halted construction of the border fence Wednesday, setting up a standoff with the Border Patrol.
Bill Addington, another activist at the site in the Lower Valley, identified the protester as Judy Ackerman of Northeast El Paso.
"There's a group of us of about 25 out here, but she's the only one on the construction site itself," Addington, who also served as Ackerman's spokesman. "We believe the Border Patrol is going to seek an arrest warrant to have her removed."
El Paso Border Patrol spokesman Doug Mosier said it was likely an arrest warrant will be sought through the U.S. attorney's office and federal courts. Ackerman was a founding member of Friends of the Rio Bosque and a member of the Sierra Club.
Conservationists have argued the 15-foot, steel-mesh border fence, will upset the park's ecological balance.
Department of Homeland Security officials said the federal government is constructing the fence along 670 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border to deter illegal immigration and drug smuggling.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11253293
December 17, 2008
EL PASO - A lone protester at the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park temporarily halted construction of the border fence Wednesday, setting up a standoff with the Border Patrol.
Bill Addington, another activist at the site in the Lower Valley, identified the protester as Judy Ackerman of Northeast El Paso.
"There's a group of us of about 25 out here, but she's the only one on the construction site itself," Addington, who also served as Ackerman's spokesman. "We believe the Border Patrol is going to seek an arrest warrant to have her removed."
El Paso Border Patrol spokesman Doug Mosier said it was likely an arrest warrant will be sought through the U.S. attorney's office and federal courts. Ackerman was a founding member of Friends of the Rio Bosque and a member of the Sierra Club.
Conservationists have argued the 15-foot, steel-mesh border fence, will upset the park's ecological balance.
Department of Homeland Security officials said the federal government is constructing the fence along 670 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border to deter illegal immigration and drug smuggling.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11253293
Friday, November 14, 2008
Lawmakers lobbied on border fence
El Paso Times
November 14, 2008
EL PASO - The Texas Legislature should file legal briefs backing the lawsuits that several El Paso governmental and environmental entities filed in federal court declaring the border fence unconstitutional, County Attorney José Rodríguez told members of the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus on Thursday.
Rodríguez spent the morning in Austin talking to the caucus about the negative consequences the fence - which is now being built along the U.S.-Mexico border - would have locally.
"I asked them to pass a resolution opposing further erection of the fence ... to show support for communities like El Paso," he said. "We think that the state of Texas has been entirely too quiet. As a state we should be on the forefront of this issue."
Early last summer, the city and county of El Paso joined the Texas Border Coalition's lawsuit against the fence.
Since then, both entities joined other environmental groups in a separate lawsuit challenging the authority of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's to access the land near the Rio Grande to build the fence. They claimed the department inappropriately ignored more than 30 laws that would have prevented the construction now under way.
The second lawsuit was dismissed in a federal court in El Paso, and the case is now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I would ask that when El Paso files its appeal in federal court that the Legislature also obtain a brief in our support," Rodríguez said.
Eddie Lucio III, D-San Benito and the chairman of the caucus, said he was impressed by Rodríguez's testimony.
"He provided great impact and shed some light on things the caucus was not fully aware of," he said. "This is valuable testimony that we'll put into the record and hopefully use to make things happen."
Lucio said he wanted to follow some of the recommendations that Rodríguez made on Thursday.
"There are advocacy groups asking that the Legislature take a more active role on this issue," Lucio said. "I want to pass a resolution, yes, but I also want to lobby the leadership in Texas to create work groups to do research and create suggestions for alternatives for this problem."
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_10980839?_requestid=36871035
November 14, 2008
EL PASO - The Texas Legislature should file legal briefs backing the lawsuits that several El Paso governmental and environmental entities filed in federal court declaring the border fence unconstitutional, County Attorney José Rodríguez told members of the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus on Thursday.
Rodríguez spent the morning in Austin talking to the caucus about the negative consequences the fence - which is now being built along the U.S.-Mexico border - would have locally.
"I asked them to pass a resolution opposing further erection of the fence ... to show support for communities like El Paso," he said. "We think that the state of Texas has been entirely too quiet. As a state we should be on the forefront of this issue."
Early last summer, the city and county of El Paso joined the Texas Border Coalition's lawsuit against the fence.
Since then, both entities joined other environmental groups in a separate lawsuit challenging the authority of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's to access the land near the Rio Grande to build the fence. They claimed the department inappropriately ignored more than 30 laws that would have prevented the construction now under way.
The second lawsuit was dismissed in a federal court in El Paso, and the case is now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I would ask that when El Paso files its appeal in federal court that the Legislature also obtain a brief in our support," Rodríguez said.
Eddie Lucio III, D-San Benito and the chairman of the caucus, said he was impressed by Rodríguez's testimony.
"He provided great impact and shed some light on things the caucus was not fully aware of," he said. "This is valuable testimony that we'll put into the record and hopefully use to make things happen."
Lucio said he wanted to follow some of the recommendations that Rodríguez made on Thursday.
"There are advocacy groups asking that the Legislature take a more active role on this issue," Lucio said. "I want to pass a resolution, yes, but I also want to lobby the leadership in Texas to create work groups to do research and create suggestions for alternatives for this problem."
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_10980839?_requestid=36871035
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Cuellar: CBP halts border fence construction in three Valley segments
Rio Grande Guardian
November 7, 2008
LOS EBANOS, November 7 - The Bush Administration has decided not to move forward with construction of the border fence in three parts of the Rio Grande Valley for the rest of the year, U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar has announced.
Customs and Border Protection had wanted to erect almost four miles of “movable” fencing in Roma, almost nine miles of fencing in Rio Grande City, and just less than two miles of fencing in Los Ebanos.
“It’s not going to happen. Customs and Border Protection has decided not to move forward with their plans for the rest of the year. The reason they gave was engineering and hydraulic concerns,” Cuellar told the Guardian on Friday evening.
Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos are in Cuellar’s district. Other border counties in Cuellar’s district, such as Zapata and Webb, were not slated to get a border fence. Asked for his reaction to the news, Cuellar said: “This is a big victory.”
The reason CBP wanted to erect movable fences in Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos was due to concerns that a permanent fence could cause flooding on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande during a hurricane or tropical storm. If that had happened an international treaty with Mexico would have been violated.
Cuellar said that before his untimely death in a plane crash in September, Carlos Marin, head of the U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, had insisted that CBP do not proceed with any fencing in Roma, Rio Grande City, or Los Ebanos that would have increased the chances of flooding in Mexico.
“Carlos Marin, may he rest in peace, spoke about this often to me and his argument has prevailed. He was pretty adamant that no fence be built that could cause flooding and his words have come ringing through now,” Cuellar said.
“The IBWC wanted assurances that a physical barrier could be moved at short notice during the threat of a tropical storm or hurricane. He was concerned about flooding on the Mexican side.”
Cuellar said CBP’s decision not to proceed with fencing in Roma, Rio Grande City or Los Ebanos would allow he and other border lawmakers an opportunity to sit down with the next U.S. president and the next secretary of the Homeland Security to talk about alternatives to a border fence.
“Although, CBP says it will not move forward with the fence for the rest of this year, it really means they will not move forward until after the Obama administration is in office. They are going to wait,” Obama said.
Cuellar is a member of the House Homeland Security Committee. He said he asked CBP to hold off on awarding contracts to build the border fence until the next administration takes office when agency officials appeared at a Homeland Security Committee hearing in September.
“Perhaps they have taken notice. We need to revisit the whole issue of border fencing again. We were told the fencing would cost $3 million per mile and now we learn it is going to cost $7 million a mile,” Cuellar said.
“It is time to look at alternative proposals and I plan to meet with Border Patrol on Monday to talk about sensors, cameras, more Border Patrol agents.”Asked if CBP should look again at its border fencing plans in the districts of other border members of Congress, Cuellar said: “Absolutely.”
Scott Nicol, a spokesman for the No Border Wall group, applauded CBP’s decision not to proceed with border fencing in Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos.
“It is our hope that this will be made permanent by the new administration,” Nicol told the Guardian. “We believe that Cameron County and the rest of the border which is slated for wall construction before the end of Secretary Chertoff’s tenure should also be spared.”
Nicol pointed out that the border fence plan has already led to the condemnation of farmland and municipal property. He said the “walls” that are currently under construction are “devastating” wildlife refuges and “destabilizing” South Texas’ flood control levees.
“$3 billion has been wasted on walls that the Border Patrol says only slow crossers by a few minutes,” Nicol said. “With two wars, a deepening financial crisis, and trillions of dollars of debt, our nation cannot afford to throw more money into this bottomless pit.”
Nicol said the No Border Wall group is hopeful that the decision to spare the communities of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos signals the beginning of a “sane” border policy on the part of the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration.
“The border wall is nothing more than a political prop, a backdrop for politicians who want to look tough on national security. With the election behind us, it is time to move beyond hollow symbols,” Nicol said.
Nicol said the No Border Wall coalition is now calling on President-elect Obama to appoint a new secretary of Homeland Security who will “reject Michael Chertoff’s failures and refuse to play politics with the lives and property of border residents.”
Obama should enact a moratorium on further border wall construction until a non-partisan organization such as the Government Accountability Office can review both the impacts of the walls that have already been built and the foreseeable impacts of proposed walls, Nicol added.
http://www.riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=18
November 7, 2008
LOS EBANOS, November 7 - The Bush Administration has decided not to move forward with construction of the border fence in three parts of the Rio Grande Valley for the rest of the year, U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar has announced.
Customs and Border Protection had wanted to erect almost four miles of “movable” fencing in Roma, almost nine miles of fencing in Rio Grande City, and just less than two miles of fencing in Los Ebanos.
“It’s not going to happen. Customs and Border Protection has decided not to move forward with their plans for the rest of the year. The reason they gave was engineering and hydraulic concerns,” Cuellar told the Guardian on Friday evening.
Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos are in Cuellar’s district. Other border counties in Cuellar’s district, such as Zapata and Webb, were not slated to get a border fence. Asked for his reaction to the news, Cuellar said: “This is a big victory.”
The reason CBP wanted to erect movable fences in Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos was due to concerns that a permanent fence could cause flooding on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande during a hurricane or tropical storm. If that had happened an international treaty with Mexico would have been violated.
Cuellar said that before his untimely death in a plane crash in September, Carlos Marin, head of the U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, had insisted that CBP do not proceed with any fencing in Roma, Rio Grande City, or Los Ebanos that would have increased the chances of flooding in Mexico.
“Carlos Marin, may he rest in peace, spoke about this often to me and his argument has prevailed. He was pretty adamant that no fence be built that could cause flooding and his words have come ringing through now,” Cuellar said.
“The IBWC wanted assurances that a physical barrier could be moved at short notice during the threat of a tropical storm or hurricane. He was concerned about flooding on the Mexican side.”
Cuellar said CBP’s decision not to proceed with fencing in Roma, Rio Grande City or Los Ebanos would allow he and other border lawmakers an opportunity to sit down with the next U.S. president and the next secretary of the Homeland Security to talk about alternatives to a border fence.
“Although, CBP says it will not move forward with the fence for the rest of this year, it really means they will not move forward until after the Obama administration is in office. They are going to wait,” Obama said.
Cuellar is a member of the House Homeland Security Committee. He said he asked CBP to hold off on awarding contracts to build the border fence until the next administration takes office when agency officials appeared at a Homeland Security Committee hearing in September.
“Perhaps they have taken notice. We need to revisit the whole issue of border fencing again. We were told the fencing would cost $3 million per mile and now we learn it is going to cost $7 million a mile,” Cuellar said.
“It is time to look at alternative proposals and I plan to meet with Border Patrol on Monday to talk about sensors, cameras, more Border Patrol agents.”Asked if CBP should look again at its border fencing plans in the districts of other border members of Congress, Cuellar said: “Absolutely.”
Scott Nicol, a spokesman for the No Border Wall group, applauded CBP’s decision not to proceed with border fencing in Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos.
“It is our hope that this will be made permanent by the new administration,” Nicol told the Guardian. “We believe that Cameron County and the rest of the border which is slated for wall construction before the end of Secretary Chertoff’s tenure should also be spared.”
Nicol pointed out that the border fence plan has already led to the condemnation of farmland and municipal property. He said the “walls” that are currently under construction are “devastating” wildlife refuges and “destabilizing” South Texas’ flood control levees.
“$3 billion has been wasted on walls that the Border Patrol says only slow crossers by a few minutes,” Nicol said. “With two wars, a deepening financial crisis, and trillions of dollars of debt, our nation cannot afford to throw more money into this bottomless pit.”
Nicol said the No Border Wall group is hopeful that the decision to spare the communities of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos signals the beginning of a “sane” border policy on the part of the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration.
“The border wall is nothing more than a political prop, a backdrop for politicians who want to look tough on national security. With the election behind us, it is time to move beyond hollow symbols,” Nicol said.
Nicol said the No Border Wall coalition is now calling on President-elect Obama to appoint a new secretary of Homeland Security who will “reject Michael Chertoff’s failures and refuse to play politics with the lives and property of border residents.”
Obama should enact a moratorium on further border wall construction until a non-partisan organization such as the Government Accountability Office can review both the impacts of the walls that have already been built and the foreseeable impacts of proposed walls, Nicol added.
http://www.riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=18
Friday, September 26, 2008
Border fence in El Paso county costing $220 million
El Paso Times
September 26, 2008
AUSTIN -- Nearly all of the 110 miles of border fencing planned for West Texas and New Mexico have been contracted out at the cost of more than $220 million, a Department of Homeland Security official said Thursday.
Angela de Rocha, a Homeland Security spokeswoman, said the department has awarded 11 contracts for fencing in the U.S. Border Patrol's El Paso sector, which includes Hudspeth and El Paso counties in Texas and all of New Mexico.
Homeland Security is working to complete 670 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of this year. About 340 miles of fence has been built, and Congress has approved $2.6 billion for construction. But Homeland Security officials recently told Congress the project might not be finished on target and asked for an additional $400 million for construction.
The El Paso sector contracts, which are composed of all but one mile of fencing planned for the region, total about $228 million, de Rocha said.
"Until this final contract is awarded, the completion date for the El Paso sector is to be determined," she said in an e-mail.
Doug Mosier, a spokesman for the El Paso Border Patrol sector, said just more than three miles of pedestrian fencing, 15- to 18-foot-high wire mesh barriers, have been completed in Doña Ana County.
Three other stretches of fence are now under construction. One project is in Luna County, N.M.
In Santa Teresa, a one-mile stretch is being built beginning at the port of entry and running east.
And in El Paso County, a 9.6-mile section of the fence is being built, starting one mile east of the Bridge of the Americas port of entry and extending to one mile east of the Ysleta port of entry.
That is part of a 60-mile stretch of fencing that will extend east to Fort Hancock.
Mosier said the goal is to complete all fencing in the El Paso sector by the endof the year.
"The overall goal is to be able to impede illegal immigrants and the smuggling activity that comes with that at times," he said.
The fencing, he said, would also reduce attacks on Border Patrol agents.
Border fencing has met perhaps the stiffest opposition in Texas, where Homeland Security has faced legal challenges and loud protests from border residents and community leaders.
This week, El Paso County decided to take its case against the DHS to the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit -- which the city, the Tigua tribe and other local groups joined -- challenges the constitutionality of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Cher toff's use of waivers to bypass dozens of laws and build the barrier quickly.
"If we don't pursue this, É what we are saying is we will accept whatever the government wants to dish out regardless of whether it violates our civil rights," said El Paso County Commissioner Veronica Escobar.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_10561994
September 26, 2008
AUSTIN -- Nearly all of the 110 miles of border fencing planned for West Texas and New Mexico have been contracted out at the cost of more than $220 million, a Department of Homeland Security official said Thursday.
Angela de Rocha, a Homeland Security spokeswoman, said the department has awarded 11 contracts for fencing in the U.S. Border Patrol's El Paso sector, which includes Hudspeth and El Paso counties in Texas and all of New Mexico.
Homeland Security is working to complete 670 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of this year. About 340 miles of fence has been built, and Congress has approved $2.6 billion for construction. But Homeland Security officials recently told Congress the project might not be finished on target and asked for an additional $400 million for construction.
The El Paso sector contracts, which are composed of all but one mile of fencing planned for the region, total about $228 million, de Rocha said.
"Until this final contract is awarded, the completion date for the El Paso sector is to be determined," she said in an e-mail.
Doug Mosier, a spokesman for the El Paso Border Patrol sector, said just more than three miles of pedestrian fencing, 15- to 18-foot-high wire mesh barriers, have been completed in Doña Ana County.
Three other stretches of fence are now under construction. One project is in Luna County, N.M.
In Santa Teresa, a one-mile stretch is being built beginning at the port of entry and running east.
And in El Paso County, a 9.6-mile section of the fence is being built, starting one mile east of the Bridge of the Americas port of entry and extending to one mile east of the Ysleta port of entry.
That is part of a 60-mile stretch of fencing that will extend east to Fort Hancock.
Mosier said the goal is to complete all fencing in the El Paso sector by the endof the year.
"The overall goal is to be able to impede illegal immigrants and the smuggling activity that comes with that at times," he said.
The fencing, he said, would also reduce attacks on Border Patrol agents.
Border fencing has met perhaps the stiffest opposition in Texas, where Homeland Security has faced legal challenges and loud protests from border residents and community leaders.
This week, El Paso County decided to take its case against the DHS to the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit -- which the city, the Tigua tribe and other local groups joined -- challenges the constitutionality of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Cher toff's use of waivers to bypass dozens of laws and build the barrier quickly.
"If we don't pursue this, É what we are saying is we will accept whatever the government wants to dish out regardless of whether it violates our civil rights," said El Paso County Commissioner Veronica Escobar.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_10561994
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Suit to fight border fence is dismissed
El Paso Times
September 13, 2008
EL PASO -- A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by El Paso County, the city of El Paso, environmental groups and others against the controversial border fence, County Attorney José Rodríguez's office said Friday.
The lawsuit argued that Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff did not have the authority to waive 30 environmental and other laws to construct the fence, described as the "border wall" by its opponents.
U.S. District Judge Frank Montalvo ruled that the waivers to expedite the construction of the fence were constitutional "because 'Congress constitutionally delegated its authority in the Waiver Legislation.' "
Rodríguez said in a statement that plaintiffs have 90 days to file an appeal to the Supreme Court, and that an appeal by the firm Mayer Brown LLP of Washington, D.C., was already being prepared Friday.
El Paso Mayor John Cook said he and other mayors of Texas border cities are not necessarily opposed to fences.
"But we are opposed to them putting them in without local input," Cook said.
The border fence in El Paso, which stands 15 feet tall, has been the target of marches and protests, including a small demonstration Friday evening where a section of fence is being installed near Yarbrough Drive.
Proponents of the fence said that it would help secure the border by stopping drug-loaded vehicles from driving across, and that, if the fence didn't stop undocumented immigrants, it would at least slow them long enough to give Border Patrol agents time to catch them.
Fence opponents call it a costly eyesore that sends an unfriendly message while damaging the environment.
"The wall is an environmental disaster," said Bill Addington, who's on the executive committee of the Rio Grande Sierra Club Chapter and whose family owns land in Hudspeth County near the border.
"It is immoral -- an immoral crime for anyone to put up a barrier or wall between animals that need it (the Rio Grande) for drinking water," Addington said. "You are also fragmenting habitat. All these animals that have traditionally gone back and forth cannot pass."
Wednesday, Homeland security officials told Congress that the 670-mile fence might not be finished this year and that it was $400 million over budget because of increased fuel and steel costs and limited available labor.
About 340 miles of fence has been built. Congress so far has approved $2.6 billion for constructing the fence.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_10451761
September 13, 2008
EL PASO -- A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by El Paso County, the city of El Paso, environmental groups and others against the controversial border fence, County Attorney José Rodríguez's office said Friday.
The lawsuit argued that Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff did not have the authority to waive 30 environmental and other laws to construct the fence, described as the "border wall" by its opponents.
U.S. District Judge Frank Montalvo ruled that the waivers to expedite the construction of the fence were constitutional "because 'Congress constitutionally delegated its authority in the Waiver Legislation.' "
Rodríguez said in a statement that plaintiffs have 90 days to file an appeal to the Supreme Court, and that an appeal by the firm Mayer Brown LLP of Washington, D.C., was already being prepared Friday.
El Paso Mayor John Cook said he and other mayors of Texas border cities are not necessarily opposed to fences.
"But we are opposed to them putting them in without local input," Cook said.
The border fence in El Paso, which stands 15 feet tall, has been the target of marches and protests, including a small demonstration Friday evening where a section of fence is being installed near Yarbrough Drive.
Proponents of the fence said that it would help secure the border by stopping drug-loaded vehicles from driving across, and that, if the fence didn't stop undocumented immigrants, it would at least slow them long enough to give Border Patrol agents time to catch them.
Fence opponents call it a costly eyesore that sends an unfriendly message while damaging the environment.
"The wall is an environmental disaster," said Bill Addington, who's on the executive committee of the Rio Grande Sierra Club Chapter and whose family owns land in Hudspeth County near the border.
"It is immoral -- an immoral crime for anyone to put up a barrier or wall between animals that need it (the Rio Grande) for drinking water," Addington said. "You are also fragmenting habitat. All these animals that have traditionally gone back and forth cannot pass."
Wednesday, Homeland security officials told Congress that the 670-mile fence might not be finished this year and that it was $400 million over budget because of increased fuel and steel costs and limited available labor.
About 340 miles of fence has been built. Congress so far has approved $2.6 billion for constructing the fence.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_10451761
Monday, September 8, 2008
Feds sue state to get parkland for fence
San Antonio Express-News
September 6, 2008
BROWNSVILLE — Weeks after the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department rejected the Department of Homeland Security's offer of $105,000 to buy land to mitigate effects of a fence cutting through a Rio Grande dove preserve, DHS has followed through with a lawsuit for the land.
The suit, filed in federal court in Brownsville, is accompanied by a declaration of taking for the 3.2 acres of land necessary for the fence and its right-of-way through the Anacua segment of the Las Palomas preserve.
Federal attorneys say in the declaration the fence will not cut off access to the parkland between the fence and the Rio Grande.
TPW officials say the proposed “border barrier gate” will undo decades of habitat restoration.
TPW Executive Director Carter Smith had hoped the long history of game wardens working with Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies would give their agency the type of “unique status” that brought a court compromise for the University of Texas-Brownsville segment of the fence.
But he said Friday the agency is resigned there will be a fence as planned. He said his priority was making sure there's no construction activity during white wing dove season, which is this weekend and next.
Smith said he hoped an agreement could be reached guaranteeing TPW is present during all phases of construction to help minimize environmental damage.
“DHS has shown no sign of being willing to compromise on the design or location of the fence itself, but there are a host of other considerations that we are interested in,” he said.
He called current plans for the 30- to 50-foot-wide barrier gate “perplexing.”
“Right now we have been told they are going to build a fence and then leave an opening for a gate that at some point in the distant future they will complete,” he said.
DHS remains committed to completing 370 miles of barrier by the end of 2008. As of Aug. 13, the agency had completed 184 miles of pedestrian fencing, much of it in the other Southwest border states.
Attempts by environmental and other groups to contest the constitutionality of Homeland Security's waiver of environmental laws have so far failed.
Last Friday, a federal judge in El Paso denied a request for an injunction against fence construction by plaintiffs, including the city and county of El Paso, Frontera Audubon Society, and Friends of the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/state/Feds_sue_state_to_get_parkland_for_fence.html
September 6, 2008
BROWNSVILLE — Weeks after the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department rejected the Department of Homeland Security's offer of $105,000 to buy land to mitigate effects of a fence cutting through a Rio Grande dove preserve, DHS has followed through with a lawsuit for the land.
The suit, filed in federal court in Brownsville, is accompanied by a declaration of taking for the 3.2 acres of land necessary for the fence and its right-of-way through the Anacua segment of the Las Palomas preserve.
Federal attorneys say in the declaration the fence will not cut off access to the parkland between the fence and the Rio Grande.
TPW officials say the proposed “border barrier gate” will undo decades of habitat restoration.
TPW Executive Director Carter Smith had hoped the long history of game wardens working with Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies would give their agency the type of “unique status” that brought a court compromise for the University of Texas-Brownsville segment of the fence.
But he said Friday the agency is resigned there will be a fence as planned. He said his priority was making sure there's no construction activity during white wing dove season, which is this weekend and next.
Smith said he hoped an agreement could be reached guaranteeing TPW is present during all phases of construction to help minimize environmental damage.
“DHS has shown no sign of being willing to compromise on the design or location of the fence itself, but there are a host of other considerations that we are interested in,” he said.
He called current plans for the 30- to 50-foot-wide barrier gate “perplexing.”
“Right now we have been told they are going to build a fence and then leave an opening for a gate that at some point in the distant future they will complete,” he said.
DHS remains committed to completing 370 miles of barrier by the end of 2008. As of Aug. 13, the agency had completed 184 miles of pedestrian fencing, much of it in the other Southwest border states.
Attempts by environmental and other groups to contest the constitutionality of Homeland Security's waiver of environmental laws have so far failed.
Last Friday, a federal judge in El Paso denied a request for an injunction against fence construction by plaintiffs, including the city and county of El Paso, Frontera Audubon Society, and Friends of the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/state/Feds_sue_state_to_get_parkland_for_fence.html
Friday, August 22, 2008
Border fence deadline bumped back
Associated Press / The Monitor
August 22, 2008
By Christopher Sherman
McALLEN -- Soaring construction costs for the border fence have apparently forced the Department of Homeland Security to bend for the first time on its end-of-year completion deadline.
The agency has offered a South Texas county until March 31, 2009 to finish its longest segment of the combined levee and border wall, hoping that the move will keep costs in check, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press.
Congress mandated that 670 miles of vehicle and pedestrian barriers be in place along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border by the end of 2008. Homeland Security has used that looming deadline to justify the waiver of dozens of environmental regulations in April and repeatedly to explain in federal court the quick filing of condemnation lawsuits against hesitant owners of land in the fence's path.
But Dannenbaum Engineering Co., the firm overseeing the modification of about 20 miles of levees into concrete walls in Hidalgo County, states in an Aug. 18 letter that Homeland Security offered more time after all bids for one segment came back too high.
"DHS has allowed an extension for completion of this project," the letter to the county's drainage district said. "Original date for completion was December 31, 2008. New date for completion is March 31, 2009."
The letter concludes, "We believe that these measures may possibly allow for a more cost effective project."
Barry Morrissey, spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the arm of DHS handling the border fence, said the agency is still working toward a year-end deadline.
"No formal decision has been made by Customs and Border Protection to change the targeted completion date for the project in question," Morrissey wrote in an e-mail Thursday. "We understand Hidalgo County may be exploring options for cost savings (as is CBP). But we remain committed to completing our goals by the end of the calendar year."
A day earlier, Morrissey said he was aware of conversations about finding savings by extending deadlines, but knew of no final decision.
"The costs have risen just dramatically since the start of this thing," Morrissey said.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff came to Hidalgo County in February to announce a major compromise that would combine the county's need for improved levees with the agency's plans for a border fence. The river side of the levees would be scraped away and replaced with a sheer concrete wall 15 to 18-feet tall.
Most significantly, the project could be built within the existing levee right-of-way rather than through private land.
The 4.35-mile segment in western Hidalgo County discussed in the letter is set to be re-advertised Sunday. This time it will be split into two smaller pieces, said Godfrey Garza, district manager of the Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1, which is overseeing the project.
Officials hope the extension will let them spread out their demand for steel, concrete and labor - the project's main ingredients. "Then that premium should come down," Garza said.
The county is paying for the levee improvement portion of the project and Homeland Security is covering the border wall.
This week, the county also approved changes in the original $21.4 million contract for a 1.76-mile levee segment under construction in an attempt to keep pace with rising material costs.
Change orders to the contract show that prices per cubic yard to build elements of the retaining wall have increased between seven and 23 percent since it was awarded July 1. The county drainage district will provide more "in-kind" work to keep it within budget, Garza said.
The cost of typical border fence sections is about $2 million to $3 million per mile, but the government recently began a 3 1/2-mile segment in San Diego that will cost about $16 million per mile due to terrain. As of July 11, the government had completed 182 miles of pedestrian fence and 153 miles of vehicle barriers along the border.
Perry Vaughn, executive director of the Rio Grande Valley chapter of Associated General Contractors of America, said the cost of concrete, steel and diesel fuel are expected to rise another six to eight percent by the end of the year.
"It's very difficult to tie down suppliers for an extended length of time," Vaughn said. When contractors make their bid for a project they know the price of the materials could change one day to the next, so a project such as the border fence that will take months to complete, presents challenges, he said.
From December 2003 to June 2008, concrete, steel and diesel increased 36 percent, 122 percent and 329 percent, respectively, Vaughn said.
The Hidalgo County project costs played a role in the announcement earlier this week that U.S. Customs and Border Protection had rejected neighboring Cameron County's proposal for a similar combined levee and border wall.
In a letter to the county, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Ralph Basham cited cost as one factor in the decision.
"Based on our recent experience in Hidalgo County, we estimate that the cost of a similar project in your area would exceed the cost of CBP's standard fence design," the letter said.
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/county_16324___article.html/border_project.html
August 22, 2008
By Christopher Sherman
McALLEN -- Soaring construction costs for the border fence have apparently forced the Department of Homeland Security to bend for the first time on its end-of-year completion deadline.
The agency has offered a South Texas county until March 31, 2009 to finish its longest segment of the combined levee and border wall, hoping that the move will keep costs in check, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press.
Congress mandated that 670 miles of vehicle and pedestrian barriers be in place along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border by the end of 2008. Homeland Security has used that looming deadline to justify the waiver of dozens of environmental regulations in April and repeatedly to explain in federal court the quick filing of condemnation lawsuits against hesitant owners of land in the fence's path.
But Dannenbaum Engineering Co., the firm overseeing the modification of about 20 miles of levees into concrete walls in Hidalgo County, states in an Aug. 18 letter that Homeland Security offered more time after all bids for one segment came back too high.
"DHS has allowed an extension for completion of this project," the letter to the county's drainage district said. "Original date for completion was December 31, 2008. New date for completion is March 31, 2009."
The letter concludes, "We believe that these measures may possibly allow for a more cost effective project."
Barry Morrissey, spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the arm of DHS handling the border fence, said the agency is still working toward a year-end deadline.
"No formal decision has been made by Customs and Border Protection to change the targeted completion date for the project in question," Morrissey wrote in an e-mail Thursday. "We understand Hidalgo County may be exploring options for cost savings (as is CBP). But we remain committed to completing our goals by the end of the calendar year."
A day earlier, Morrissey said he was aware of conversations about finding savings by extending deadlines, but knew of no final decision.
"The costs have risen just dramatically since the start of this thing," Morrissey said.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff came to Hidalgo County in February to announce a major compromise that would combine the county's need for improved levees with the agency's plans for a border fence. The river side of the levees would be scraped away and replaced with a sheer concrete wall 15 to 18-feet tall.
Most significantly, the project could be built within the existing levee right-of-way rather than through private land.
The 4.35-mile segment in western Hidalgo County discussed in the letter is set to be re-advertised Sunday. This time it will be split into two smaller pieces, said Godfrey Garza, district manager of the Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1, which is overseeing the project.
Officials hope the extension will let them spread out their demand for steel, concrete and labor - the project's main ingredients. "Then that premium should come down," Garza said.
The county is paying for the levee improvement portion of the project and Homeland Security is covering the border wall.
This week, the county also approved changes in the original $21.4 million contract for a 1.76-mile levee segment under construction in an attempt to keep pace with rising material costs.
Change orders to the contract show that prices per cubic yard to build elements of the retaining wall have increased between seven and 23 percent since it was awarded July 1. The county drainage district will provide more "in-kind" work to keep it within budget, Garza said.
The cost of typical border fence sections is about $2 million to $3 million per mile, but the government recently began a 3 1/2-mile segment in San Diego that will cost about $16 million per mile due to terrain. As of July 11, the government had completed 182 miles of pedestrian fence and 153 miles of vehicle barriers along the border.
Perry Vaughn, executive director of the Rio Grande Valley chapter of Associated General Contractors of America, said the cost of concrete, steel and diesel fuel are expected to rise another six to eight percent by the end of the year.
"It's very difficult to tie down suppliers for an extended length of time," Vaughn said. When contractors make their bid for a project they know the price of the materials could change one day to the next, so a project such as the border fence that will take months to complete, presents challenges, he said.
From December 2003 to June 2008, concrete, steel and diesel increased 36 percent, 122 percent and 329 percent, respectively, Vaughn said.
The Hidalgo County project costs played a role in the announcement earlier this week that U.S. Customs and Border Protection had rejected neighboring Cameron County's proposal for a similar combined levee and border wall.
In a letter to the county, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Ralph Basham cited cost as one factor in the decision.
"Based on our recent experience in Hidalgo County, we estimate that the cost of a similar project in your area would exceed the cost of CBP's standard fence design," the letter said.
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/county_16324___article.html/border_project.html
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Against the Wall
Not even federal law can keep Bush's fence from ripping through natural areas along the Rio Grande.
Texas Observer
June 27, 2008
Melissa del Bosque
Ken Merritt dedicated 31 years of his professional life to protecting endangered wildlife for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. He’d still be doing the job he loved if not for a fateful decision. In December 2007, his bosses presented Merritt with a choice: Adhere to longstanding federal law, or sign off on a plan by the Department of Homeland Security to build an 18-foot steel wall through a wildlife refuge under his charge.
Merritt oversaw 180,000 acres of federally protected land that comprises three national wildlife refuges: the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Santa Ana, and the Laguna Atascosa. In an area where 95 percent of the native habitat has fallen prey to development, the value of the refuges cannot be overstated. Over three decades, the federal government invested more than $80 million in buying and restoring habitat along the Texas-Mexico border, creating 115 refuges along the Rio Grande. Merritt’s three-refuge complex is the largest tract. Volunteers and federal employees painstakingly restored native grasses and trees to fallow farmland, and endangered species such as ocelots and jaguarundis slowly returned. The refuges are home to 700 species of birds and animals, as well as 300 species of butterflies, including the rare Telea hairstreak butterfly, which caused a stir last year in scientific circles when it was spotted for the first time in 70 years. The wildlife refuges have been an economic boon for one of the poorest regions in the country. The median annual household income along the border is $15,000. The more than 200,000 birders and ecotourists who visit the region generate an estimated $150 million a year.
Merritt assumed his job was secure. “I really didn’t think it was a career-ending decision until they told me so last December,” he says. “I thought what I was doing was right. But it was a train wreck waiting to happen.”
Merritt says his boss, Benjamin Tuggle, the southwest regional director at Fish & Wildlife in Albuquerque, explicitly asked him to approve the engineering survey for a fence through the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. It was implied through numerous conference calls and a visit from Tuggle that the Bush administration wanted badly to begin building the border fence. A private environmental consulting firm from Colorado, E2m Inc., had won the contract to do surveys for the fence, and needed access to the refuge. The National Environmental Policy Act, however, requires that a wildlife refuge manager answer a series of questions to determine whether construction projects—in this case a border fence—are appropriate and not detrimental to wildlife in the refuge.
Merritt’s findings indicated the opposite. “It had no benefit for the refuge and no relationship to why the refuge was established,” Merritt says. He denied permission to perform the survey.
Tuggle told him his choice was a “career-ending decision,” Merritt says. “He said some other things, which I won’t go into, but it was pretty ugly.” On January 3, Merritt retired.
Contacted by the Observer, Tuggle denied telling Merritt that his decision would end his career.
Merritt, 54, bemoans the politicization of wildlife protection under the Bush administration. He says political appointees with little background in wildlife management or biology have disregarded the agency’s mission, protecting the nation’s natural resources. “I put a lot of time and a lot of thinking into working through this issue on the border fence,” Merritt says. “And I came to the right conclusion about it, but nothing was done in the end because the waiver wiped everything out.”
The waiver in question stems from a provision Congress tucked into the Real ID Act in 2005 that allows the secretary of homeland security to ignore federal law in the name of national security. On April 1, Secretary Michael Chertoff used his authority to waive 36 federal laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Antiquities Act, and the Native American Graves Protection Act. His waiver applies to 470 miles of southern border in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The edict ended public input and interagency discussion on alternatives to the fence.
Yet, as Chertoff has admitted, building a fence through Texas’ wildlife refuges, while costly to taxpayers, will do little to solve America’s illegal immigration problems. The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, has estimated that building and maintaining fence segments along the southern border could cost $49 billion. Last July, Chertoff told CNN’s Late Edition that “fencing has a symbolic value, and it has usefulness in some parts of the border. And we’re going to use it where it is effective. The idea that you are going to solve the problem simply by building a fence is undercut by the fact that yesterday we discovered a tunnel. So the idea that fencing alone is a solution I think is overly simplistic.”
Despite complaints from congressional leaders about lack of public input, a class action lawsuit by several Texas border landowners and cities, and a lawsuit filed in the U.S. Supreme Court by Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club, Chertoff expects private contractors to start building the fence in Texas by July or August.
In May, the Army Corps of Engineers began soliciting bids to build three segments of steel fence through the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Houston-based KBR Inc., formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., is one of the companies bidding for the project.
Privatization of border security is a hallmark of the Bush administration’s effort to curb illegal immigration. At a January 2006 “Industry Day” in Washington, D.C., Deputy Director of Homeland Security Michael Jackson told more than 400 defense contractors, “We’re asking you, we’re inviting you to tell us how to run our organization.” Jackson, a former Lockheed Martin Corp. vice president, added, “This is an invitation to be a little bit aggressive, thinking as if you were owner and you were partners with CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection).”
In 2006, Boeing Co. won a multibillion-dollar contract to build and maintain “technology and tactical infrastructure projects” along the northern and southern borders. A Government Accountability Office report released in February indicated the contract runs for three years, with three one-year extension options. The GAO has repeatedly recommended that Homeland Security place a spending cap on the contract, to no avail.
Homeland Security’s Secure Border Initiative office, whose responsibility it is to oversee the Boeing contract and several other border-security projects, did not return six phone calls and four e-mails requesting comment.
Boeing drew the wrath of congressional leaders in February, when the company delivered a “virtual fence” to surveil the Arizona border near Tucson. It didn’t work. Under accelerated deadlines imposed by Congress and Homeland Security, the company used commercial software for police dispatchers. The company didn’t consult with Border Patrol agents as to what would work in the field. Congressional leaders threatened to take the project, called P-28, away from Boeing, but instead granted the company two more contracts worth $133 million to salvage the effort.
Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva, whose district is on the Arizona border, has watched the P-28 debacle unfold over the past two years. “They screwed up the virtual fence, and $20.6 million was flushed down the toilet—no problem,” he says. “Now they’ve been given additional money to redo it. It’s nothing more than political symbolism.”
Chertoff announced this month that the technology would be operational in 2011.
In June 2007, Grijalva, who chairs the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of the House Natural Resources Committee, introduced the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act. His legislation requires, among other things, that Homeland Security publish full public notice and seek public input. And it repeals Chertoff’s waiver authority. Despite 49 co-sponsors, the legislation languishes in another House subcommittee—the equivalent of outer Siberia on Capitol Hill.
Grijalva has spent his whole life on the Arizona border, and he understands the complexities of the region. His Capitol office is decorated with Native American artwork and colorful southwestern décor. At times he slips into Spanish border slang. “The fence is not a deterrent for the high-level organized criminal organizations operating on both sides of the border,” he says. “Guns one way, dope the other way, human smuggling, stolen vehicles—those activities are now organized. And if you talk to Border Patrol agents who don’t have to carry the party line, they’ll tell you it’s not the poor pelado coming across to wash dishes in some restaurant that’s a threat. It’s the cartels that control Nuevo Laredo and Juarez in Texas and Naco, Nogales, and Agua Prieta in my state.”
Grijalva has been trying for months to get traction on his legislation. But it remains unacceptable to both Republicans and the Democratic leadership, the former for ideological reasons and the latter because it’s too controversial in an election year.
“When I first filed this bill, some of my colleagues thought it was a real pain in the ass,” Grijalva says. “Nobody thought the fence would be built. Then their communities started calling them.”
In April, he held a field hearing on his bill at the University of Texas campus in Brownsville. The hearing brought together seven committee chairs and a bipartisan panel of congressional members, including Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, a primary architect of the Secure Fence Act. Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, a staunch fence supporter, also took part. He had one of the more memorable lines of the day when he peevishly suggested that the border fence be built north of Brownsville since residents hated the plan so much.
One important witness was conspicuously absent. Grijalva had requested that a deputy or high-ranking member of Homeland Security be present to answer questions. Chertoff ignored Grijalva and the six other Democratic committee chairs, and didn’t send a high-level staffer.
“The administration is an animal unto itself,” Grijalva says.
Though Democrats have the majority in the House and the Senate, and control the administration’s purse strings, they have been reluctant to take on Homeland Security because they don’t want to be perceived as soft on security issues, Grijalva says.
“A lot of what we need to do as Democrats in Congress is not panic and stick our tails between our legs at the tactics that Homeland Security uses, such as ‘Oh, if you’re not for waiving 36 laws, building a fence, and putting the safety of the nation above a species, then you are obviously pro-terrorist, open borders, and don’t care about the security of our nation,’” he says. “It’s been a very convenient political hammer on both sides of the aisle.”
Grijalva’s hope is that Democrats can eventually reform Homeland Security, but he doesn’t see it happening until Bush has left the White House. “I think we can provide some real oversight over these agencies and at least minimize the damage and hold it until the new administration can come in and clean it up,” he says. “That’s the long-term strategy for me—holding the dogs at the gate until we can have a more rational look at border security and border policy. Because everything we are doing right now is in response to being perceived as a political advantage or disadvantage. And so when you create policy that way, like with the border fence, it is doomed to failure. Those policies have no lasting strength to them.”
Particularly galling to the congressman is Homeland Security’s plan to spend $1.3 billion to build a massive headquarters in Washington; the money will come from port of entry funding within the agency’s budget. Local officials, along with law enforcement personnel, have long begged for more money to beef up security at ports of entry along the border. “People are calling it the ‘Little Pentagon,’” Grijalva says of the new headquarters. “They squeezed port of entry funding, better security, and flow-of-traffic money slated for ports of entry to build it.”
He says he believes the agency never intended to follow federal law when building the fence segments across the southern border. “I think the waiver was always in the works,” he says.
“There is a military mentality toward this now in the Department of Homeland Security. They use words like ‘operational management, operational control.’ They didn’t want to deal with the National Environmental Policy Act. Because Homeland Security feels it is to some extent part of the Defense Department and that oversight should be minimal and secretive. The National Environmental Policy Act is an open and public process, and in that culture they feel it’s their prerogative to be closed about it for security reasons.”
Every year, Grijalva says, at least 400 dead migrants who have succumbed to the elements are routinely discovered in the desert in his district. He is frustrated that the administration won’t work with local communities and law enforcement to come up with a border policy that works. Instead, private contractors are making millions off U.S. taxpayers building pieces of fence that no one believes will work. “This administration has made sure their allies have found a way to make money out of it,” Grijalva says. “I find it very disturbing.”
The congressman hasn’t given up on his legislation. He hopes to hold another hearing in July. While he has gathered support from 49 Democrats, not one Republican has joined them.
Noah Kahn, federal lands associate with Defenders of Wildlife, says his group has repeatedly met with Republican congressional members to persuade them to join Grijalva. “Many of them show interest, but they always ask, ‘Have any other Republicans signed on to the bill?’ No one wants to be the first Republican to sign on,” Kahn says.
“I don’t think I will get bipartisan support,” Grijalva says. “So the point quite honestly is to continue to move the issue—you don’t want it to disappear. We want to put this in front of the American people and say, ‘OK, the border fence is not going to solve the problem you perceive because, (a) it is dividing communities and, (b) it’s a waste of money, and it’s affecting the environment and our constitutional principles, such as private property and sovereign rights for native people.” Ken Merritt, for one, would like to see a real debate about the fence. On a sweltering June afternoon, he sits under a tree at the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge in a contemplative mood. Just last December he was the boss here.
“The border fence really threw the service for a loop,” he says of Fish & Wildlife. “They wrote this policy about appropriate uses to protect the refuges as much as possible from political decisions. They never thought about a fence coming in. It’s a tough one because the administration wants a fence, and they are telling everyone down the line in the executive branch, ‘Make this thing happen.’”
Merritt says the American people shouldn’t have to choose between saving endangered species and securing the border. “You hear about a wildlife refuge and the border fence on Fox News, and they always paint it as black and white,” he says. “Do you want to save an ocelot or have our border secure? It’s a ridiculous question, because we ought to be able to have both.”
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2796
Texas Observer
June 27, 2008
Melissa del Bosque
Ken Merritt dedicated 31 years of his professional life to protecting endangered wildlife for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. He’d still be doing the job he loved if not for a fateful decision. In December 2007, his bosses presented Merritt with a choice: Adhere to longstanding federal law, or sign off on a plan by the Department of Homeland Security to build an 18-foot steel wall through a wildlife refuge under his charge.
Merritt oversaw 180,000 acres of federally protected land that comprises three national wildlife refuges: the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Santa Ana, and the Laguna Atascosa. In an area where 95 percent of the native habitat has fallen prey to development, the value of the refuges cannot be overstated. Over three decades, the federal government invested more than $80 million in buying and restoring habitat along the Texas-Mexico border, creating 115 refuges along the Rio Grande. Merritt’s three-refuge complex is the largest tract. Volunteers and federal employees painstakingly restored native grasses and trees to fallow farmland, and endangered species such as ocelots and jaguarundis slowly returned. The refuges are home to 700 species of birds and animals, as well as 300 species of butterflies, including the rare Telea hairstreak butterfly, which caused a stir last year in scientific circles when it was spotted for the first time in 70 years. The wildlife refuges have been an economic boon for one of the poorest regions in the country. The median annual household income along the border is $15,000. The more than 200,000 birders and ecotourists who visit the region generate an estimated $150 million a year.
Merritt assumed his job was secure. “I really didn’t think it was a career-ending decision until they told me so last December,” he says. “I thought what I was doing was right. But it was a train wreck waiting to happen.”
Merritt says his boss, Benjamin Tuggle, the southwest regional director at Fish & Wildlife in Albuquerque, explicitly asked him to approve the engineering survey for a fence through the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. It was implied through numerous conference calls and a visit from Tuggle that the Bush administration wanted badly to begin building the border fence. A private environmental consulting firm from Colorado, E2m Inc., had won the contract to do surveys for the fence, and needed access to the refuge. The National Environmental Policy Act, however, requires that a wildlife refuge manager answer a series of questions to determine whether construction projects—in this case a border fence—are appropriate and not detrimental to wildlife in the refuge.
Merritt’s findings indicated the opposite. “It had no benefit for the refuge and no relationship to why the refuge was established,” Merritt says. He denied permission to perform the survey.
Tuggle told him his choice was a “career-ending decision,” Merritt says. “He said some other things, which I won’t go into, but it was pretty ugly.” On January 3, Merritt retired.
Contacted by the Observer, Tuggle denied telling Merritt that his decision would end his career.
Merritt, 54, bemoans the politicization of wildlife protection under the Bush administration. He says political appointees with little background in wildlife management or biology have disregarded the agency’s mission, protecting the nation’s natural resources. “I put a lot of time and a lot of thinking into working through this issue on the border fence,” Merritt says. “And I came to the right conclusion about it, but nothing was done in the end because the waiver wiped everything out.”
The waiver in question stems from a provision Congress tucked into the Real ID Act in 2005 that allows the secretary of homeland security to ignore federal law in the name of national security. On April 1, Secretary Michael Chertoff used his authority to waive 36 federal laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Antiquities Act, and the Native American Graves Protection Act. His waiver applies to 470 miles of southern border in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The edict ended public input and interagency discussion on alternatives to the fence.
Yet, as Chertoff has admitted, building a fence through Texas’ wildlife refuges, while costly to taxpayers, will do little to solve America’s illegal immigration problems. The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, has estimated that building and maintaining fence segments along the southern border could cost $49 billion. Last July, Chertoff told CNN’s Late Edition that “fencing has a symbolic value, and it has usefulness in some parts of the border. And we’re going to use it where it is effective. The idea that you are going to solve the problem simply by building a fence is undercut by the fact that yesterday we discovered a tunnel. So the idea that fencing alone is a solution I think is overly simplistic.”
Despite complaints from congressional leaders about lack of public input, a class action lawsuit by several Texas border landowners and cities, and a lawsuit filed in the U.S. Supreme Court by Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club, Chertoff expects private contractors to start building the fence in Texas by July or August.
In May, the Army Corps of Engineers began soliciting bids to build three segments of steel fence through the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Houston-based KBR Inc., formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., is one of the companies bidding for the project.
Privatization of border security is a hallmark of the Bush administration’s effort to curb illegal immigration. At a January 2006 “Industry Day” in Washington, D.C., Deputy Director of Homeland Security Michael Jackson told more than 400 defense contractors, “We’re asking you, we’re inviting you to tell us how to run our organization.” Jackson, a former Lockheed Martin Corp. vice president, added, “This is an invitation to be a little bit aggressive, thinking as if you were owner and you were partners with CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection).”
In 2006, Boeing Co. won a multibillion-dollar contract to build and maintain “technology and tactical infrastructure projects” along the northern and southern borders. A Government Accountability Office report released in February indicated the contract runs for three years, with three one-year extension options. The GAO has repeatedly recommended that Homeland Security place a spending cap on the contract, to no avail.
Homeland Security’s Secure Border Initiative office, whose responsibility it is to oversee the Boeing contract and several other border-security projects, did not return six phone calls and four e-mails requesting comment.
Boeing drew the wrath of congressional leaders in February, when the company delivered a “virtual fence” to surveil the Arizona border near Tucson. It didn’t work. Under accelerated deadlines imposed by Congress and Homeland Security, the company used commercial software for police dispatchers. The company didn’t consult with Border Patrol agents as to what would work in the field. Congressional leaders threatened to take the project, called P-28, away from Boeing, but instead granted the company two more contracts worth $133 million to salvage the effort.
Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva, whose district is on the Arizona border, has watched the P-28 debacle unfold over the past two years. “They screwed up the virtual fence, and $20.6 million was flushed down the toilet—no problem,” he says. “Now they’ve been given additional money to redo it. It’s nothing more than political symbolism.”
Chertoff announced this month that the technology would be operational in 2011.
In June 2007, Grijalva, who chairs the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of the House Natural Resources Committee, introduced the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act. His legislation requires, among other things, that Homeland Security publish full public notice and seek public input. And it repeals Chertoff’s waiver authority. Despite 49 co-sponsors, the legislation languishes in another House subcommittee—the equivalent of outer Siberia on Capitol Hill.
Grijalva has spent his whole life on the Arizona border, and he understands the complexities of the region. His Capitol office is decorated with Native American artwork and colorful southwestern décor. At times he slips into Spanish border slang. “The fence is not a deterrent for the high-level organized criminal organizations operating on both sides of the border,” he says. “Guns one way, dope the other way, human smuggling, stolen vehicles—those activities are now organized. And if you talk to Border Patrol agents who don’t have to carry the party line, they’ll tell you it’s not the poor pelado coming across to wash dishes in some restaurant that’s a threat. It’s the cartels that control Nuevo Laredo and Juarez in Texas and Naco, Nogales, and Agua Prieta in my state.”
Grijalva has been trying for months to get traction on his legislation. But it remains unacceptable to both Republicans and the Democratic leadership, the former for ideological reasons and the latter because it’s too controversial in an election year.
“When I first filed this bill, some of my colleagues thought it was a real pain in the ass,” Grijalva says. “Nobody thought the fence would be built. Then their communities started calling them.”
In April, he held a field hearing on his bill at the University of Texas campus in Brownsville. The hearing brought together seven committee chairs and a bipartisan panel of congressional members, including Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, a primary architect of the Secure Fence Act. Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, a staunch fence supporter, also took part. He had one of the more memorable lines of the day when he peevishly suggested that the border fence be built north of Brownsville since residents hated the plan so much.
One important witness was conspicuously absent. Grijalva had requested that a deputy or high-ranking member of Homeland Security be present to answer questions. Chertoff ignored Grijalva and the six other Democratic committee chairs, and didn’t send a high-level staffer.
“The administration is an animal unto itself,” Grijalva says.
Though Democrats have the majority in the House and the Senate, and control the administration’s purse strings, they have been reluctant to take on Homeland Security because they don’t want to be perceived as soft on security issues, Grijalva says.
“A lot of what we need to do as Democrats in Congress is not panic and stick our tails between our legs at the tactics that Homeland Security uses, such as ‘Oh, if you’re not for waiving 36 laws, building a fence, and putting the safety of the nation above a species, then you are obviously pro-terrorist, open borders, and don’t care about the security of our nation,’” he says. “It’s been a very convenient political hammer on both sides of the aisle.”
Grijalva’s hope is that Democrats can eventually reform Homeland Security, but he doesn’t see it happening until Bush has left the White House. “I think we can provide some real oversight over these agencies and at least minimize the damage and hold it until the new administration can come in and clean it up,” he says. “That’s the long-term strategy for me—holding the dogs at the gate until we can have a more rational look at border security and border policy. Because everything we are doing right now is in response to being perceived as a political advantage or disadvantage. And so when you create policy that way, like with the border fence, it is doomed to failure. Those policies have no lasting strength to them.”
Particularly galling to the congressman is Homeland Security’s plan to spend $1.3 billion to build a massive headquarters in Washington; the money will come from port of entry funding within the agency’s budget. Local officials, along with law enforcement personnel, have long begged for more money to beef up security at ports of entry along the border. “People are calling it the ‘Little Pentagon,’” Grijalva says of the new headquarters. “They squeezed port of entry funding, better security, and flow-of-traffic money slated for ports of entry to build it.”
He says he believes the agency never intended to follow federal law when building the fence segments across the southern border. “I think the waiver was always in the works,” he says.
“There is a military mentality toward this now in the Department of Homeland Security. They use words like ‘operational management, operational control.’ They didn’t want to deal with the National Environmental Policy Act. Because Homeland Security feels it is to some extent part of the Defense Department and that oversight should be minimal and secretive. The National Environmental Policy Act is an open and public process, and in that culture they feel it’s their prerogative to be closed about it for security reasons.”
Every year, Grijalva says, at least 400 dead migrants who have succumbed to the elements are routinely discovered in the desert in his district. He is frustrated that the administration won’t work with local communities and law enforcement to come up with a border policy that works. Instead, private contractors are making millions off U.S. taxpayers building pieces of fence that no one believes will work. “This administration has made sure their allies have found a way to make money out of it,” Grijalva says. “I find it very disturbing.”
The congressman hasn’t given up on his legislation. He hopes to hold another hearing in July. While he has gathered support from 49 Democrats, not one Republican has joined them.
Noah Kahn, federal lands associate with Defenders of Wildlife, says his group has repeatedly met with Republican congressional members to persuade them to join Grijalva. “Many of them show interest, but they always ask, ‘Have any other Republicans signed on to the bill?’ No one wants to be the first Republican to sign on,” Kahn says.
“I don’t think I will get bipartisan support,” Grijalva says. “So the point quite honestly is to continue to move the issue—you don’t want it to disappear. We want to put this in front of the American people and say, ‘OK, the border fence is not going to solve the problem you perceive because, (a) it is dividing communities and, (b) it’s a waste of money, and it’s affecting the environment and our constitutional principles, such as private property and sovereign rights for native people.” Ken Merritt, for one, would like to see a real debate about the fence. On a sweltering June afternoon, he sits under a tree at the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge in a contemplative mood. Just last December he was the boss here.
“The border fence really threw the service for a loop,” he says of Fish & Wildlife. “They wrote this policy about appropriate uses to protect the refuges as much as possible from political decisions. They never thought about a fence coming in. It’s a tough one because the administration wants a fence, and they are telling everyone down the line in the executive branch, ‘Make this thing happen.’”
Merritt says the American people shouldn’t have to choose between saving endangered species and securing the border. “You hear about a wildlife refuge and the border fence on Fox News, and they always paint it as black and white,” he says. “Do you want to save an ocelot or have our border secure? It’s a ridiculous question, because we ought to be able to have both.”
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2796
DHS says 'no' to Cameron County's levee-wall alternative
Rio Grande Guardian
August 19, 2008
BROWNSVILLE, August 19 - The Department of Homeland Security has rejected Cameron County’s proposed levee-wall project as an alternative to a border fence.
Confirmation of the decision was relayed to Cameron County Judge Carlos Cascos in a letter sent by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner W. Ralph Basham.
“After many meetings and discussions with the CBP Secure Border Initiative program office as well as a thorough evaluation of our proposal they concluded that the project was not feasible,” Cascos said.
“Costs for a project of this magnitude and their current experience in Hidalgo County played a major role in their decision. In addition the coordination with the International Boundary and Water Commission was also a factor.”
The IBWC is currently working to complete flood protection improvements in Cameron County. “There was an unwillingness to collaborate on a joint levee-barrier project at this time,” Cascos said, referring to the IBWC.
Cascos said DHS plans to proceed with the planned installation of a border fence in Cameron County.
“As has been stated many times before, the Cameron County Commissioner’s Court has taken an official position opposing the border fence and will continue to work towards aiming to make sure that the concerns of those most affected by this initiative are addressed in a proper manner,” Cascos added.
In Hidalgo County, CBP is working with county officials and IBWC to build 22 miles of levee concrete walls instead of a border fence. The project was made financially viable when county commissioners agreed to use $40 million from a county bond issue to help pay for the work. The county hopes the federal government will pay the money back in the not too distant future.
In his letter to Cascos, Basham said CBP’s Secure Border Initiative program office has evaluated the “complex operational, financial, environmental, and construction timeline requirements” associated with Cameron County’s proposed levee-wall project.
“We have determined that the project is not feasible,” Basham wrote. “The key factors in reaching this conclusion were concerns related to the cost and coordination with the International Boundary and Water Commission, the federal entity with responsibility for the levees.”
Basham said that based on his agency’s recent experience in Hidalgo County, CBP estimates that the cost of a similar project in Cameron County would “exceed the cost” of CBP’s standard fence design.
“Additionally, because the IBWC is already working to complete flood protection improvements in Cameron County, we do not believe it will be feasible to collaborate with them on a joint levee-barrier project,” Basham said.
Basham said that as CBP proceeds with its installation of border security in Cameron County it will maintain “open dialogue” with the local community and affected landowners.
http://www.riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=20
August 19, 2008
BROWNSVILLE, August 19 - The Department of Homeland Security has rejected Cameron County’s proposed levee-wall project as an alternative to a border fence.
Confirmation of the decision was relayed to Cameron County Judge Carlos Cascos in a letter sent by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner W. Ralph Basham.
“After many meetings and discussions with the CBP Secure Border Initiative program office as well as a thorough evaluation of our proposal they concluded that the project was not feasible,” Cascos said.
“Costs for a project of this magnitude and their current experience in Hidalgo County played a major role in their decision. In addition the coordination with the International Boundary and Water Commission was also a factor.”
The IBWC is currently working to complete flood protection improvements in Cameron County. “There was an unwillingness to collaborate on a joint levee-barrier project at this time,” Cascos said, referring to the IBWC.
Cascos said DHS plans to proceed with the planned installation of a border fence in Cameron County.
“As has been stated many times before, the Cameron County Commissioner’s Court has taken an official position opposing the border fence and will continue to work towards aiming to make sure that the concerns of those most affected by this initiative are addressed in a proper manner,” Cascos added.
In Hidalgo County, CBP is working with county officials and IBWC to build 22 miles of levee concrete walls instead of a border fence. The project was made financially viable when county commissioners agreed to use $40 million from a county bond issue to help pay for the work. The county hopes the federal government will pay the money back in the not too distant future.
In his letter to Cascos, Basham said CBP’s Secure Border Initiative program office has evaluated the “complex operational, financial, environmental, and construction timeline requirements” associated with Cameron County’s proposed levee-wall project.
“We have determined that the project is not feasible,” Basham wrote. “The key factors in reaching this conclusion were concerns related to the cost and coordination with the International Boundary and Water Commission, the federal entity with responsibility for the levees.”
Basham said that based on his agency’s recent experience in Hidalgo County, CBP estimates that the cost of a similar project in Cameron County would “exceed the cost” of CBP’s standard fence design.
“Additionally, because the IBWC is already working to complete flood protection improvements in Cameron County, we do not believe it will be feasible to collaborate with them on a joint levee-barrier project,” Basham said.
Basham said that as CBP proceeds with its installation of border security in Cameron County it will maintain “open dialogue” with the local community and affected landowners.
http://www.riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=20
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Border Fence Fight Comes to Los Ebanos, Texas
Texas Public Radio
August 13, 2008
David Martin Davies - Texas Public Radio News
August 13, 2008 · The Rio Grande forms the Texas 1,255-mile border with Mexico from El Paso to the Gulf of Mexico. But it is only at Los Ebanos where people can cross the river not with a bridge but with a hand-pulled ferry.
The Los Ebanos ferry is a part of the border that time forgot. Tucked away in the southwestern corner of Hidalgo County this crossing has existed as a popular place to ford the Rio Grande since the days of Spanish colonization. Then like now the summer sound of the cicadas pulsate in the breeze.
The hand pulled ferry went into operation in the 1850’s and has seen few improvements since then. The ferry is still tethered by a thick rope tied around the base of a large Texas Ebony tree.
And it’s still muscle power that propels the flat bottom barge from Texas to Mexico and back again.
But one difference evident today is the ferry now hauls large pick-up trucks over the border – a maximum 3 at a time and no more than 12 passengers.
“We are doing it old school here,” said Mark Alvarez is the captain of the ferry and operations manager. In order to function as a recognized international port of entry the Los Ebanos ferry needs a fully licensed captain. Alvarez went to school and passed the tests even though his ship travels less than a quarter of a mile per journey.Alvarez says the ferry averages about 40 cars a day. If it weren’t for this crossing the motorists would have to drive an additional 40 miles to get to Diaz Ordaz, the town on the other side of the river.
“It saves them time and money,” he said.
During Prohibition Los Ebanos was known as “Smugglers Crossing.” In this post 9-11 era with the construction of hundreds of miles of border fencing it would seem doubtful that the Department of Homeland Security will allow a smugglers crossing to continue to exist on its southern border. But Captain Alvarez says the hand-pulled ferry will continue to its voyages.
“They have been here measuring for the wall, but it’s not going to effect the port of entry. It's just going to be built surrounding it. It’s not going to close me off. Our doors are still going to be open to Mexico and the United States is still going to have traffic coming and going,” he said.
Critical to the Department of Homeland Security’s plan for securing this stretch of the border is fencing off the undeveloped land on either side of the Los Ebanos ferry.
Both properties are owned by Pamela Rivas. The 16 acres have been in her family for generations. She is refusing to allow the Army Corp of Engineers to survey her land for the anti-illegal immigration border fence. She said she doesn’t want to sell her land to the Department of Homeland Security at any price because she’s opposed to the concept of the border barrier.
“I don’t think it’s going to serve a purpose. It’s a waste of money. You know taxpayers money just for a wall that I don’t think is going to detain anybody. They can go through it, over it, under it,” Rivas said.
Rivas and other opposition landowners were sued by the Department of Homeland security to get access to the land. They lost that round in court. Then last month the family drove to New Orleans for the appeal.
This is the first border fence landowner dispute that reached the appeallate court level. But Rivas isn’t happy with the result. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it won’t over turn the lower court decision.
The federal appeals court said it did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the case because the government had not finished the condemnation of the land in Los Ebanos.
The Department of Homeland Security has already filed final condemnation lawsuits against Rivas using imminent domain, but there’s a hold up. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has not scheduled a hearing. All these legal wranglings are causing critical delays for Homeland Security which is working to meet a congressional deadline to complete 670 miles of barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of the year.
“Their plan wasn’t as good as it looked on paper,” said Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid attorney Tino Gallegos who represents Rivas against DHS, Gallegos said officials at Homeland Security are realizing the border region is more complicated than they first thought.
“You’re not just building a fence in the middle of nowhere that won’t affect anybody – except for the wildlife that has to try and pass through it. It affects people and their way of life and their communities – they’re not so easily pushed aside,” he said.
Homeland Security has made some compromised on the Texas Border to achieve some of its fencing objectives. But there are some places like in Los Ebanos where landowners like Rivas say compromise isn’t an option.
And it looks like it will be up to the courts to decide if the border fence will come to the part of the border that time forgot.
http://www.tpr.org/news/2008/08/news0808131.html
August 13, 2008
David Martin Davies - Texas Public Radio News
August 13, 2008 · The Rio Grande forms the Texas 1,255-mile border with Mexico from El Paso to the Gulf of Mexico. But it is only at Los Ebanos where people can cross the river not with a bridge but with a hand-pulled ferry.
The Los Ebanos ferry is a part of the border that time forgot. Tucked away in the southwestern corner of Hidalgo County this crossing has existed as a popular place to ford the Rio Grande since the days of Spanish colonization. Then like now the summer sound of the cicadas pulsate in the breeze.
The hand pulled ferry went into operation in the 1850’s and has seen few improvements since then. The ferry is still tethered by a thick rope tied around the base of a large Texas Ebony tree.
And it’s still muscle power that propels the flat bottom barge from Texas to Mexico and back again.
But one difference evident today is the ferry now hauls large pick-up trucks over the border – a maximum 3 at a time and no more than 12 passengers.
“We are doing it old school here,” said Mark Alvarez is the captain of the ferry and operations manager. In order to function as a recognized international port of entry the Los Ebanos ferry needs a fully licensed captain. Alvarez went to school and passed the tests even though his ship travels less than a quarter of a mile per journey.Alvarez says the ferry averages about 40 cars a day. If it weren’t for this crossing the motorists would have to drive an additional 40 miles to get to Diaz Ordaz, the town on the other side of the river.
“It saves them time and money,” he said.
During Prohibition Los Ebanos was known as “Smugglers Crossing.” In this post 9-11 era with the construction of hundreds of miles of border fencing it would seem doubtful that the Department of Homeland Security will allow a smugglers crossing to continue to exist on its southern border. But Captain Alvarez says the hand-pulled ferry will continue to its voyages.
“They have been here measuring for the wall, but it’s not going to effect the port of entry. It's just going to be built surrounding it. It’s not going to close me off. Our doors are still going to be open to Mexico and the United States is still going to have traffic coming and going,” he said.
Critical to the Department of Homeland Security’s plan for securing this stretch of the border is fencing off the undeveloped land on either side of the Los Ebanos ferry.
Both properties are owned by Pamela Rivas. The 16 acres have been in her family for generations. She is refusing to allow the Army Corp of Engineers to survey her land for the anti-illegal immigration border fence. She said she doesn’t want to sell her land to the Department of Homeland Security at any price because she’s opposed to the concept of the border barrier.
“I don’t think it’s going to serve a purpose. It’s a waste of money. You know taxpayers money just for a wall that I don’t think is going to detain anybody. They can go through it, over it, under it,” Rivas said.
Rivas and other opposition landowners were sued by the Department of Homeland security to get access to the land. They lost that round in court. Then last month the family drove to New Orleans for the appeal.
This is the first border fence landowner dispute that reached the appeallate court level. But Rivas isn’t happy with the result. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it won’t over turn the lower court decision.
The federal appeals court said it did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the case because the government had not finished the condemnation of the land in Los Ebanos.
The Department of Homeland Security has already filed final condemnation lawsuits against Rivas using imminent domain, but there’s a hold up. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has not scheduled a hearing. All these legal wranglings are causing critical delays for Homeland Security which is working to meet a congressional deadline to complete 670 miles of barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of the year.
“Their plan wasn’t as good as it looked on paper,” said Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid attorney Tino Gallegos who represents Rivas against DHS, Gallegos said officials at Homeland Security are realizing the border region is more complicated than they first thought.
“You’re not just building a fence in the middle of nowhere that won’t affect anybody – except for the wildlife that has to try and pass through it. It affects people and their way of life and their communities – they’re not so easily pushed aside,” he said.
Homeland Security has made some compromised on the Texas Border to achieve some of its fencing objectives. But there are some places like in Los Ebanos where landowners like Rivas say compromise isn’t an option.
And it looks like it will be up to the courts to decide if the border fence will come to the part of the border that time forgot.
http://www.tpr.org/news/2008/08/news0808131.html
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Still no contract for Cameron County border fence
Brownsville Herald
August 12, 2008
By Steve Sinclair, Valley Morning Star
HARLINGEN - There is no indication when construction will begin on the Cameron County segment of the border fence.
The major holdup is that a contract to build the section has not been awarded.
"We're still awaiting bids on the fence," said a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spokesperson, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Corps of Engineers spokesperson would not speculate on how long it would take to build the Cameron County segment once the bidding process is completed.
Seven companies have been invited to bid on the Cameron County fence, two of them from Texas. But none are from the Rio Grande Valley.
"We have what are called multiple award task order contract companies," the corps spokesperson said. "These companies in the pool are allowed to bid on it (the fence).
"The proposals have been sent out to them and now we're just waiting on the bids," the spokesperson said. "The bids will be reviewed by the contracting personnel."
It was not clear what would happen if bids were considered too high.
As for making the December deadline, the spokesperson said. "I can't speculate on that."
The spokesperson said the Cameron County segment of the fence may not be exactly the same as other parts of the country, including Hidalgo County.
"It depends on the terrain and whether the area is urban or rural," the official said. "There are different variations of the fence."
The spokesperson did say that the exact location of the fence has been settled.
It is not certain whether environmental concerns will be addressed in fence construction. But the official said those concerns have been considered.
"The corps (of engineers) has been very diligent with environmental assessments and is taking into consideration any indigenous wildlife. But the Department of Homeland Security does have the power to waive environmental concerns," the spokesperson said.
Danny Guerra, press secretary for U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz's office, whose constituency includes Cameron County, said the congressman has been given few details of the border barrier.
"They (Department of Homeland Security) have not been in contact with us," Guerra said.
"At the end of the day, we're still opposed to it, but there's nothing legislatively we can do to stop it."
COMPANIES INVITED TO SUBMIT BIDS BUILD THE CAMERON COUNTY SEGEMENT OF THE BORDER FENCE:
Kiewit Texas Construction L.P. 13119 Old Denton Rd. Fort Worth, Texas, 76177 817-337-7000
Weston Solutions 1400 Weston Way West Chester, Pa., 19380 601-701-3000
Environmental Chemical Corporation 1240 Bayshore Hwy Burlingame, Ca., 94010 650-347-1555
Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc. 1550 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400Arlington, Va., 22209-2435 703-526-7600
Cerrudo Services 74 Digital Dr. #1Novato, Ca., 94949 415-883-5017
JACO-MCC The Gale Group is based in Farmington Hills, Michigan, with additional offices elsewhere in the U.S. and in the U.K., Australia, Germany, Switzerland and Malaysia
LEC/Amigo 2101 E Missouri Ave. El Paso, Texas, 79903 915-781-1532
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/fence_89062___article.html/spokesperson_county.html
August 12, 2008
By Steve Sinclair, Valley Morning Star
HARLINGEN - There is no indication when construction will begin on the Cameron County segment of the border fence.
The major holdup is that a contract to build the section has not been awarded.
"We're still awaiting bids on the fence," said a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spokesperson, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Corps of Engineers spokesperson would not speculate on how long it would take to build the Cameron County segment once the bidding process is completed.
Seven companies have been invited to bid on the Cameron County fence, two of them from Texas. But none are from the Rio Grande Valley.
"We have what are called multiple award task order contract companies," the corps spokesperson said. "These companies in the pool are allowed to bid on it (the fence).
"The proposals have been sent out to them and now we're just waiting on the bids," the spokesperson said. "The bids will be reviewed by the contracting personnel."
It was not clear what would happen if bids were considered too high.
As for making the December deadline, the spokesperson said. "I can't speculate on that."
The spokesperson said the Cameron County segment of the fence may not be exactly the same as other parts of the country, including Hidalgo County.
"It depends on the terrain and whether the area is urban or rural," the official said. "There are different variations of the fence."
The spokesperson did say that the exact location of the fence has been settled.
It is not certain whether environmental concerns will be addressed in fence construction. But the official said those concerns have been considered.
"The corps (of engineers) has been very diligent with environmental assessments and is taking into consideration any indigenous wildlife. But the Department of Homeland Security does have the power to waive environmental concerns," the spokesperson said.
Danny Guerra, press secretary for U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz's office, whose constituency includes Cameron County, said the congressman has been given few details of the border barrier.
"They (Department of Homeland Security) have not been in contact with us," Guerra said.
"At the end of the day, we're still opposed to it, but there's nothing legislatively we can do to stop it."
COMPANIES INVITED TO SUBMIT BIDS BUILD THE CAMERON COUNTY SEGEMENT OF THE BORDER FENCE:
Kiewit Texas Construction L.P. 13119 Old Denton Rd. Fort Worth, Texas, 76177 817-337-7000
Weston Solutions 1400 Weston Way West Chester, Pa., 19380 601-701-3000
Environmental Chemical Corporation 1240 Bayshore Hwy Burlingame, Ca., 94010 650-347-1555
Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc. 1550 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400Arlington, Va., 22209-2435 703-526-7600
Cerrudo Services 74 Digital Dr. #1Novato, Ca., 94949 415-883-5017
JACO-MCC The Gale Group is based in Farmington Hills, Michigan, with additional offices elsewhere in the U.S. and in the U.K., Australia, Germany, Switzerland and Malaysia
LEC/Amigo 2101 E Missouri Ave. El Paso, Texas, 79903 915-781-1532
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/fence_89062___article.html/spokesperson_county.html
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Valley residents fenced into no man's land by border wall
San Antonio Express-News
August 12, 2008
Lynn Brezosky - Express-News Rio Grande Valley Bureau
GRANJENO — Perhaps it was the shade-giving mesquite and the storied ebony tree that caused border-fence surveyors to apparently miss the Anzaldua family and their two neighbors' bucolic cropping of homes, horse paddocks and farm equipment.
But if construction on the first segments proceeds without changes, the family will end up in a kind of no man's land between the Homeland Security Department's border wall and the Rio Grande.
“It makes us feel like we're going to be a part of Mexico ...,” said Melissa Anzaldua. “The Rio Grande's not going to any more be the border. Are people going to think people who stayed behind stayed because they no longer wanted to be part of the United States?”
No one from Customs and Border Protection or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came by to tell them a fence was planned that would put them somewhere between the United States and Mexico.
No one from Hidalgo County came by to tell them whether the school bus would come once the dirt roads changed to a precarious series of dirt piles.
After construction personnel told him he couldn't go through the only route leading to the main road, Mike Anzaldua, 40, Melissa's father and an oil field worker, concluded the handful of “Rincon” residents had been forgotten.
“I had to bring the engineers all the way out here to show them that there were people back here,” he said.
The engineers, employed by one of the private contractors for the barrier, said they hadn't known.
Lloyd Easterling, spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said he hadn't heard of the situation but would look into it. He said Hidalgo County had the lead on that leg of the project.
“No final decisions have been made at this point for access,” he said. “They're still going to be spoken to, whether by us or by Hidalgo County. We're definitely going to be talking with them.”
Asked if the family was overlooked, he said, “We put notices in the newspaper and the radio and all those things. We like to think in some of those places they would come forward.”
Melissa Anzaldua said she had tried without success to get in touch with County Judge J.D. Salinas. Monday, after a reporter called, the judge's office called her to set up a meeting.
But Salinas said he “can only do so much. A lot of people think that I can call Secretary (Michael) Chertoff in Washington and say, ‘Take care of this situation.'”
Salinas said the family should be able to get to and from their home when the project is completed.
“My understanding from the start according to Homeland Security is that anybody who has access is going to continue to have access,” he said.
Mike Anzaldua said his property dates back at least a century, and the remnants of old stone steps and rusted tractor wheels bear that out. They lead a quiet existence, tucked back along their unnamed caliche path.
Saturday, Anzaldua and his 16-year-old son Aaron, the younger sporting chaps and a Texas-shaped pendant, cleaned around the property and tended to the five horses and two sheep.
Late afternoon was for relaxing outdoors on old chairs, watching for armadillos and relishing breeze from the Rio Grande. Visitors are few, even though there are blood ties with most in the tiny city of Granjeno.
“We're pretty quiet people. We keep to ourselves,” Anzaldua said. “Not party people, I guess. Not used to the fast life.”
The wall segment being erected now is not a fence, but rather a combination levee-wall.
Hidalgo County officials reached a compromise with Homeland Security that uses reinforced levee as a security barrier. The agreement saved private properties from eminent domain acquisition and helps Hidalgo County fix ailing flood controls.
Other parts of the Texas fence are awaiting land condemnation proceedings in federal court. Two such lawsuits were taken to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which Friday dismissed the case.
Julie Hillrichs, spokeswoman for the Texas Border Coalition, a group of cities that have rallied against the fence, called the Anzalduas' situation “mind-boggling.”
“You would think our federal government would conduct the proper surveillance to know who's there,” she said. “They obviously didn't do that.”
For the Anzalduas, the implications of living in a no man's land range from inconvenient to scary.
They fear being in a cross-zone for violent drug and people smugglers, which makes Mike Anzaldua wonder about defending his family.
“It comes to a point where we're going to be left behind,” he said. “We're going to have to start making our own laws back here.”
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/state/valley_residents_fenced_into_no_mans_land_by_border_wall100.html
August 12, 2008
Lynn Brezosky - Express-News Rio Grande Valley Bureau
GRANJENO — Perhaps it was the shade-giving mesquite and the storied ebony tree that caused border-fence surveyors to apparently miss the Anzaldua family and their two neighbors' bucolic cropping of homes, horse paddocks and farm equipment.
But if construction on the first segments proceeds without changes, the family will end up in a kind of no man's land between the Homeland Security Department's border wall and the Rio Grande.
“It makes us feel like we're going to be a part of Mexico ...,” said Melissa Anzaldua. “The Rio Grande's not going to any more be the border. Are people going to think people who stayed behind stayed because they no longer wanted to be part of the United States?”
No one from Customs and Border Protection or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came by to tell them a fence was planned that would put them somewhere between the United States and Mexico.
No one from Hidalgo County came by to tell them whether the school bus would come once the dirt roads changed to a precarious series of dirt piles.
After construction personnel told him he couldn't go through the only route leading to the main road, Mike Anzaldua, 40, Melissa's father and an oil field worker, concluded the handful of “Rincon” residents had been forgotten.
“I had to bring the engineers all the way out here to show them that there were people back here,” he said.
The engineers, employed by one of the private contractors for the barrier, said they hadn't known.
Lloyd Easterling, spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said he hadn't heard of the situation but would look into it. He said Hidalgo County had the lead on that leg of the project.
“No final decisions have been made at this point for access,” he said. “They're still going to be spoken to, whether by us or by Hidalgo County. We're definitely going to be talking with them.”
Asked if the family was overlooked, he said, “We put notices in the newspaper and the radio and all those things. We like to think in some of those places they would come forward.”
Melissa Anzaldua said she had tried without success to get in touch with County Judge J.D. Salinas. Monday, after a reporter called, the judge's office called her to set up a meeting.
But Salinas said he “can only do so much. A lot of people think that I can call Secretary (Michael) Chertoff in Washington and say, ‘Take care of this situation.'”
Salinas said the family should be able to get to and from their home when the project is completed.
“My understanding from the start according to Homeland Security is that anybody who has access is going to continue to have access,” he said.
Mike Anzaldua said his property dates back at least a century, and the remnants of old stone steps and rusted tractor wheels bear that out. They lead a quiet existence, tucked back along their unnamed caliche path.
Saturday, Anzaldua and his 16-year-old son Aaron, the younger sporting chaps and a Texas-shaped pendant, cleaned around the property and tended to the five horses and two sheep.
Late afternoon was for relaxing outdoors on old chairs, watching for armadillos and relishing breeze from the Rio Grande. Visitors are few, even though there are blood ties with most in the tiny city of Granjeno.
“We're pretty quiet people. We keep to ourselves,” Anzaldua said. “Not party people, I guess. Not used to the fast life.”
The wall segment being erected now is not a fence, but rather a combination levee-wall.
Hidalgo County officials reached a compromise with Homeland Security that uses reinforced levee as a security barrier. The agreement saved private properties from eminent domain acquisition and helps Hidalgo County fix ailing flood controls.
Other parts of the Texas fence are awaiting land condemnation proceedings in federal court. Two such lawsuits were taken to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which Friday dismissed the case.
Julie Hillrichs, spokeswoman for the Texas Border Coalition, a group of cities that have rallied against the fence, called the Anzalduas' situation “mind-boggling.”
“You would think our federal government would conduct the proper surveillance to know who's there,” she said. “They obviously didn't do that.”
For the Anzalduas, the implications of living in a no man's land range from inconvenient to scary.
They fear being in a cross-zone for violent drug and people smugglers, which makes Mike Anzaldua wonder about defending his family.
“It comes to a point where we're going to be left behind,” he said. “We're going to have to start making our own laws back here.”
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/state/valley_residents_fenced_into_no_mans_land_by_border_wall100.html
Monday, August 11, 2008
Federal appeals court dismisses border fence case
Associated Press / Dallas Morning News
August 11, 2008
By CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN / Associated Press
A federal appeals court has declined to intervene in a pair of South Texas cases that were the first border fence landowner disputes to reach the appellate court level.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said it did not have jurisdiction to jump into the case because the government had not finished the condemnation of two parcels of land in Los Ebanos.
Hilaria and Baldomero Muniz, an elderly couple who toiled as migrant farmworkers for decades before settling in the small community in Hidalgo County, had appealed after a district judge gave federal surveyors access to their property in preparation for construction of the fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Attorneys for the Munizes and another property owner, Pamela Rivas, argued that the district judge erred when he allowed government officials to attempt to negotiate property access after suing. They said the law requires the government to try to strike a deal before — not after — filing a lawsuit.
But in an opinion released Friday night, the appeals court said it could not get involved in the combined cases until the condemnation was complete. The Department of Homeland Security has filed final condemnation lawsuits against the Munizes and Rivas, but U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has not scheduled a hearing.
"The appellate court did not decide anything on the merits," said Jerome Wesevich, an attorney with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid handling the appeal. Once the district judge has closed the final condemnation, they will likely renew their appeal, Wesevich said.
Homeland Security is working to meet a congressional deadline to complete 670 miles of barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of the year.
Hidalgo County reached a compromise with the agency to modify their levees to include a border wall rather than build a border fence. For most of the county, that meant the government wouldn't need to take private land. The exception is the Munizes' Los Ebanos community, which has no levees to modify.
The government has more recently proposed a temporary fence because it would have to be built within the Rio Grande's floodplain where permanent structures that could divert floodplains are forbidden by treaties with Mexico.
Construction on two levee-border wall segments in Hidalgo County began last month.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D92G6IC02.html
August 11, 2008
By CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN / Associated Press
A federal appeals court has declined to intervene in a pair of South Texas cases that were the first border fence landowner disputes to reach the appellate court level.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said it did not have jurisdiction to jump into the case because the government had not finished the condemnation of two parcels of land in Los Ebanos.
Hilaria and Baldomero Muniz, an elderly couple who toiled as migrant farmworkers for decades before settling in the small community in Hidalgo County, had appealed after a district judge gave federal surveyors access to their property in preparation for construction of the fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Attorneys for the Munizes and another property owner, Pamela Rivas, argued that the district judge erred when he allowed government officials to attempt to negotiate property access after suing. They said the law requires the government to try to strike a deal before — not after — filing a lawsuit.
But in an opinion released Friday night, the appeals court said it could not get involved in the combined cases until the condemnation was complete. The Department of Homeland Security has filed final condemnation lawsuits against the Munizes and Rivas, but U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has not scheduled a hearing.
"The appellate court did not decide anything on the merits," said Jerome Wesevich, an attorney with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid handling the appeal. Once the district judge has closed the final condemnation, they will likely renew their appeal, Wesevich said.
Homeland Security is working to meet a congressional deadline to complete 670 miles of barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of the year.
Hidalgo County reached a compromise with the agency to modify their levees to include a border wall rather than build a border fence. For most of the county, that meant the government wouldn't need to take private land. The exception is the Munizes' Los Ebanos community, which has no levees to modify.
The government has more recently proposed a temporary fence because it would have to be built within the Rio Grande's floodplain where permanent structures that could divert floodplains are forbidden by treaties with Mexico.
Construction on two levee-border wall segments in Hidalgo County began last month.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D92G6IC02.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)