Feds reveal most descriptive details for a border wall, triggering another uproar in deep South Texas
By Juan Castillo
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, October 01, 2007
For the past year, South Texas officials and residents have seethed over federal plans to build a wall along the Rio Grande and the U.S. border with Mexico in 2008. They also complained that federal officials were keeping locals in the dark about exactly where the fencing would go and its design.
Last week, the government removed the veil of uncertainty, disclosing the most detailed descriptions to date about the fence's design, proposed locations, construction schedule and potential environmental impact.
According to documents posted in the Federal Register, the fence would be at least 16 feet high and 3 to 6 feet underground, "aesthetically pleasing," semitransparent and capable of withstanding cutting or penetration — as well as the crash of a 10,000-pound vehicle (about the size of an armored Humvee) traveling 40 mph. It would be built in 21 segments totaling 70 miles in length between Roma and Brownsville.
If federal officials approve the plan, construction of the barrier could begin next spring and continue through 2008.
Building fences means building roads, lighting and other infrastructure, too. That requires clearing 60-foot-wide swaths of land and affecting more than 500 acres during construction, mostly along levees maintained by the International Boundary and Water Commission in the Rio Grande flood plain. However, some portions will encroach on private lands and might also enter environmentally sensitive and federally protected terrain, according to the plans.
Opponents who live and work in one of illegal immigration's busiest corridors have reacted with a mix of anger, frustration and a stiffened resolve to fight the fence.
Brownsville Mayor Patricio Ahumada Jr. said Wednesday that the city is considering filing a lawsuit to block the construction.
"We're opposed to a fence as a community," said Ahumada, adding that city officials will meet Tuesday with attorneys who specialize in environmental law.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection released the maps of the proposed fence locations and other documents as they began an environmental impact study that will allow public comment through mid-October. Most fence segments will be near ports of entry and cities such as McAllen, Brownsville, Harlingen and Rio Grande City.
Critics concede that there is a need for tightened border security but contend that fencing isn't nearly as effective as more officers and more technology, such as sensors and cameras. Moreover, they say a border fence will harm the economy, quash property rights and cut off farmers and ranchers from the lifeblood of the Rio Grande, as well as send an unfriendly message to their neighbors in Mexico. The county is Texas' biggest trading partner.
They also fear that a fence will destroy vast habitat and wildlife, which the federal government has spent decades and millions of dollars preserving. Tens of thousands of riverfront acres are protected, feeding a growing and lucrative ecotourism industry.
Nancy Brown, a public outreach specialist with the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge near Alamo, said she remained hopeful that ongoing talks with customs and border protection officials will yield fence design and placements that are wildlife-friendly.
"We're biologists, and it's our job to protect wildlife," Brown said. "Putting in a pedestrian fence that is 16 feet high and wiping out 60 feet of brush, yes, that could be harmful. Is it going to be? We can't say for sure yet."
In 2006, Congress approved fencing along 700 miles of the border with Mexico, and President Bush signed the bill into law. Only 370 miles will be actual fence — the rest will be vehicle barriers and a ''virtual'' fence of agents, sensors, cameras and other technology.
"For the first time in the history of our country, we have the national political will to secure our nation's borders, and with that, we are working toward providing our agents on the front line with the tools they need to accomplish their mission," said Michael Friel of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Critics acknowledge that their opposition puts them at odds with a congressional mandate to secure the southern border. But some charge that the fight against illegal immigration is caught up in concerns about the threat of terrorism, resulting in a border fence idea that is an ineffective response to both.
"This is a horrible reaction by interior America and their legislators," Ahumada said. "They want to see a fence. Well, put a freaking fence in their back yard. Why should we pay the price because they're overreacting?"
Amid the clamor of opposition, supporters of a fence are relatively quiet, giving at least the appearance that they are greatly outnumbered in the Valley.
Joe and Sharon Metz, who farm on about 1,100 riverfront acres near the tiny community of Abram, said they and their neighbors overwhelmingly welcome a fence.
They are fed up, they said, with illegal immigrants darting through their neighborhoods and their yards at all hours of the night. "It just gets really old," Joe Metz said.
No comments:
Post a Comment