Before Chertoff waived 36 federal laws to build the border wall, the Department of Homeland Security went through the motions of preparing Draft Environmental Impact Statements for the Rio Grande Valley of Texas and for a portion of the border wall south of San Diego. Their contractor, E2m, also prepared Draft Environmental Assessments for many of the other Border Patrol sectors which are scheduled to see border wall construction in 2008. DHS claimed that these were in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires that when the government goes forward with major projects it first must study the impacts that will be felt by the human and natural environments, so that stakeholders and decisionmakers can decide whether the project justifies the damage that it will do, and if that damage can be lessened in any way. When Secretary Chertoff issued the Real ID Act waiver in April, the National Environmental Policy Act topped the list of suspended laws. Chertoff quickly announced that Final Environmental Impact Statements and Environmetal Assessments would not be issued.
The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with evaluating Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments, and determining whether the have been properly prepared. In the case of the documents prepared by the Department of Homeland Security's contractor, they found in every case that the reports were inadequate.
Today the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club issued the following press release about the EPA's findings:
(Austin) -- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expressed serious concerns about the impacts of the border wall that were ignored, according to newly disclosed public comments from late 2007.
The EPA's environmental and economic concerns echoed those raised by hundreds of residents, environmental organizations, and local institutions and public officials, all of which were negated by the Bush Administration's April 1 waiver of 36 federal laws to expedite construction of the border wall.
The ignored comments were submitted by EPA to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as part of the draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) on the planned border fences in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, as well as similar plans in the Presidio and El Paso areas of the Texas-Mexico border.
"These comments show that the EPA felt that the border wall represents a major threat to the habitat and endangered species found along the Texas-Mexico border," said Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. "Rather than trying to rewrite or reconsider the hastily drawn plans of a massive border wall, the Bush Administration felt it was above the law and chose to waive dozens of environmental and other federal laws."
The EPA comments characterized the proposed border walls and fences to be environmentally and economically disruptive due to their size and location, often slated for construction in natural wildlife areas or cutting through agriculturally productive land. For example, in its comments submitted on the proposed fences in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, John Blevins, Director of Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Definitions rates the project as "EC-2, Environmental Concerns-Insufficient Information," and explains: "The DEIS contains insufficient information for an adequate review. Of particular concern to EPA is the potential for long-term adverse environmental and ecological habitat impacts in the study area."
Among the chief concerns and insufficiencies highlighted by the agency are:
There is no text, studies, etc. that provide support for the purpose and need.
It does not appear that the alternatives are equally analyzed. There is also text that implies that the "No Action Alternative" is not a viable alternative.
There is no mention of how the wall would impact water quality.
The majority of this section uses relative terms like "minor, major, perceptible, short-term, and long-term." There are qualitative descriptions of these terms, but there is no quantitative description or attempt to quantify these impacts.
There is also no mention of US-Mexico treaties and whether they will be impacted.
There is no discussion of the fence's potential impact on migratory species or impact to their home range, in particular, large mammal species (e.g., deer or carnivores) or birds.
There is no discussion of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) initiative to purchase land to connect units of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (LRGVNWR) (p. 3-30 line 4-10) or the potential impacts of the fence to this large scale effort to increase connectivity and reduce habitat fragmentation.
Related to the location of the fence and property of individuals, the maps created by DHS show that the fence could run straight through houses and backyards. Many families have lived at these locations for decades, some even centuries, and have strong emotional ties to the family land and homes.
The fence could also cut off farmers from prime farmland close to the water.
"These comments show the DHS never conducted a proper assessment of the sites, and also show that they would have a hard time convincing EPA to give a thumbs up to the proposed border wall," Reed stated. "Rather than getting a black eye from their fellow agency, they chose to waive environmental laws and ignore the comments of EPA and the public."
Several civil lawsuits that could impact the construction of the border wall are ongoing.
Find more information on the Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club's website at http://www.texas.sierraclub.org/press/newsreleases/20080702.asp.
Contact: Donna Hoffman, Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club, 512-477-1729 or 512-299-5776
Showing posts with label Environmental Impact Statement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environmental Impact Statement. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Senator Cornyn's Lack of Integrity Brings Texans the Border Wall
Despite the fact that he voted for both the Secure Fence Act and the Real ID Act, in October Texas Senator John Cornyn told the Border Trade Alliance, “I have long said that I do not support a fence, or as some said, a wall, between the United States and Mexico. That’s irrational and just doesn’t make sense, because we know that people can come over fences or walls; they can go under them; they can go through them, given sufficient opportunity.”
Just a few weeks later Senator Cornyn authored S. 2348, the “Emergency Border Security Funding Act of 2007”, showing once again that he values the worst politics ahead of the best interests of south Texas and our nation. It called for 700 linear miles of border wall and 300 miles of vehicle barriers along the US – Mexico border, and provided $3 billion dollars to get construction started. This despite his earlier statement and the fact that the walls built so far have had no impact on the number of people coming across our southern border.
Once again, Senator Cornyn was talking out of both sides of his mouth. When he visited the border, where people know that a wall will do tremendous damage without bringing any benefit, he said that he does not support a border wall. When he went back to Washington he pandered to far-right xenophobes and sponsored legislation providing $3 billion to build the border walls in Texas that he admits will not work, that he knows border residents do not want, and that he claims not to support.
Just a few weeks later Senator Cornyn authored S. 2348, the “Emergency Border Security Funding Act of 2007”, showing once again that he values the worst politics ahead of the best interests of south Texas and our nation. It called for 700 linear miles of border wall and 300 miles of vehicle barriers along the US – Mexico border, and provided $3 billion dollars to get construction started. This despite his earlier statement and the fact that the walls built so far have had no impact on the number of people coming across our southern border.
Once again, Senator Cornyn was talking out of both sides of his mouth. When he visited the border, where people know that a wall will do tremendous damage without bringing any benefit, he said that he does not support a border wall. When he went back to Washington he pandered to far-right xenophobes and sponsored legislation providing $3 billion to build the border walls in Texas that he admits will not work, that he knows border residents do not want, and that he claims not to support.
Cornyn also said, "I assure you there will be local consultation. There will not be ... unilateral actions on the part of the Department of Homeland Security without local input." But of course that promise has proved to be false as well. The Department of Homeland Security has not listened to any local input, and has instead relied upon condemnation proceedings to take private and municipal property against the owners’ will. Homes and businesses will be bulldozed, farms and ranches will be cut off from the Rio Grande, parks and wildlife refuges will be destroyed. This destruction was not agreed upon by its victims.When DHS Secretary Chertoff used the authority granted him by the Real ID Act to waive 36 federal laws to build the border wall, one of those laws was the National Environmental Policy Act. It requires that a project’s impacts on both the human and natural environment be thoroughly examined, and that public input be solicited and addressed. Two days after handing down the waiver Chertoff told the Texas Border Coalition that the Final Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements that had been close to completion would not be released to the public. Thousands of public comments that had been received will never be addressed. Texas Congressman Silvestre Reyes said, “it is clear that DHS is not communicating with the border communities that would be most adversely affected by this project."
If Cornyn and other Senators from southern border states were to stand up for their constituents and denounce the border wall on the floor of Congress, it would have an impact on Senators from northern states. Other Senators assume that, representing a state that borders Mexico, Texas Senator Cornyn has some insight into border issues. If he were to show them that the border wall will only slow down, not stop, undocumented crossers, they might listen. If he were to present evidence that the wall will do tremendous environmental damage and destroy the Rio Grande Valley’s $125 million ecotourism industry, they might pay attention. If he were to stand up for property owners in El Paso, Presidio, Roma, Brownsville, and other Texas communities in the face of DHS attempts to trample their legal rights and seize their property, other Senators might support him.Unfortunately, Senator Cornyn has done none of these things. Instead he has worked to make the border wall a reality, and his support for the wall gives political cover to members of Congress who might otherwise be persuaded to oppose it. So long as he refuses to take a leadership role in stopping the border wall, it is going to be extremely difficult to convince Congress to revisit it. Hopefully Senator Cornyn’s lack of leadership and integrity will catch up with him this November.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Judge JD Salinas Buys into the Border Wall
By Scott Nicol
On February 8 Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff held a press conference at the Border Patrol station in Hidalgo County, Texas, to announce that a deal had been struck with Hidalgo County Judge JD Salinas to build the border wall. Rather than the 22 miles of “pedestrian fence” that DHS had planned to build along side the flood control levees in the county, which would destroy homes, bisect farms, and ruin wildlife refuges, the wall would be inserted into the levees. The existing levees that parallel the Rio Grande would have their sides torn off and replaced with 18-foot tall slabs of concrete. This was a configuration that had been rejected without study in the Draft Environmental Impact Study for the Rio Grande Valley, but suddenly it was rebranded as the perfect solution for both stopping the flow of immigrants into the United States and holding back floodwaters in a hurricane zone. Judge Salinas and Secretary Chertoff both characterized the border wall/levee combo as a “win-win.”
This week Hidalgo County Judge JD Salinas told residents of Hidalgo County that we will be paying $48 million to stuff the border wall into our flood control levees. Since brokering the deal for the border wall/levee combo, Judge Salinas has claimed that the border wall is not a wall at all, and that rather than destroying homes, farms, and wildlife refuges it will be a boon to our economy. When Secretary Chertoff announced that he would waive federal laws meant to protect Hidalgo County residents and our environment, Judge Salinas issued a press release stating that, “As it relates to Hidalgo County, the DHS waiver is responsive to the needs of our diverse border community.” Rather than fight for the rights of his constituents, Judge Salinas is paving the way for the border wall.
Salinas has repeatedly claimed that the county will be reimbursed. Relying on Senator Cornyn’s promise of federal funds, he says that the border wall/levee combo will actually bring money into the county rather than draining our funds. However, in order to secure these funds, Senator Cornyn must get a law passed, and his bill repaying Hidalgo County’s contribution to the border wall has no cosponsors and may not go forward. Hidalgo County will then be left with the bill for a wall that the overwhelming majority of its residents do not want.
Salinas claims that the new design is not really a border wall, it is a levee, but for the Department of Homeland Security this is not about flood control. If it were, Chertoff could not issue a waiver. The waiver authority contained in section 102 of the Real ID Act only applies to border wall construction. No wall = no waiver.
In response to criticism of his applause for Chertoff’s waiver, Salinas issued a statement saying,
"I agree with you that environmental laws are enacted to protect the environment for humans and that persons are guaranteed by the Constitution equal protection under the law. However, South Texas is hardly as equally protected as the rest of our country and the rest of the border. We live in a unique geographic setting — a flat Delta area prone to intense tropical weather."
We were equally protected by the law before Secretary Chertoff issued the waiver. Now we are not. Laws such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act, which continue to be in effect for the rest of the nation, no longer ensure that the water that we drink is safe or clean. The Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act no longer protect the ocelots and migratory birds that attract $125 million worth of ecotourism to the area. The suspension of our legal protections has nothing to do with “a unique geographic setting.” The fact that we live in a flood prone area does not mean that we should live without protective laws; instead, it makes those laws even more important.
When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans it was not because there were too many pesky laws. New Orleans drowned because the federal government shirked its duty to maintain the levees. The federal government has also been negligent regarding south Texas’ levees. Now Secretary Chertoff, who oversaw the disaster there, is going to implement a rushed insertion of border walls into our already weak levees. The waiver was issued to speed this up. Now the Final Environmental Impact Statement will not be released, and DHS does not have to carry out the engineering studies and hydrological modeling that would assure us that the wall is structurally sound. They will just build it and hope for the best.
In Arizona border walls constructed just last summer are already leaning over. With construction rushed to meet an artificial deadline, there is no reason to think that similar problems will not plague Hidalgo County. But here the stakes are higher, as the new border wall is also supposed to protect us from floods. The laws that Chertoff waived, and whose suspension Salinas has publicly supported, were there for a reason.
The fact that Judge Salinas is working so hard to sell not only the wall but the waiver, ignoring the threat to the safety of Hidalgo County residents and the suspension of our Constitutional right to equal protection under the law, is extremely disturbing. Judge Salinas has gone from opponent of the border wall to border wall booster, and his words will help Chertoff to build it.
Maybe Hidalgo County will be reimbursed for the $48 million, or maybe we will be forced to pay for a wall that we do not want, that will in no way protect us, and that may actually increase the liklihood of a levee breach. One thing is certain; Judge JD Salinas has become Chertoff’s best ally when it comes to building the border wall.
On February 8 Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff held a press conference at the Border Patrol station in Hidalgo County, Texas, to announce that a deal had been struck with Hidalgo County Judge JD Salinas to build the border wall. Rather than the 22 miles of “pedestrian fence” that DHS had planned to build along side the flood control levees in the county, which would destroy homes, bisect farms, and ruin wildlife refuges, the wall would be inserted into the levees. The existing levees that parallel the Rio Grande would have their sides torn off and replaced with 18-foot tall slabs of concrete. This was a configuration that had been rejected without study in the Draft Environmental Impact Study for the Rio Grande Valley, but suddenly it was rebranded as the perfect solution for both stopping the flow of immigrants into the United States and holding back floodwaters in a hurricane zone. Judge Salinas and Secretary Chertoff both characterized the border wall/levee combo as a “win-win.”
This week Hidalgo County Judge JD Salinas told residents of Hidalgo County that we will be paying $48 million to stuff the border wall into our flood control levees. Since brokering the deal for the border wall/levee combo, Judge Salinas has claimed that the border wall is not a wall at all, and that rather than destroying homes, farms, and wildlife refuges it will be a boon to our economy. When Secretary Chertoff announced that he would waive federal laws meant to protect Hidalgo County residents and our environment, Judge Salinas issued a press release stating that, “As it relates to Hidalgo County, the DHS waiver is responsive to the needs of our diverse border community.” Rather than fight for the rights of his constituents, Judge Salinas is paving the way for the border wall.Salinas has repeatedly claimed that the county will be reimbursed. Relying on Senator Cornyn’s promise of federal funds, he says that the border wall/levee combo will actually bring money into the county rather than draining our funds. However, in order to secure these funds, Senator Cornyn must get a law passed, and his bill repaying Hidalgo County’s contribution to the border wall has no cosponsors and may not go forward. Hidalgo County will then be left with the bill for a wall that the overwhelming majority of its residents do not want.
Salinas claims that the new design is not really a border wall, it is a levee, but for the Department of Homeland Security this is not about flood control. If it were, Chertoff could not issue a waiver. The waiver authority contained in section 102 of the Real ID Act only applies to border wall construction. No wall = no waiver.
In response to criticism of his applause for Chertoff’s waiver, Salinas issued a statement saying,"I agree with you that environmental laws are enacted to protect the environment for humans and that persons are guaranteed by the Constitution equal protection under the law. However, South Texas is hardly as equally protected as the rest of our country and the rest of the border. We live in a unique geographic setting — a flat Delta area prone to intense tropical weather."
We were equally protected by the law before Secretary Chertoff issued the waiver. Now we are not. Laws such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act, which continue to be in effect for the rest of the nation, no longer ensure that the water that we drink is safe or clean. The Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act no longer protect the ocelots and migratory birds that attract $125 million worth of ecotourism to the area. The suspension of our legal protections has nothing to do with “a unique geographic setting.” The fact that we live in a flood prone area does not mean that we should live without protective laws; instead, it makes those laws even more important.
When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans it was not because there were too many pesky laws. New Orleans drowned because the federal government shirked its duty to maintain the levees. The federal government has also been negligent regarding south Texas’ levees. Now Secretary Chertoff, who oversaw the disaster there, is going to implement a rushed insertion of border walls into our already weak levees. The waiver was issued to speed this up. Now the Final Environmental Impact Statement will not be released, and DHS does not have to carry out the engineering studies and hydrological modeling that would assure us that the wall is structurally sound. They will just build it and hope for the best.In Arizona border walls constructed just last summer are already leaning over. With construction rushed to meet an artificial deadline, there is no reason to think that similar problems will not plague Hidalgo County. But here the stakes are higher, as the new border wall is also supposed to protect us from floods. The laws that Chertoff waived, and whose suspension Salinas has publicly supported, were there for a reason.
The fact that Judge Salinas is working so hard to sell not only the wall but the waiver, ignoring the threat to the safety of Hidalgo County residents and the suspension of our Constitutional right to equal protection under the law, is extremely disturbing. Judge Salinas has gone from opponent of the border wall to border wall booster, and his words will help Chertoff to build it.
The 2007 Omnibus Spending Bill says that to get border wall funds Secretary Chertoff must go before the Appropriations Committees and prove that he has worked with local stakeholders. Texas Border Coalition President Chad Foster has repeatedly said that Chertoff’s claims of meaningful consultation are false. Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada and numerous other border leaders have said the same. But when Secretary Chertoff goes before those committees he will ignore his critics and instead trot out Judge Salinas. He can say, “Judge Salinas thinks the wall is ‘a win-win’; Judge Salinas says, ‘the DHS waiver is responsive to the needs of our diverse border community.’” Salinas’ statements will help Secretary Chertoff get the funds that he needs to build the border wall.
Maybe Hidalgo County will be reimbursed for the $48 million, or maybe we will be forced to pay for a wall that we do not want, that will in no way protect us, and that may actually increase the liklihood of a levee breach. One thing is certain; Judge JD Salinas has become Chertoff’s best ally when it comes to building the border wall.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The Draft EIS for the Texas Border Wall must be rewritten to comply with NEPA
The public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure for the Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas ended on New Year’s Eve. The Draft EIS is a fundamentally flawed document, designed to give the appearance of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when in fact it is little more than a sales pitch. This document in no way satisfies the requirements of NEPA. Rather than issue an equally flawed and hasty Final Environmental Impact Statement with the Draft EIS at its core, the Draft EIS should be scrapped and replaced with a Revised Draft EIS that objectively evaluates the varied impacts that the border wall (or border fence, or tactical infrastructure, or whatever they choose to call it) will have.
The bias in the writing gives the appearance that this document was intended to justify the actions that the Department of Homeland Security plans to carry out rather than objectively evaluate them. There is also a tremendous amount of important data that could be readily obtained that is inexplicably missing. Without this data, which ranges from impacts on endangered species and the economy to hydrological modeling of the effects of the wall during flooding or a hurricane, decision makers, municipalities, stakeholders, and the general public can not adequately analyze the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the border wall. This is in direct opposition to the regulations set out by the Council on Environmental Quality to implement the National Environmental Policy Act.
In determining what alternatives to study and what criteria to use in evaluating them, the Council on Environmental Quality mandates that an Environmental Impact Study should “briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.” (Sec.1502.13) For example, in this instance the goal might be to enhance national security, stop or reduce unauthorized entries into the United States, etc. Instead, the Draft EIS establishes the preferred action as the same as the “purpose and need” of the action:
“The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and tactical assets.” (1.2 – 4)
On the same page the “proposed action” is described as follows:
“USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian fence and associated patrol roads, and access roads along 21 discreet areas of the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas.” (1.3 – 4)
If the purpose and the proposed action are one and the same - the construction, operation, and maintenance of “tactical infrastructure” - then by definition no other alternatives will be able to achieve the stated purpose. “Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” (2.3.1 – 11) may in fact be highly effective at preventing unauthorized entries into the United States, but because it is “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” it will never bring about the stated goal of “the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure.” The same holds true for all of the other “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis.” In each case, the phrase “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” is attached, so by definition none will align with the stated purpose.
This is a clear violation of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations governing Environmental Impact Statements. They state,
“Environmental impact statements shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made.” (Sec. 1502.2)
If the Draft EIS is to comply with Council on Environmental Quality regulations the stated purpose must be rewritten. As all other assessments regarding alternatives and effectiveness are derived from the stated purpose of the proposed actions, this is a fatal flaw for the Draft EIS. The Executive Summary, Introduction (Section 1), and Proposed Action and Alternatives (Section 2) are completely undermined by this.
Green jays in the Rio Grande Valley.
The Draft EIS was published before US Fish and Wildlife had issued the Natural Resource Survey and Cultural Resource Survey Compatibility Determinations which would allow surveyors to enter tracts of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Yet in the Draft EIS it states:
“Surveyors walked the entire length of the proposed project corridor for each tactical infrastructure section, and examined in more detail areas containing unique species compositions of habitat that might be conducive to sensitive species.” (Appendix I 6)
Either this statement is inaccurate, or employees of the private contractor e2M violated USFW regulations and entered refuge tracts to conduct surveys without the necessary permits. If the Draft EIS was published without accessing USFW refuge tracts, why was its completion rushed without carrying out surveys that e2M thought were important when they requested Compatibility Determinations? How is it possible to accurately assess the natural and cultural resources that are in the path of the border wall without setting foot on any refuge tracts?
Walls built on refuge properties will do damage in terms of direct loss of vegetation, which will in turn eliminate opportunities for animals to find food and shelter. According to the Draft EIS,
“The Proposed Action would result in the irretrievable loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat. In the long term, construction of the tactical infrastructure would result in the loss of 125 acres of potential wildlife habitat, force the relocation of wildlife, and require the removal of natural vegetation.” (5.14 18)
The border wall will also lead to the fragmentation of habitat, both through the clearing of brush and the erection of impermeable barriers. The key goal of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge is the establishment of a wildlife corridor along the Rio Grande. This means continuous habitat, allowing plants and animals to move from one area to another. Such movement is crucial for the maintenance of genetic viability within a given population. Habitat fragmentation may cause inbreeding because animals from one piece of habitat are unable to travel to reach mates that they are not related to. Inbreeding can lead to a weakened population that is less able to cope with environmental stresses or disease. This is already a tremendous problem for endangered ocelots and jaguarundi, both of which may be driven to extinction by the border wall.
The wall will fragment the habitat of federally endangered jaguarundi.
The Texas border wall’s route takes it through a number of communities, including Roma, Rio Grande City, Granjeno, and Brownsville. The Draft EIS mentions the fact that some residential properties will either be impacted or destroyed:
“Minor to moderate adverse indirect impacts would be expected from the imminent dislocation of some families due to property acquisition. Some housing properties would either be removed or visually impaired by the pedestrian fence and adjacent patrol roads. The social aspects of dislocation could be disruptive. Many families in the proposed project corridor have lived there for decades, some even centuries, and have strong emotional ties to the family land and homes.” (4.12.55)
The Draft EIS does not provide any specific details, however. The number of homes that will be impacted is not given, nor is the number that will be “relocated” or “removed”. Will 4 houses be bulldozed, or 40, or 400? Letters have been sent out to homeowners and landowners who have refused access to their properties, so DHS apparently knows which properties will be affected.
There is also no explanation of the conclusion that the “dislocation of some families” would only have “minor to moderate adverse impacts.” What is the criterion for “minor to moderate”, and how does the removal of a family’s home fall short of “major?”
The Berlin wall.
The flaws in this document are so numerous and so egregious that the only way to correct them is to rewrite and reissue the Draft Environmental Impact Statement rather than rushing to issue the Final EIS. The Council on Environmental Quality provided for this possibility in the regulations that govern Environmental Impact Statements, directing that,
“…if a draft statement is so inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis, the agency shall prepare and circulate a revised draft of the appropriate portion.” (Sec. 1502.9(a))
This is precisely what must occur in this instance if the process is to have any credibility. Anything less would fail to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, and would be a disservice to the American people who will be forced to live with and pay for the border wall.
The bias in the writing gives the appearance that this document was intended to justify the actions that the Department of Homeland Security plans to carry out rather than objectively evaluate them. There is also a tremendous amount of important data that could be readily obtained that is inexplicably missing. Without this data, which ranges from impacts on endangered species and the economy to hydrological modeling of the effects of the wall during flooding or a hurricane, decision makers, municipalities, stakeholders, and the general public can not adequately analyze the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the border wall. This is in direct opposition to the regulations set out by the Council on Environmental Quality to implement the National Environmental Policy Act.
In determining what alternatives to study and what criteria to use in evaluating them, the Council on Environmental Quality mandates that an Environmental Impact Study should “briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.” (Sec.1502.13) For example, in this instance the goal might be to enhance national security, stop or reduce unauthorized entries into the United States, etc. Instead, the Draft EIS establishes the preferred action as the same as the “purpose and need” of the action:“The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and tactical assets.” (1.2 – 4)
On the same page the “proposed action” is described as follows:
“USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian fence and associated patrol roads, and access roads along 21 discreet areas of the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas.” (1.3 – 4)
If the purpose and the proposed action are one and the same - the construction, operation, and maintenance of “tactical infrastructure” - then by definition no other alternatives will be able to achieve the stated purpose. “Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” (2.3.1 – 11) may in fact be highly effective at preventing unauthorized entries into the United States, but because it is “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” it will never bring about the stated goal of “the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure.” The same holds true for all of the other “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis.” In each case, the phrase “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” is attached, so by definition none will align with the stated purpose.
This is a clear violation of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations governing Environmental Impact Statements. They state,
“Environmental impact statements shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made.” (Sec. 1502.2)
If the Draft EIS is to comply with Council on Environmental Quality regulations the stated purpose must be rewritten. As all other assessments regarding alternatives and effectiveness are derived from the stated purpose of the proposed actions, this is a fatal flaw for the Draft EIS. The Executive Summary, Introduction (Section 1), and Proposed Action and Alternatives (Section 2) are completely undermined by this.
Green jays in the Rio Grande Valley.
The Draft EIS was published before US Fish and Wildlife had issued the Natural Resource Survey and Cultural Resource Survey Compatibility Determinations which would allow surveyors to enter tracts of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Yet in the Draft EIS it states:
“Surveyors walked the entire length of the proposed project corridor for each tactical infrastructure section, and examined in more detail areas containing unique species compositions of habitat that might be conducive to sensitive species.” (Appendix I 6)
Either this statement is inaccurate, or employees of the private contractor e2M violated USFW regulations and entered refuge tracts to conduct surveys without the necessary permits. If the Draft EIS was published without accessing USFW refuge tracts, why was its completion rushed without carrying out surveys that e2M thought were important when they requested Compatibility Determinations? How is it possible to accurately assess the natural and cultural resources that are in the path of the border wall without setting foot on any refuge tracts?
Walls built on refuge properties will do damage in terms of direct loss of vegetation, which will in turn eliminate opportunities for animals to find food and shelter. According to the Draft EIS,
“The Proposed Action would result in the irretrievable loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat. In the long term, construction of the tactical infrastructure would result in the loss of 125 acres of potential wildlife habitat, force the relocation of wildlife, and require the removal of natural vegetation.” (5.14 18)
The border wall will also lead to the fragmentation of habitat, both through the clearing of brush and the erection of impermeable barriers. The key goal of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge is the establishment of a wildlife corridor along the Rio Grande. This means continuous habitat, allowing plants and animals to move from one area to another. Such movement is crucial for the maintenance of genetic viability within a given population. Habitat fragmentation may cause inbreeding because animals from one piece of habitat are unable to travel to reach mates that they are not related to. Inbreeding can lead to a weakened population that is less able to cope with environmental stresses or disease. This is already a tremendous problem for endangered ocelots and jaguarundi, both of which may be driven to extinction by the border wall.
The wall will fragment the habitat of federally endangered jaguarundi.
The Texas border wall’s route takes it through a number of communities, including Roma, Rio Grande City, Granjeno, and Brownsville. The Draft EIS mentions the fact that some residential properties will either be impacted or destroyed:
“Minor to moderate adverse indirect impacts would be expected from the imminent dislocation of some families due to property acquisition. Some housing properties would either be removed or visually impaired by the pedestrian fence and adjacent patrol roads. The social aspects of dislocation could be disruptive. Many families in the proposed project corridor have lived there for decades, some even centuries, and have strong emotional ties to the family land and homes.” (4.12.55)
The Draft EIS does not provide any specific details, however. The number of homes that will be impacted is not given, nor is the number that will be “relocated” or “removed”. Will 4 houses be bulldozed, or 40, or 400? Letters have been sent out to homeowners and landowners who have refused access to their properties, so DHS apparently knows which properties will be affected.
There is also no explanation of the conclusion that the “dislocation of some families” would only have “minor to moderate adverse impacts.” What is the criterion for “minor to moderate”, and how does the removal of a family’s home fall short of “major?”
The Berlin wall.
The flaws in this document are so numerous and so egregious that the only way to correct them is to rewrite and reissue the Draft Environmental Impact Statement rather than rushing to issue the Final EIS. The Council on Environmental Quality provided for this possibility in the regulations that govern Environmental Impact Statements, directing that,
“…if a draft statement is so inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis, the agency shall prepare and circulate a revised draft of the appropriate portion.” (Sec. 1502.9(a))
This is precisely what must occur in this instance if the process is to have any credibility. Anything less would fail to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, and would be a disservice to the American people who will be forced to live with and pay for the border wall.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Blatant Bias in the Border Wall Environmental Impact Statement
The Department of Homeland Security intends to break ground on the border wall in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas in the spring of 2008. Seventy miles of wall are planned to cut across the Valley from Roma to Brownsville. In preparation for this enormous and expensive project, DHS has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Unfortunately, the document, prepared by the private contractor e²M, is not an objective study as required by environmental regulations, but an enthusiastic endorsement of the border wall. It erroneously claims that a border wall will stop illegal immigration and keep the United States safe from terrorism. And it downplays the damage a wall will cause to the communities, farms and natural areas of the Rio Grande Valley and to our nation as a whole.
Texas State Rep. Kino Flores at the La Lomita No Border Wall Festival
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Environmental Impact Statements must present an objective, unbiased overview of the impacts that a course of action will have on both the human and natural environments. This information is used by decision makers to evaluate whether the costs of an action outweigh its intended benefits. In the regulations that govern Environmental Impact Statements the Council on Environmental Quality clearly states, “Environmental impact statements shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made.” (Sec. 1502.2)
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rio Grande Valley border wall ignores this regulation. Rather than objectively evaluating all of the negative impacts that a wall will have in South Texas, it repeatedly presents Department of Homeland Security justifications for the wall as facts without any corroborating evidence. It assumes that the border wall will be a resounding success, and that Texas and the other 49 states will reap the benefits. One passage in particular promotes this idea:
“The cumulative impacts of USBP activities to reduce the flow of illegal drugs, terrorists, and terrorist weapons into the United States and the concomitant effects upon the Nation’s health and economy, drug-related crimes, community cohesion, property values, and traditional family values would be long-term and beneficial, both nationally and locally. Residents of the border towns would benefit from increased security, a reduction in illegal drug-smuggling activities and the number of violent crimes, less damage to and loss of personal property, and less financial burden for entitlement programs. This would be accompanied by the concomitant benefits of reduced enforcement and insurance costs.” (5.11.17)
This reads like a sales pitch, not an unbiased assessment. No evidence is presented to back up any of these claims. But the words used to frame the first sentence, “The cumulative impacts… would be long-term and beneficial” employ precisely the same language that is used elsewhere to evaluate scientifically quantifiable impacts.
In an effective ad campaign it is important to inflate the positive aspects of the product and minimize or ignore the negative. If you go to a used car lot, you know that the sales person is going to tell you that the car has A/C, but probably won’t mention the rust in the wheel wells. The claims made in the Draft EIS should be viewed with the same level of skepticism. A prime example of this is the repeated use of terrorism as a justification for building the wall. Since no terrorists or terrorist weapons have ever entered the United States by crossing the southern border, the border wall cannot possibly “reduce their flow” into the U.S. How can they go below zero?
The United States - Canada border at Beebe Vermont / Quebec
Illegal drugs, on the other hand, do cross the southern border into the United States. However, no data is presented in the Draft EIS to support the assertion that building 70 miles of wall in 21 separate sections along our 1,933 mile long southern border, while ignoring the 3,987 mile long northern border and 12,479 miles of coastline, will in any way impact “drug-related crimes… both nationally and locally.” There have been walls along the southern border near San Diego for over a decade, but according to the Border Patrol nearly 33% of the drugs that they confiscated in 2006 came through the San Diego sector, up from 24% the previous year. The border wall has apparently failed to bring about a “reduction in illegal drug-smuggling activities” in southern California.
The statement that the border wall’s impact upon “community cohesion, property values, and traditional family values would be long-term and beneficial” falls somewhere between George Orwell and Alice in Wonderland. How does one objectively measure “community cohesion” or “traditional family values?” This statement sounds more like a presidential candidate’s stump speech than an unbiased evaluation of the facts, and it is directly contradicted by an earlier passage in the same Draft EIS:
“Minor to moderate adverse indirect impacts would be expected from the imminent dislocation of some families due to property acquisition. Some housing properties would either be removed or visually impaired by the pedestrian fence and adjacent patrol roads. The social aspects of dislocation could be disruptive. Many families in the proposed project corridor have lived there for decades, some even centuries, and have strong emotional ties to the family land and homes.” (4.12.55)
How will the “dislocation of some families” and the removal of houses have a beneficial impact on “community cohesion, property values, and traditional family values?” Wouldn’t bulldozing a house lower the property’s value? Is homelessness now a “traditional family value?” At least there is the tepid admission that evicting families from their homes and lands “could be disruptive”, particularly for families that have occupied plots of land for many generations. In some instances ownership stretches back to the Spanish land grants of the 1760’s. Removing families with such deep roots will destroy “community cohesion”, no matter what definition of the term the writers of the Draft EIS want to use. But even in this statement the negative impacts are downplayed. When a family is evicted from their home and the building is knocked down, the impacts are certainly not “indirect”, and they are by no means “minor to moderate.”
Construction of the Berlin Wall - "community cohesion" in the making
Not only are the claims that those border residents who don’t have their homes bulldozed will see a reduction in violent crime, less damage to private property, and lower entitlement program costs made without any empirical evidence, they run counter to the evidence that does exist. All of the imagined benefits of the border wall flow from the baseless assumption that if sections of border wall are built in the Rio Grande Valley they will stop illegal traffic from coming across. They will not. In its June 5, 2007 report Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border the Congressional Research Service concluded that the border wall “did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego.” The San Diego wall consists of two parallel walls, the first made of steel slabs and the second made of steel mesh, each 16 feet tall. Between them there is a cleared area 100 feet wide with a graded patrol road and light and camera towers. This is much more than is proposed for the Rio Grande Valley by the Draft EIS, yet it is claimed that the Texas border wall will be much more effective than the walls near San Diego.
In searching for justifications for the border wall the private contractor that wrote the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was very selective about what information was included and what was left out. Even the words of their client were excluded when they failed to provide a ringing endorsement of the wall’s effectiveness. Discussing the border wall in July, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said,
“Fencing is not the cure-all for the problem at the border. I think the fence has come to assume a certain kind of symbolic significance which should not obscure the fact that it is a much more complicated problem than putting up a fence which someone can climb over with a ladder or tunnel under with a shovel.”
Coming from the man who recently threatened to condemn people’s homes if they refused access to surveyors, this is a telling comment. The fact that it is not reflected anywhere in the Draft EIS shows just how biased it is.
The Border Wall between San Diego and Tijuana
Border residents and the rest of America deserve more than a sales pitch. There must be a full accounting of the effects of the border wall before construction begins. Rather than issuing a Final Environmental Impact Statement in January, a new Draft EIS that even-handedly evaluates the impacts that the border wall will have should be prepared. Bias and unfounded statements should be replaced with solid facts. Information that was left out of the Draft EIS, such as the exact number of homes that will be bulldozed, what will happen in the event of a hurricane or major flood, and what measures will be taken to ensure that endangered species are not driven to extinction, should be included. Anything less would be a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, and would represent a tremendous disservice to the American people.
Texas State Rep. Kino Flores at the La Lomita No Border Wall Festival
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Environmental Impact Statements must present an objective, unbiased overview of the impacts that a course of action will have on both the human and natural environments. This information is used by decision makers to evaluate whether the costs of an action outweigh its intended benefits. In the regulations that govern Environmental Impact Statements the Council on Environmental Quality clearly states, “Environmental impact statements shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made.” (Sec. 1502.2)
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rio Grande Valley border wall ignores this regulation. Rather than objectively evaluating all of the negative impacts that a wall will have in South Texas, it repeatedly presents Department of Homeland Security justifications for the wall as facts without any corroborating evidence. It assumes that the border wall will be a resounding success, and that Texas and the other 49 states will reap the benefits. One passage in particular promotes this idea:
“The cumulative impacts of USBP activities to reduce the flow of illegal drugs, terrorists, and terrorist weapons into the United States and the concomitant effects upon the Nation’s health and economy, drug-related crimes, community cohesion, property values, and traditional family values would be long-term and beneficial, both nationally and locally. Residents of the border towns would benefit from increased security, a reduction in illegal drug-smuggling activities and the number of violent crimes, less damage to and loss of personal property, and less financial burden for entitlement programs. This would be accompanied by the concomitant benefits of reduced enforcement and insurance costs.” (5.11.17)
This reads like a sales pitch, not an unbiased assessment. No evidence is presented to back up any of these claims. But the words used to frame the first sentence, “The cumulative impacts… would be long-term and beneficial” employ precisely the same language that is used elsewhere to evaluate scientifically quantifiable impacts.
In an effective ad campaign it is important to inflate the positive aspects of the product and minimize or ignore the negative. If you go to a used car lot, you know that the sales person is going to tell you that the car has A/C, but probably won’t mention the rust in the wheel wells. The claims made in the Draft EIS should be viewed with the same level of skepticism. A prime example of this is the repeated use of terrorism as a justification for building the wall. Since no terrorists or terrorist weapons have ever entered the United States by crossing the southern border, the border wall cannot possibly “reduce their flow” into the U.S. How can they go below zero?
The United States - Canada border at Beebe Vermont / QuebecIllegal drugs, on the other hand, do cross the southern border into the United States. However, no data is presented in the Draft EIS to support the assertion that building 70 miles of wall in 21 separate sections along our 1,933 mile long southern border, while ignoring the 3,987 mile long northern border and 12,479 miles of coastline, will in any way impact “drug-related crimes… both nationally and locally.” There have been walls along the southern border near San Diego for over a decade, but according to the Border Patrol nearly 33% of the drugs that they confiscated in 2006 came through the San Diego sector, up from 24% the previous year. The border wall has apparently failed to bring about a “reduction in illegal drug-smuggling activities” in southern California.
The statement that the border wall’s impact upon “community cohesion, property values, and traditional family values would be long-term and beneficial” falls somewhere between George Orwell and Alice in Wonderland. How does one objectively measure “community cohesion” or “traditional family values?” This statement sounds more like a presidential candidate’s stump speech than an unbiased evaluation of the facts, and it is directly contradicted by an earlier passage in the same Draft EIS:
“Minor to moderate adverse indirect impacts would be expected from the imminent dislocation of some families due to property acquisition. Some housing properties would either be removed or visually impaired by the pedestrian fence and adjacent patrol roads. The social aspects of dislocation could be disruptive. Many families in the proposed project corridor have lived there for decades, some even centuries, and have strong emotional ties to the family land and homes.” (4.12.55)
How will the “dislocation of some families” and the removal of houses have a beneficial impact on “community cohesion, property values, and traditional family values?” Wouldn’t bulldozing a house lower the property’s value? Is homelessness now a “traditional family value?” At least there is the tepid admission that evicting families from their homes and lands “could be disruptive”, particularly for families that have occupied plots of land for many generations. In some instances ownership stretches back to the Spanish land grants of the 1760’s. Removing families with such deep roots will destroy “community cohesion”, no matter what definition of the term the writers of the Draft EIS want to use. But even in this statement the negative impacts are downplayed. When a family is evicted from their home and the building is knocked down, the impacts are certainly not “indirect”, and they are by no means “minor to moderate.”
Construction of the Berlin Wall - "community cohesion" in the makingNot only are the claims that those border residents who don’t have their homes bulldozed will see a reduction in violent crime, less damage to private property, and lower entitlement program costs made without any empirical evidence, they run counter to the evidence that does exist. All of the imagined benefits of the border wall flow from the baseless assumption that if sections of border wall are built in the Rio Grande Valley they will stop illegal traffic from coming across. They will not. In its June 5, 2007 report Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border the Congressional Research Service concluded that the border wall “did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego.” The San Diego wall consists of two parallel walls, the first made of steel slabs and the second made of steel mesh, each 16 feet tall. Between them there is a cleared area 100 feet wide with a graded patrol road and light and camera towers. This is much more than is proposed for the Rio Grande Valley by the Draft EIS, yet it is claimed that the Texas border wall will be much more effective than the walls near San Diego.
In searching for justifications for the border wall the private contractor that wrote the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was very selective about what information was included and what was left out. Even the words of their client were excluded when they failed to provide a ringing endorsement of the wall’s effectiveness. Discussing the border wall in July, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said,
“Fencing is not the cure-all for the problem at the border. I think the fence has come to assume a certain kind of symbolic significance which should not obscure the fact that it is a much more complicated problem than putting up a fence which someone can climb over with a ladder or tunnel under with a shovel.”
Coming from the man who recently threatened to condemn people’s homes if they refused access to surveyors, this is a telling comment. The fact that it is not reflected anywhere in the Draft EIS shows just how biased it is.
The Border Wall between San Diego and TijuanaBorder residents and the rest of America deserve more than a sales pitch. There must be a full accounting of the effects of the border wall before construction begins. Rather than issuing a Final Environmental Impact Statement in January, a new Draft EIS that even-handedly evaluates the impacts that the border wall will have should be prepared. Bias and unfounded statements should be replaced with solid facts. Information that was left out of the Draft EIS, such as the exact number of homes that will be bulldozed, what will happen in the event of a hurricane or major flood, and what measures will be taken to ensure that endangered species are not driven to extinction, should be included. Anything less would be a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, and would represent a tremendous disservice to the American people.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Texas Border Wall May Worsen Flooding During Hurricanes
By K. Rod Summy
One very disturbing aspect of the proposed Border Wall in south Texas has received very little coverage in the local press, although it may well be the most important with respect to public safety. Federal, state and county officials have long recognized that the flood-control levee system in the Rio Grande Valley is deficient and in dire need of repair at many locations. Last June, the U. S. Congress approved a $15.5 million bill to fix the Valley levee system, although a Hidalgo County Judge indicated that at least $80 million would be required to get the system on par with Federal standards. At a meeting held in Mercedes last July, a spokesman for the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) indicated that levee improvement costs in the Rio Grande Valley could run as high as $125 million, and several IBWC officials expressed concern that construction of the proposed Border Fence on or near flood-control levees would not only violate provisions of a treaty with Mexico but would also seriously obstruct water flow within the Valley’s floodways. Nevertheless, the consulting firm which prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Border Fence project concluded that the impact of the proposed fence on the hydrology or water flow within the Rio Grande Basin is expected to be “negligible” in most areas of the Valley.
For their own protection, every person who calls the Rio Grande Valley “home” and wants to keep it that way should stand up, be counted, and confront their governmental officials and elected representatives with some very hard questions. Exactly how deficient are the levee systems of the Rio Grande Valley, and why have they been allowed to digress to their present condition? Have any hydrological studies been conducted to assess the potential impact of proposed Border Fence on the stability of the flood-control levee systems in both southern Texas and northeastern Mexico, and what is the probable impact on the Rio Grande Valley region if the levee systems in either Texas or Mexico should fail? If hydrological studies have indeed been conducted, who were the researchers, what are their credentials, and what was the type and quality of the data used to reach the conclusions reported in the EIS? If any legitimate hydrological studies relating to this topic actually exist, their methodologies, data and results should be discussed in open forum so that the people who live here can judge for themselves whether or not conclusions reported in the EIS are valid.
These are not minor points. The Rio Grande Valley is located in a hurricane zone, and the prospects that we will experience the effects of one or more major hurricanes sometime in the future is a certainty. This may not occur for another five or even ten years, but it will occur. It is therefore vital that we maintain our flood-control levee system in the best possible condition, and avoid doing anything that might destabilize the system. Two years ago, this country lost a major city – New Orleans – because of a defective levee system. Last month, the failure of a levee system following torrential rains in Tabasco, Mexico resulted in a substantial loss of human life (nearly 300 people missing or dead) and approximately two million homes were severely damaged or destroyed by floodwaters. It is not very comforting to realize that the words “hurricane” and “tropical storm” and “torrential rains” do not appear on even one occasion in the 538-page Draft EIS document for the Border Wall.
When it comes to assessing the impact of anything that could destabilize our flood-control levee system, there is no room for opinions, speculation or bureaucratic double-talk. We need honest and unbiased professional advice from the best hydrologists in the country. All Valley property owners would also be well-advised to consider another factor of considerable importance – the continuing availability of flood insurance coverage for our area. If the agencies responsible for administering flood insurance coverage sense that we are setting ourselves up to become the next “New Orleans,” will they cancel coverage for our area or increase premiums to such an extent that few if any of us can afford to insure our homes and businesses? In either case, the effects on property values and our economy would be disastrous.
If there is even a slight possibility that the proposed Border Fence could predispose the Rio Grande Valley to widespread flooding following a major hurricane, the U. S. government has a moral obligation and responsibility to the people who live here to postpone construction of the structure until its safety has been demonstrated conclusively. Federal funds allocated for border security could be spent much more effectively (and much more safely) by doubling or tripling the operating budgets of the IBWC, which is responsible in part for maintaining of our flood-control levee system, and the U. S. Border Patrol, which is responsible for enforcing our immigration laws and securing our international border with Mexico. The missions of both agencies are vital to our regional and national security, and cannot be accomplished effectively unless the agencies are provided with adequate manpower and funding. Regardless, neither of these agencies deserves to become the “fall guys” or “scapegoats” if, at some future date, something goes terribly wrong with a fence plan which is viewed by many as being little more than an election-year gimmick that was concocted by a few members of the U. S. Congress and imposed by law on nearly two million people who live in southern Texas and northeastern Mexico.
One very disturbing aspect of the proposed Border Wall in south Texas has received very little coverage in the local press, although it may well be the most important with respect to public safety. Federal, state and county officials have long recognized that the flood-control levee system in the Rio Grande Valley is deficient and in dire need of repair at many locations. Last June, the U. S. Congress approved a $15.5 million bill to fix the Valley levee system, although a Hidalgo County Judge indicated that at least $80 million would be required to get the system on par with Federal standards. At a meeting held in Mercedes last July, a spokesman for the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) indicated that levee improvement costs in the Rio Grande Valley could run as high as $125 million, and several IBWC officials expressed concern that construction of the proposed Border Fence on or near flood-control levees would not only violate provisions of a treaty with Mexico but would also seriously obstruct water flow within the Valley’s floodways. Nevertheless, the consulting firm which prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Border Fence project concluded that the impact of the proposed fence on the hydrology or water flow within the Rio Grande Basin is expected to be “negligible” in most areas of the Valley.
For their own protection, every person who calls the Rio Grande Valley “home” and wants to keep it that way should stand up, be counted, and confront their governmental officials and elected representatives with some very hard questions. Exactly how deficient are the levee systems of the Rio Grande Valley, and why have they been allowed to digress to their present condition? Have any hydrological studies been conducted to assess the potential impact of proposed Border Fence on the stability of the flood-control levee systems in both southern Texas and northeastern Mexico, and what is the probable impact on the Rio Grande Valley region if the levee systems in either Texas or Mexico should fail? If hydrological studies have indeed been conducted, who were the researchers, what are their credentials, and what was the type and quality of the data used to reach the conclusions reported in the EIS? If any legitimate hydrological studies relating to this topic actually exist, their methodologies, data and results should be discussed in open forum so that the people who live here can judge for themselves whether or not conclusions reported in the EIS are valid.These are not minor points. The Rio Grande Valley is located in a hurricane zone, and the prospects that we will experience the effects of one or more major hurricanes sometime in the future is a certainty. This may not occur for another five or even ten years, but it will occur. It is therefore vital that we maintain our flood-control levee system in the best possible condition, and avoid doing anything that might destabilize the system. Two years ago, this country lost a major city – New Orleans – because of a defective levee system. Last month, the failure of a levee system following torrential rains in Tabasco, Mexico resulted in a substantial loss of human life (nearly 300 people missing or dead) and approximately two million homes were severely damaged or destroyed by floodwaters. It is not very comforting to realize that the words “hurricane” and “tropical storm” and “torrential rains” do not appear on even one occasion in the 538-page Draft EIS document for the Border Wall.
When it comes to assessing the impact of anything that could destabilize our flood-control levee system, there is no room for opinions, speculation or bureaucratic double-talk. We need honest and unbiased professional advice from the best hydrologists in the country. All Valley property owners would also be well-advised to consider another factor of considerable importance – the continuing availability of flood insurance coverage for our area. If the agencies responsible for administering flood insurance coverage sense that we are setting ourselves up to become the next “New Orleans,” will they cancel coverage for our area or increase premiums to such an extent that few if any of us can afford to insure our homes and businesses? In either case, the effects on property values and our economy would be disastrous.If there is even a slight possibility that the proposed Border Fence could predispose the Rio Grande Valley to widespread flooding following a major hurricane, the U. S. government has a moral obligation and responsibility to the people who live here to postpone construction of the structure until its safety has been demonstrated conclusively. Federal funds allocated for border security could be spent much more effectively (and much more safely) by doubling or tripling the operating budgets of the IBWC, which is responsible in part for maintaining of our flood-control levee system, and the U. S. Border Patrol, which is responsible for enforcing our immigration laws and securing our international border with Mexico. The missions of both agencies are vital to our regional and national security, and cannot be accomplished effectively unless the agencies are provided with adequate manpower and funding. Regardless, neither of these agencies deserves to become the “fall guys” or “scapegoats” if, at some future date, something goes terribly wrong with a fence plan which is viewed by many as being little more than an election-year gimmick that was concocted by a few members of the U. S. Congress and imposed by law on nearly two million people who live in southern Texas and northeastern Mexico.
Friday, November 30, 2007
The Department of Homeland Security Versus Environmental Justice
In the recently released Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Department of Homeland Security attempts to brush aside issues of environmental justice in its plans to build border walls in south Texas. Although the Rio Grande Valley’s population is over 85% minority, and its border communities are some of the poorest in the nation, the EIS states that the impacts of the proposed border wall “would not fall disproportionately on minority or low-income populations.”
The Environmental Impact Statement is not only of interest to environmentalists. By law, environmental impact statements are required to cover issues of the human environment as well. Unfortunately, the Rio Grande Valley Border Fence EIS (copy available at http://www.borderfencenepa.com/rio-grande-valley-sector-eis/) does not adequately address these issues, and the most vulnerable residents of the Rio Grande Valley are being left unprotected from the damage a border wall is certain to cause.
The Border Wall in Southern California - courtesy J.J. Castro
Environmental justice is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency to mean that “no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal environmental programs and policies” (EPA Fact Sheet). This sentiment was codified by President Clinton in executive order 12898 (Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice [EJ] in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), which provides that “each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the U.S.”
In 2004, the Operation Rio Grande Environmental Impact Statement found that environmental justice was indeed an issue for projects in the Rio Grande Valley:
"Approximately 85% of the population in the area can be classified as minority (well above the state average of 39.4%). The median annual household incomes for the counties in the project area (Starr, $10,182; Hidalgo, $16,703; and Cameron, $17,336) are well below the state average of $27,016 and, in the case of Starr County, below the $15,000 established by the EPA for defining the economic status risk group. Therefore, many of the households in the project area doubtless have a high potential EJ index." (Operation Rio Grande EIS, Section 3.12.6)
However, in the 2007 Draft Rio Grande Valley Border Fence EIS, it is claimed that the protections of environmental justice do not apply. This questionable judgment is achieved by sleight of hand and is revealed in the following quote:
"Of the 21 fence sections, 11 are within census bureau tracts in which a portion of the tracts have a higher proportion of minority or low-income residents. Of the proposed 70 miles of tactical infrastructure, substantially less than half is within census bureau tracts that have a higher proportion of minority or low-income residents—therefore the overall impacts of the proposed tactical infrastructure would not fall disproportionately on minority or low-income populations." (Section 5. 5.11)
Rather than stating that the majority of people who will be negatively impacted by the border wall are poor and/or minorities, which is what environmental justice is all about, the EIS counts miles. Miles that fall within US Fish and Wildlife refuge tracts, where no people live, are counted along with the miles that pass through poor communities, allowing them to dilute, at least on paper, the wall’s impact on minority and low-income populations. Mileage is irrelevant to the question of environmental justice. The question is whether a disproportionately high number of the people who will be negatively affected are members of minority and/or low income populations.
The EIS does mention in passing that people will lose their homes, stating that, “Construction of the project would require some acquisition of private property, including the potential dislocation of some property owners and tenants.” “Dislocation” is of course a euphemism for eviction. In communities like Granjeno, where families have passed property down through the generations since the Spanish land grants of the 1760’s, up to a third of the homes will be impacted.
Residents evicted to build the Berlin Wall
Hard-working people who may not have the money to hire lawyers are going to have their homes bulldozed or family farms sliced in two for a wall that won’t stop anyone. DHS is prepared to perpetrate a terrible injustice against the very U.S. citizens that they are supposed to protect.
The grassroots coalition No Border Wall is concerned that the Department of Homeland Security is papering over the real human hardships that a border wall tearing through Rio Grande Valley communities will cause and that minorities and the poor will bear the brunt of the damage of a misguided and politically-motivated project.
The Environmental Impact Statement is not only of interest to environmentalists. By law, environmental impact statements are required to cover issues of the human environment as well. Unfortunately, the Rio Grande Valley Border Fence EIS (copy available at http://www.borderfencenepa.com/rio-grande-valley-sector-eis/) does not adequately address these issues, and the most vulnerable residents of the Rio Grande Valley are being left unprotected from the damage a border wall is certain to cause.
The Border Wall in Southern California - courtesy J.J. Castro
Environmental justice is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency to mean that “no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal environmental programs and policies” (EPA Fact Sheet). This sentiment was codified by President Clinton in executive order 12898 (Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice [EJ] in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), which provides that “each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the U.S.”
In 2004, the Operation Rio Grande Environmental Impact Statement found that environmental justice was indeed an issue for projects in the Rio Grande Valley:
"Approximately 85% of the population in the area can be classified as minority (well above the state average of 39.4%). The median annual household incomes for the counties in the project area (Starr, $10,182; Hidalgo, $16,703; and Cameron, $17,336) are well below the state average of $27,016 and, in the case of Starr County, below the $15,000 established by the EPA for defining the economic status risk group. Therefore, many of the households in the project area doubtless have a high potential EJ index." (Operation Rio Grande EIS, Section 3.12.6)
However, in the 2007 Draft Rio Grande Valley Border Fence EIS, it is claimed that the protections of environmental justice do not apply. This questionable judgment is achieved by sleight of hand and is revealed in the following quote:
"Of the 21 fence sections, 11 are within census bureau tracts in which a portion of the tracts have a higher proportion of minority or low-income residents. Of the proposed 70 miles of tactical infrastructure, substantially less than half is within census bureau tracts that have a higher proportion of minority or low-income residents—therefore the overall impacts of the proposed tactical infrastructure would not fall disproportionately on minority or low-income populations." (Section 5. 5.11)
Rather than stating that the majority of people who will be negatively impacted by the border wall are poor and/or minorities, which is what environmental justice is all about, the EIS counts miles. Miles that fall within US Fish and Wildlife refuge tracts, where no people live, are counted along with the miles that pass through poor communities, allowing them to dilute, at least on paper, the wall’s impact on minority and low-income populations. Mileage is irrelevant to the question of environmental justice. The question is whether a disproportionately high number of the people who will be negatively affected are members of minority and/or low income populations.
The EIS does mention in passing that people will lose their homes, stating that, “Construction of the project would require some acquisition of private property, including the potential dislocation of some property owners and tenants.” “Dislocation” is of course a euphemism for eviction. In communities like Granjeno, where families have passed property down through the generations since the Spanish land grants of the 1760’s, up to a third of the homes will be impacted.
Residents evicted to build the Berlin WallHard-working people who may not have the money to hire lawyers are going to have their homes bulldozed or family farms sliced in two for a wall that won’t stop anyone. DHS is prepared to perpetrate a terrible injustice against the very U.S. citizens that they are supposed to protect.
The grassroots coalition No Border Wall is concerned that the Department of Homeland Security is papering over the real human hardships that a border wall tearing through Rio Grande Valley communities will cause and that minorities and the poor will bear the brunt of the damage of a misguided and politically-motivated project.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
BE HEARD!! Call for Public Comments about the Texas Border Wall
Comments about the construction of border walls in Texas are being accepted as part of the Environmental Impact Statement being prepared by Customs and Border Patrol. “Environmental Impact” is the impact on the human environment, as well as on wildlife and the quality of water and air. It is important that we raise all of our concerns during this public comment period. Please write, fax or e-mail your comments in by October 15, 2007. (See below for contact information.)
Here are a few ways to focus your comments:
· Destruction of wildlife habitat. The lower Rio Grande Valley has already been cleared of 95% of the brush. In an area considered one of the most biologically diverse in North America, any additional destruction of brush, including clearing 508 acres for construction of the wall, will have severe consequences for wildlife. How will wildlife survive with their habitat limited by a wall? How will they get to and from the river, find food, shelter, and potential mates in habitat dissected by a wall? In some cases like Starr County, the Rio Grande is the only source of water for wildlife. Any animal that encounters miles of wall will have to travel long distances for a very basic necessity, water.
· Endangered & rare species. The ocelot, jaguarundi and red-billed pigeon currently face the real possibility of extinction or extirpation. These are just a few of the endangered and rare species whose U.S. populations would certainly collapse with construction of the wall. The ability of rare species like the ocelot and jaguarundi to cross into Mexico helps keep wildlife populations healthy by maintaining a level of genetic integrity. Reduction of gene flow among or within populations will reduce the likelihood of long-term survival of these species. A formal Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act needs to be done.
· Violation of International Migratory Bird Treaty. If construction of the wall takes place during the spring, as stated in the Federal Register, many migratory and nesting birds will be affected. The clearing of brush will destroy thousands of nests, many with young birds in them. This is in direct violation of the International Migratory Bird Treaty.
· Impact of construction. What will be the impacts of construction? Of roads for vehicles and heavy equipment? Of lighting and transmission lines?
· Economic impact. Access will be cut off for wildlife enthusiasts interested in wildlife watching, canoeing, kayaking, and hiking along the river. Eco-tourism brings more than $125 million to the RGV annually from 200,000 eco-tourists, creating 2,500 jobs in the local economy. What are the economic impacts of limiting access to refuges, state parks, and other public and private parks and natural areas?
· Community impact. A wall could mean uprooting families from their homes and demolishing or cutting off access to historical buildings and community centers. How many people will lose their homes? What buildings will be destroyed? How will property owners gain access to their land? What will the presence of a wall do to property values? How will there be public access to cemeteries and historical and archaeological sites along the river? Will there be access in case of fire or other emergencies on the other side of the fence?
· Impact on agriculture. Farming is still the backbone of the economy in the Rio Grande Valley. How much agricultural land will be taken out of production by the wall? How will farmers gain access to their land? To their pumps and irrigation equipment? How will they bring farm equipment onto farmland behind a wall?
· Impact on flood control. All the walled areas are in a floodplain. Has the Army Corps or DHS coordinated with FEMA? How will the wall affect the flood control levees? Will the IBWC have access to the levees and input in the construction? Will future widening of the levees result in even more habitat loss on the south side (since the wall is on the north side)?
· Relations with Mexico and the rest of the world. Mexico will perceive the border wall as an insult. How will this affect the bi-national relations and cooperation? How will the border wall affect US relations with other countries and its standing in the world? By building a wall around our borders, what kind of example is the US setting of a free and open democratic society?
· Problems with the EIS. The EIS is geographically too limited. The EIS should look at total and cumulative impacts into the future. What about the impacts in other areas where a wall is proposed? How will the impacts of this initial proposed fencing change if the total amount of fencing called for by the Secure Fence Act is installed? What will be the environmental impacts of future needs of the wall such as maintenance and lighting?
· Inadequate public comment period. The public comment period is less than thirty days. For a project of this magnitude, the public comment period should be extended.
Submit your comments to Customs & Border Patrol by one of the following methods:
~ E-mail: RGVcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
~ Mail:
Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS
C/O e2M
2751 Prosperity Avenue, Ste. 200
Fairfax, Virginia 22031
~ Fax: (757)282-7697
~ Electronically: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/ (Please note that they have repeatedly shut down this site.)
** Be sure to include you name, address and identify your comments as for the RGV Sector EIS.**
The deadline for public comments is October 15, 2007!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
