CBP Willing to Risk Flooding to Erect New Walls in Roma, Rio Grande City and Los Ebanos

By Scott Nicol

It was just over a year ago that the rising waters of the Rio Grande prompted the mandatory evacuation of Los Ebanos, Texas. Residents rushed to grab what they could before floodwaters cut off the town.

Before the flood, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was pressuring the U.S. half of the International Boundary Water Commission (USIBWC) to approve the construction of border walls through Los Ebanos, as well as Rio Grande City and Roma, that could have worsened the flooding. CBP had even gone so far as to request that the US half of the International Boundary Water Commission act “unilaterally” and approve walls in the floodplain despite the objections of the Mexican half.

The plans for border walls drafted after the passage of the Secure Fence Act showed South Texas on the receiving end of 69 miles of border wall in 21 disconnected sections. The westernmost three sections, designated O-1, O-2, and O-3, were to be through the communities of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos.

In 2008 the US International Boundary Water Commission made it clear that any walls built along the Rio Grande must comply with US-Mexico treaties. The Real ID Act allowed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection’s parent agency, to waive all federal, state, and local laws, but not treaties. Walls built in the flood plain adjacent to the Rio Grande might deflect flood waters towards Mexico, causing flood damage to Mexican communities. Deflection might also cause the river to settle into a new channel farther to the south, which would effectively change the location of the US-Mexico boundary. Either of these would be a treaty violation.

In Cameron County and most of Hidalgo our treaty obligations meant that border walls could not be built between the existing flood control levees and the river, so walls were constructed on, in, or north of the levees. Those walls are, for the most part, finished. But unlike the downriver sections, Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos do not have USIBWC flood control levees. The border walls in these three communities would therefore be in the flood plain.

Because of the wall’s likely flood impacts USIBWC rejected these three sections of border wall.

A few days after the 2008 elections CBP informed Representative Cuellar, whose district encompasses these communities, that these border wall sections were “on hold.” At the time Cuellar said, “This is a big victory.” He went on to tell the Associated Press, “We're hoping that this will allow us to work with the next president to find ... alternative methods for security."

Representative Cuellar’s constituents also hoped that that would be the last they would hear of plans to wall off their towns from the river, but in a May, 2010 report on the Secure Border Initiative (which includes both solid and “virtual” border walls) the Government Accountability Office stated, “CBP plans to construct an additional 14 miles of pedestrian fencing in the Rio Grande Valley sector.” These 14 miles are the combined Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos sections.

Documents uncovered by the Sierra Club through a Freedom of Information Act request over the last year demonstrate that, in fact, the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection continued to push for the construction of these walls, and were willing to disregard our treaty obligations and likely problems with flooding to do so.

A Customs and Border Protection “Fence Status Brief” dated April 27, 2009 reveals that to build the previously rejected walls CBP had decided upon a new plan. They would not change the design or location of the walls, or, better yet, give up on them entirely. Instead it says, “the new strategy involves developing a new floodplain model” and that, unlike the old model approved by USIBWC that “predicted noteworthy floodplain impacts from the fence,” “this model will demonstrate the impacts of the proposed fence will be minimal.”

The verb tense - "this model will demonstrate" - is important. It appears that CBP determined the outcome in advance, rather than commissioning an honest, unbiased model that would accurately describe the effects of structures built in the floodplain.

The “new flood plain model”, prepared by Baker Engineering, was completed in December 2009. Presented to CBP eight months after their fence status brief forecast its findings, its conclusion fit the earlier prediction precisely. The “noteworthy floodplain impacts” of building border walls in a floodplain that were predicted just a year earlier disappeared; instead, Baker now claimed that walls would have a “minimal effect on the Rio Grande floodplain.”

Baker decided this without even knowing what type of border wall design would be used. In 2008, CBP proposed a number of designs that were touted as either allowing floodwaters to pass through without being dammed up, or able to be removed before rising water reached them. USIBWC rejected all of these unrealistic schemes. In their 2009 report Baker modeled the border wall as an 18’ high, impermeable wall, with the specific design, whether concrete or steel, posts or mesh or slabs, to be determined later. Since CBP apparently told Baker what the outcome of their modeling would be before they began, it seems that such details were unimportant.

One striking conclusion of Baker’s “new flood plain model” was that in the communities of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos, border walls would “split” the flooding river. It states that for each wall segment, “Downstream of the flow split location, the flow continues in a north branch and a south branch on either side of the fence. The flow combines downstream of the point where the fence ends.”

This splitting is intentional. In the case of Rio Grande City, the wall was modeled with a 500 foot-wide opening in the middle specifically intended to split flood waters and send a portion of them north. Diverting water to the north of the border wall, into property on the US side of the river, means that less is deflected into Mexico. In this way CBP hopes to avoid flooding Mexican communities, and possibly pushing the Rio Grande into a new channel. Walls built in a floodplain will either deflect or divert floodwater, and the only real question is who is going to be on the receiving end.

Each of these wall sections begins upstream of a town and ends downstream of it. They begin close to the river, then the river and wall get farther apart before coming back together. So flood water that might not have reached properties where the proposed wall is farthest from the river will, with a wall in place, have “split” floodwaters channeled directly to them.

This is particularly striking for the Los Ebanos section. The community of Los Ebanos is nestled at the top of a deep bend in the river. The proposed wall would begin next to the Rio Grande at the top of this bend. While the river turns and heads due south, away from homes and the local school, the wall heads due east, directly towards them. That means that water that might have otherwise followed the river and flowed away from Los Ebanos will be split off by the wall, and be diverted into it. On the other side of town, instead of allowing the split flood waters to pour back into the Rio Grande, the wall makes a ninety degree turn, from east to north. Water that had been split off from the flooded river would therefore be bottled up in Los Ebanos.

A Customs and Border Protection Fence Status Brief dated January 20, 2010, written following the presentation of the “new flood plain model” to the Army Corps of Engineers and USIBWC, says that, “[acting USIBWC Commissioner] Ruth agreed no additional modeling is required and to ‘informally’ discuss the fence segments with the new Mexican IBWC Commissioner to determine if he will support.” The brief goes on to state that, “If it appears Mexico will continue to oppose fencing, CBP/DHS and IBWC/DOS [Department of State] to discuss potential unilateral decision to proceed with construction.”

A “unilateral decision” regarding the Rio Grande floodplain, taken by the US half of the International Boundary Water Commission in the face of opposition by the Mexican half, would be a serious treaty violation. The United States would essentially be challenging Mexico to try to stop us from building illegal walls.

On January 21, 2010, acting USIBWC Commissioner Ruth stepped aside, and Edward Drusina became the new commissioner. On his first day in office Commissioner Drusina wrote a letter to David Aguilar, the acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. He stated that, after examining the model that CBP had commissioned, “the USIBWC is not in a position to approve construction of the O-1, O-2 and O-3 fence projects.”

Rather than accept the fact that walls built in the Rio Grande floodplain will have unacceptable impacts, CBP repeatedly pressed the USIBWC to reverse its decision. On February 2, 2010, Aguilar responded to Drusina, “we respectfully request that the USIBWC and Department of State reconsider your position and approve a unilateral decision to allow us to proceed with the design and construction of the O-1, O-2 and O-3 fence segments.”

On July 20, just one week after the flooding Rio Grande forced the mandatory evacuation of Los Ebanos, CBP presented a briefing to the State Department on these three border wall sections. During the briefing CBP claimed that they had already spent “+$1M in “design analysis” costs”, and said that, “we need IBWC and Department of State’s support for an unilateral decision to proceed with the fence construction.”

USIBWC stood firm, and on September 17, 2010, Comissioner Drusina again denied CBP permission to build new walls in the Rio Grande flood plain. CBP continued to push back, and a month later the new CBP Commissioner, Alan Bersin, wrote to USIBWC, asking that they reconsider and complaining about “Mexico’s recent opposition to border fencing regardless of hydraulic modeling results.”

Bersin’s October 2010 letter to USIBWC is the most recent document uncovered by the Sierra Club’s Freedom of Information Act request. The Club was told that to obtain newer documents another request would have to be filed. One has, but it may take months for us to begin receiving more documents.

We have learned through a recent conversation with representatives of the USIBWC and State Department that following the October 2010 letter Commissioners Bersin and Drusina held at least two meetings to discuss the Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos walls. As a result of those meetings Baker Engineering was commissioned to develop yet another flood model. That model was completed last spring, and was reviewed by the Army Corps. of Engineers and USIBWC over the summer. It has not been released to the public.

While we hope that USIBWC continues to act in the best interests of the residents of these three communities and live up to its treaty obligations in the face of pressure from Customs and Border Protection, we have no guarantees. The discussions between these two agencies are being held behind closed doors, with landowners and community leaders kept out of the room. It may be months before we are able to see a copy of the latest flood model, and the only announcement that new border walls have been approved may be the arrival of construction crews.

US Representative Henry Cuellar, who represents Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos in Washington, should ensure that his constituents are kept informed and given a seat at the table when walls that could channel flood waters into their homes and property are discussed. As the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, he has the power to demand that CBP hold open public hearings in each of these communities. Customs and Border Protection owes residents the decency of a face to face explanation, before they build new border walls that could put people’s lives and properties at risk.

Obama needs to consign Border Wall plan to the trashcan of bad ideas

By K. Rod Summy

During the past year, numerous articles have appeared in the local and national press regarding problems associated with construction of the Border Fence or Wall along the U.S.–Mexico border.

In one recent article, I expressed my concerns that the initiation of Border Wall construction in Hidalgo County, Texas during the middle of the 2008 hurricane season was inherently dangerous and could predispose our region to massive flooding if we were impacted by a major storm while such construction was in progress.

As examples of levee disturbances caused by Border Wall construction, I included a series of images acquired in the city of Granjeno during early-September of this year which showed firstly, deep unconsolidated (loose and friable) soil on both faces of the flood-control levee, and secondly a five- to six-meter gap between an uncompleted section of the concrete Border Wall and the remnants of the destabilized levee located to the south.

Border wall under construction in the levee in Granjeno, TX 9/21/08

I discussed the ramifications of each type of disturbance, and recommended that major construction of any type which provides a potential to disturb or destabilize flood-control levees should be curtailed or prohibited during the annual hurricane season, which extends from early-June through late-November.

In response to my article, an unknown person (hereafter referred to “Anonymous”) posted the following statement on the No Border Wall blog on Sept. 22, 2008:

“Deceiving commentary on the engineering that is going on here. First the existing levees (small molehills) are raised using fill material. That is what the author calls "unstable" and "friable." Then the flood wall is constructed in front of the raised levees on the side facing the river, with space between so as not to disturb the newly upgraded earthen levee. After the wall is complete, the space is backfilled and consolidated agatinst [sic] the back of the flood wall. Please explain how the upgraded earth levee would provide less protection during a major storm than what was originally there?? (the original earth levee is still there underneath the built up levee). This makes no sense to me and it's a deceptive way to get an audience for this site's border wall bashing.”

Levee / border wall diagram from the Marfa Sector draft Environmental Assessment

The engineering details of the Border Wall provided by “Anonymous” are informative but irrelevant. How effective the Border Wall might be as a flood-control structure once construction is complete has nothing to do with the concerns expressed in my article – the real question is how it may be expected to perform if we are impacted by a major tropical storm or hurricane while construction is in progress.

All phases of Border Wall construction were in progress by September 7, 2008, the beginning of the week in which Hurricane Ike entered the Gulf of Mexico and intensified into one of the largest and most dangerous storms in Texas Gulf Coast history.

This included extensive excavation of the south levee face, the embedding of pilings and metal panels along the top of the levee, and construction of the partially-completed concrete wall which now extended approximately 150 to 200 meters west of its original point of origin.

Levee / border wall construction in Granjeno, TX 8/01/08

All areas of the south levee face located to the east of the partially-completed wall were characterized by numerous gouges and other types of excavations which produced abrupt changes in surface contour of the levee face, and several large openings between the vertical pilings which revealed the earthen levee on the opposite side of the structure. The apparent stability of the concrete wall was a dangerous illusion – it merely concealed from view the existence of a 5 – 6 meter wide “gap” between the inner surface of the wall and the destabilized north wall of the earthen levee.

To suggest that a levee in this condition is storm-worthy and capable of withstanding the onslaught of floodwaters produced by major tropical storms and hurricanes is ludicrous. Tropical storms and hurricanes are typically associated with high winds and torrential rainfall, which generally result in deep water and strong water currents within floodways. Any engineer or hydrologist worthy of the name should recognize that strong water currents developing in this manner will almost certainly obliterate any type of obstruction (earthen or otherwise) causing abrupt changes in surface contour of levee faces.

Moreover, a competent engineer should also recognize that the five- to six-meter “gap behind the wall” provides a means to generate very powerful water currents if any type of breach were to occur in the levee behind the concrete wall, e.g., as a result of overtopping. This is a simple matter of physical principles and hydrology – if a breach in this area should occur, floodwaters under tremendous pressure will tend to flow along the “path of least resistance,” i.e., they will flow through the breach until the system stabilizes as floodwaters subside.

Levee / border wall construction in Granjeno, TX 11/27/08

Since the concrete wall is impermeable to water, it will force floodwaters to enter a restricted channel (i.e., the gap in question) and to flow with increased velocity toward the breach in a direction parallel to the face of the destabilized earthen levee. As water flows through the breach, hydraulic action (erosion caused by moving water) will tend to widen the breach, which in turn will allow more water to enter the restricted channel (gap) which in turn will tend to increase the velocity of water flowing through the channel.

This dangerous situation could be greatly exacerbated if water enters the restricted channel from both ends – this would force strong water currents flowing in opposite directions to converge at the site of the breach, which in turn would tend to generate extremely strong eddies with erosion capabilities far greater than either current alone. In short order, the combined effects of such erosion would very probably obliterate most or all of the “improved” levee system – along with the city of Granjeno and any of its inhabitants unfortunate enough to be “caught in the aquatic crossfire.” In all fairness to “Anonymous,” most or all of the concerns expressed in my original article (and this one) would be irrelevant if the “planners” and “managers” of the Border Wall project had simply initiated construction during a time of year in which tropical storms and hurricanes do not normally pose a threat to south Texas (i.e., during the period extending from late-fall through late-spring). They did precisely the opposite – the construction project at Granjeno was initiated on July 27, two days after the landfall of Hurricane Dolly at Port Isabel and South Padre Island , and while Dolly’s floodwaters were still rising in many areas of Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. Construction at three additional sites in Hidalgo County – southeast of Alamo, south of Donna and north of Progreso - were initiated shortly thereafter.

Despite repeated advisories from NOAA that water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico were highly conducive to the development of tropical storms and hurricanes, Border Wall construction proceeded at a feverish pace without interruption during the peak of the 2008 hurricane season – August and September. During the second week of September, when Hurricane Ike was on an apparent “collision course” with south Texas, one of our local officials stated somewhat arrogantly that construction of the Border Wall (referred to as “levee repairs”) might be “halted temporarily” if Hurricane Ike headed our way. As it turned out, no such delay occurred – during the latter half of the week, Hurricane Ike began to veer northward and made landfall at Galveston on Sept. 13.

Levee / border wall construction behind homes in Granjeno, TX August 1, 2008

It is important for the reader to note that officials of the Department of Homeland Security, our local county officials and their construction contractors made no apparent preparations at Granjeno and three other construction sites in Hidalgo County for the possible landfall of Hurricane Ike along the south Texas coast. On Sept. 13, the day in which Ike was devastating much of southeast Texas and western Louisiana with massive flooding, construction of the Border Wall at Granjeno and three other sites in Hidalgo County was in high gear, with fleets of cranes, backhoes and other heavy equipment gnawing away at our flood-control levees like huge metallic termites.

Lack of money finally accomplished what hurricanes, or the threat thereof, could not. On Sept. 11, the day on which Hurricane Ike began to veer northward towards Galveston, the managers of the Border Wall project announced they were running out of money and needed an additional $400 million to continue. One prominent local official lamented the prospect that the Border Wall might not be completed by the arbitrary Dec. 31 deadline stipulated by Congress, but nevertheless indicated that “… we are moving forward … we are still trying to meet that deadline…” In another article published on the same day, the significance of the term “that deadline” became clear and confirmed what most people here already suspected or knew – i.e., that the DHS, our local officials and their contractors had been working overtime in order to complete their project before the George Bush administration expires in January, 2009. Incredibly, the $400 million request to continue Border Wall construction was approved by the Congress without fanfare or opposition.

The determination by DHS and our county officials to meet “Bush’s deadline” at essentially any cost and/or risk was presumably based on the erroneous logic that if funding for legitimate levee repairs and upgrades is not obtained now (under the Bush administration), it will be very difficult or impossible to obtain in the future (under a new presidential administration). This urgency is somewhat understandable considering the recent findings by FEMA that many areas of the LRGV levee system are not in compliance with federal standards, and will not be recertified unless they are upgraded and brought into compliance with FEMA standards within a period of one year (an additional one-year extension was recently granted).

Regardless of what their motives may have been, however, the decision by DHS and our local officials to initiate Border Wall construction in the Lower Rio Grande Valley during middle of the 2008 hurricane season, and their failure to make adequate preparations for the possible landfall of dangerous storms such as Hurricane Ike (which at one time seemed imminent) is inexcusable and placed the properties and lives of hundreds and possibly thousands of our citizens at considerable risk. We were very fortunate that Hurricane Dolly made landfall before Border Wall construction began in earnest at Granjeno and the other three sites, and that Hurricane Ike veered northward two days before its destructive landfall at Galveston. Had Hurricane Ike maintained its westward course and impacted the LRGV region while large sections of our flood-control system were under major construction, this story would not have ended happily (for us, at least). We cannot afford to allow this to happen again – ever!

Within the next six weeks, the George Bush administration will be history and Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. If our country reenters a period of normalcy and rational thinking, the “Great Texas Border Wall” will hopefully be committed to its rightful place in the “Historical Trashcan of Bad Ideas.” Given our staggering federal deficit – which has increased substantially following the recent $750 billion bailout of the U. S. financial industry – it is very unlikely that the federal government will continue to pour millions (or billions) of dollars into a concrete structure that has become symbolic of tyranny and is despised almost universally by residents along the U.S.–Mexico border.

Levee / border wall construction in the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 11/27/08

Termination of the Border Wall concept would place great pressure on the U.S. Congress to develop real solutions to the problem of illegal immigration (instead of expensive and dangerous concrete placebos) and would allow available funds - including the $400 million “bailout package” for the ailing Border Wall project – to be used much more effectively for repair and upgrades of the Lower Rio Grande Valley levee system and bring it into compliance with FEMA standards for the first time in many years. Of all the options available to us right now, this comes closest to being a true “win–win” situation, and is the only one which will really protect us from disastrous flooding if and when we are impacted by some future storm similar to Hurricane Ike.

As American citizens, we have every right to expect and demand that any government programs implemented in our region be conducted in a manner that is compatible with our culture and environment, and does not unduly jeopardize our economy, our properties and/or our lives.

We were deprived of these basic rights during 2008 because of two federal laws – the Secure Fence Act and the Real ID Act - which were enacted by the U. S. Congress during a period of national hysteria, fear and intolerance. Collectively, these two laws allowed federal, state and local officials involved in the Border Wall project to conduct their business in a reckless and dangerous manner, and deprived the nearly two million American citizens in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of their legal rights to challenge construction of the Border Wall on any virtually any grounds, including public safety issues.

What happened in south Texas during 2008 is a prime example of what happens when too few people are given too much power without an adequate system of checks and balances. In order to ensure that this never happens again, it is imperative that all residents of our border regions with Mexico (and hopefully, all Americans in general) demand that our elected congressional representatives either amend or repeal both of these dangerous laws at the earliest opportunity. The next congressional session would be none too soon.

K. Rod Summy is an associate professor of entomology. He lives in Weslaco, Texas.
This article first appeared in the Rio Grande Guardian.

Texas Politicians Ignoring the Danger that the Border Wall Poses to South Texas' Levees

An Open Letter to Texas Politicians:

During the past year, many of us have submitted letters to our elected representatives expressing our concerns regarding the manner in which the Border Wall or Fence is being constructed in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV). Most of our letters of concern have gone unanswered although we have received a few vague responses which appear to be standard form letters which have little or no relevance to the concerns we expressed. This indicates to us that our letters are not getting past your staffers, so we are expressing these concerns again by way of this Open Letter to Texas Politicians, which includes all of our Senators and Representatives in the U. S. Congress, the Governor of Texas, and our local County officials involved in the Border Wall project.

One of the primary concerns expressed in our previous letters relates to the fact that construction of the Border Wall in Hidalgo County was originally scheduled to begin on 25 July 2008 – a date which lies in the middle of our annual hurricane season. Less than one week after letters requesting a congressional investigation or reevaluation of the Border Wall project in south Texas were sent to Mr. Richard Stana of the Government Accountability Office in Washington (with copies to both Texas Senators), the LRGV region was impacted by Hurricane Dolly, a category 2 storm which made landfall on 23 July and caused extensive flooding in most of Cameron County and within large areas of central Hidalgo County. Approximately two days after the landfall of Hurricane Dolly, and while Dolly’s floodwaters were still rising in most areas of the LRGV region, DHS contractors began excavating the flood-control levees at Granjeno for implantation of the concrete Border Wall. Since that time, additional large-scale construction projects have been initiated along levee systems located east of Santa Ana NWR near Alamo and south of Donna and Weslaco. It does not seem to have dawned on any of the decision-makers in the Border Wall project that we are still in the middle of our annual hurricane season, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact that NOAA has warned that 2008 will probably be an unusually active hurricane season.

To appreciate why we are so concerned about this situation, please note the images of the flood-control levees at Granjeno (located four miles south of Mission) which were acquired on 1 September 2008 – the same day that Hurricane Gustav made landfall on the Louisiana coast. The first two images were taken from the back yard of a local resident and show the north face of a levee under construction – notice how loose and friable the soil on this side of the levee appears to be, which suggests that it has been destabilized to a considerable extent as a result of construction activities.

North face of flood-control levee at Granjeno, Texas – 1 September 2008.

When this same section of the Granjeno levee system is viewed from the floodway located to the south, several disturbing observations are evident. First, the extent of Border Wall construction which has occurred in this area during the past six weeks – i.e., since 27 July - is substantial, although the concrete Border Wall itself appears to be far from complete (upper). More importantly, a huge gap exists between the concrete Border Wall and the south face of the original (now excavated) levee which shows the same evidence of destabilization (loose and friable texture) as the north side discussed previously (lower). After viewing these images, try to visualize how a “flood-control” levee in this destabilized condition might perform if we are impacted by another hurricane this year and areas such Granjeno are subjected to torrential rainfall and the floodway to the south becomes submerged in deep water exhibiting strong currents and eddies. By doing so, you will probably begin to understand why we are so concerned about this situation and why we are making so much noise about it.

South Side of the Granjeno levees – 1 September 2008.

In a meeting held in Edinburg during early-June of this year, our local Hidalgo County officials assured us that construction of the Border Wall will not destabilize our flood-control levees in any manner - they even stated that levees under construction would be checked and certified as being stable (at least 15 of our members were present at this meeting and can verify that these statements were made). Ladies and Gentlemen – Senators, Representatives, Governor, and Locals - it does not take a rocket scientist or a hydrologist or a civil engineer to figure out that the “flood-control” levees shown in the above images are in a highly destabilized condition as a result of Border Wall construction and will probably not hold up to runoff produced by a heavy afternoon thundershower, much less to floodwaters produced by a major tropical storm or hurricane. This is a very dangerous situation – we have already been impacted by one hurricane this season and recent NOAA satellite images of the Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico resemble an “assembly line” of tropical storms and hurricanes, any one of which could head our way. If this occurs, we will have a week at most to prepare for it, and we see no way that destabilized “Humpty-Dumpty” levees such as those that now occur at Granjeno and other areas can be “put back together again” in time to avert major flooding.

In all of our previous correspondence, we have simply asked that one or more of our elected public officials take the initiative to address this problem before a genuine disaster occurs here. The solution to this problem is simple – use your influence and power or introduce legislation to postpone any further construction of the Border Wall in the LRGV region until the 2008 hurricane season ends in November. If this is not done, we are facing the distinct possibility of having 30+ miles of our flood-control levees in Hidalgo County disrupted to the extent of those at Granjeno during the most dangerous time of the year (the hurricane season peaks during mid-September). And while you are at it, you might want to assess the ramifications of the recent decision by DHS officials to construct a traditional metal Border Fence (in lieu of a concrete Border Wall) in neighboring Cameron County in order to reduce costs. What everyone involved had better be aware of is that the metal Border Fence has caused at least three major floods this year in cities located in Arizona and/or adjacent areas of Mexico - e.g., the failure of runoff from a 2-inch rain to flow under the Border Fence in Nogales, Arizona resulted in floodwaters up to 8 feet deep in neighboring Nogales, Mexico during July, 2008. If DHS mandates the construction of the less-expensive fence in Cameron County, then it is essentially mandating the construction of a structure known to be dangerous through an entire Texas county without the approval of local citizens. If things go wrong, and a lot of property is damaged and/or lives are lost because of this structure, the U. S. government will face a public relations meltdown and the local officials and contractors who constructed the fence will very probably spend their retirement years in poverty and possibly in jail.

We support efforts to secure the international border with Mexico, but we also expect and demand that government programs in our area be conducted in a manner that does not place our homes and lives at undue risk.

Thank you.

K. Rod Summy, Ph.D.
Resident and Concerned Citizen
Weslaco, Texas

Hurricanes and Border Walls Don’t Mix

The Texas Border Coalition, which describes itself as a collective voice of border mayors, county judges, and economic development commissions along Texas' border with Mexico, released the following statement regarding the border wall in South Texas:

EAGLE PASS, Texas – (July 25, 2008) – As South Texans continue to repair roofs, roads and lives damaged by Hurricane Dolly, the chairman of the Texas Border Coalition (TBC) repeated his protest today that hurricanes and the border wall don’t mix.

TBC Chairman and Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster objected to a new plan by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to build 14 miles of movable wall in the U.S.-Mexico border floodplain that would have to be torn down within 24 hours of the next hurricane or other flood event.

“Hurricane season is not over with the downgrading of Dolly,” Foster said. “Not only does DHS plan to continue its piecemeal approach to protecting the lives of South Texans, now they plan a total absurdity: a movable wall.”

“If a movable wall were in place today, over 1,000 workers would be needed to tear it down within 24 hours, load it on to hundreds of trucks to take it north,” said Foster. “They would be doing so instead of battening down their homes for the storm or evacuating their families from its wrath.”

According to the latest information available about the movable wall, it would be constructed of steel bollards 18 feet above ground, filled to the 10-foot level with concrete. By TBC’s back-of-the-envelope estimations, the 14-mile movable wall would be made of nearly 90,000 steel bollards, each weighing about 1,700 pounds.

To achieve its goal of removing the wall, the DHS would have to haul away 151 million pounds of unwieldy pipe filled with concrete. Who will move it and with what equipment is unclear.

“The people of the Rio Grande Valley, having just experienced the rapid emergency work necessary to protect the people in advance of a hurricane, know that DHS’ movable wall is simply ridiculous,” Foster said.

“It is an outrage that that DHS is so arrogant, out of control and headstrong to build a wall that even Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff admits won’t work – that illegal crossers will go around, over, through and under it,” Foster said. “In doing so, they are wasting $50 billion of the taxpayers’ money for a wall that everyone knows won’t work.”

Foster added, “This is the result of Secretary Chertoff’s waiver of 34 laws to build the wall. By repealing these laws, DHS has avoided scrutiny from the public and government agencies, essentially voiding our system of checks and balances. It would have made more sense, and saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, if DHS had simply consulted with border residents and border officials first. We certainly would not have suggested a 151-million-pound movable wall.”

The Texas wall is being built more than 1 mile from the border, trapping workers, families, farmers, ranchers, and retirees on the Mexican side. The wall will cede thousands of acres of U.S. land to Mexico and endanger the lives of people when they need assistance from emergency or law enforcement personnel who won’t be able to reach them.

“Illegal border crossing won’t be controlled until the U.S. has a well-run immigration system that expands avenues for legal workers and cracks down on illegal hiring,” Foster said.

When immigration is reformed, the U.S. won’t need a border wall, although the nation will continue to require beefed up Border Patrol and Customs forces to halt illegal drug smuggling. The border wall will be torn down, he added.

“We thank goodness that Hurricane Dolly jogged north of the Rio Grande river just before hitting Texas. As my friends and neighbors give thanks for being spared from what could have been the worst catastrophe of their lives, Congress and President Bush should stop the construction of an absurd movable border wall that they’ll have to tear down,” Foster said.

# # #

The Texas Border Coalition (TBC) is a collective voice of border mayors, county judges, economic development commissions focused on issues that affect more than 6 million people along the Texas-Mexico border region and economically disadvantaged counties from El Paso to Brownsville. TBC is working closely with the state and federal government to educate, advocate, and secure funding for transportation, immigration and ports of entry, workforce and education and health care. For more information, visit the coalition Web site at www.texasbordercoaltion.org.

Building border walls during hurricane season is dangerous

By K. Rod Summy

Most of us who live here in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of Texas were very relieved when the Secretary of Homeland Security recently thwarted a potentially dangerous proposal by the Border Patrol to check the immigration status of all persons leaving this area in the event of an emergency evacuation.

This idea may have sounded good on paper, but it would have very probably placed a lot of people in harm’s way if it were ever implemented during an evacuation. We applaud Mr. Chertoff for recognizing this danger and for making it clear to all that “…the safety of American citizens is and will remain a top priority of the Department of Homeland Security.”

There is another DHS plan in progress which also sounds good on paper, but is probably more dangerous and potentially destructive than the one mentioned previously. The mandate to begin construction on the border wall in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties in the very near future and to finish it by year’s end essentially guarantees that much or all of our flood-control levee system will be under construction during the height of the 2008 hurricane season, which extends from early-June through mid-October.

The potential danger of this plan should be obvious – the LRGV region is located within a major hurricane zone and, during an average year, our probability of experiencing a major tropical storm or hurricane is about 1 in 7 (14%). Although the majority of these storms develop during the late-summer and early-fall period, some of the most destructive hurricanes on record have made landfall on the Texas coast as early as June – e.g., Hurricane Alice during June, 1954 and Hurricane Audrey during June, 1957.

In addition to their highly unpredictable pathways and awesome destructive power, one of the major concerns relating to hurricanes involves the rapidity at which these storms may develop, intensify and move across the Gulf of Mexico. For example, the recent storm which ravaged much of the Gulf Coast area and essentially destroyed the city of New Orleans, Louisiana (Hurricane Katrina) developed as a tropical depression near the Bahamas on August 23, 2005, strengthened into a tropical storm the following day, intensified to a Category 1 hurricane by August 25 (winds greater than 74 mph), further intensified to Category 5 status by August 28 (winds greater than 155 mph), and made landfall as a Category 4 hurricane (winds of 140-150 mph) near Grande Isle, LA, on August 29 – a total of 6 days between the time the storm formed and the date of landfall on the Louisiana coast.

What this means in practical terms is that if a major hurricane destined to hit the Rio Grande Valley develops this year over the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico, we will have about a week or less to prepare for it. While this short time interval is probably sufficient to organize an orderly evacuation of human residents, it almost certainly does not provide sufficient time to “batten down the hatches” of any flood-control levees under construction at the time a hurricane warning is issued.

If a major hurricane associated with torrential rains does indeed impact the Rio Grande Valley region this year, our levee system will have to withstand water currents capable of washing out dams, knocking down bridges and uprooting large trees. Therefore, we need to be very cautious in believing any claims by DHS or their contractors and engineers that initiating major levee construction projects at the beginning of our current hurricane season is okay and will pose no problems.

If we are impacted by a major hurricane and our levee system holds (including those areas under construction), then the experts will indeed be correct and the story will end happily. On the other hand, if they are wrong and the levee system fails, the Rio Grande Valley will very probably be subjected to massive flooding and we may well find ourselves living in the midst of drowned and ruined cities similar to those that are now commonplace in Louisiana and other areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina three years ago.

The flood-control levee system of the Rio Grande Valley is our primary defense against such a disaster, and allowing anyone tamper with it during the annual hurricane season is tantamount to giving them a pair of dice and allowing them to play a game of “craps” with our lives and property as the stakes.

The obvious solution to this problem is simply to postpone construction of the border wall project until the 2008 hurricane season ends during mid-October, or to limit construction during the hurricane season per se to levee improvements in areas in dire need of repair.

This common-sense approach might be somewhat inconvenient as it would require extending the completion deadline by a period of several months, although this delay would probably be in the best interests of everyone involved as it would allow sufficient time for DHS contractors do the job right and to avoid the tendency by some to view work on our critical levee system as a “rush job,” which we cannot afford under any circumstance.

The legal precedent for such an extension already exists – the DHS Secretary waived 37 Federal laws in order to expedite construction of the border wall in Texas, and a simple waiver that would delay construction until a safer time of year would not only be perfectly legal, but would also reinforce Mr. Chertoff’s previous commitment that “… the safety of American citizens is and will remain a top priority of the Department of Homeland Security.”

K. Rod Summy is an associate professor of entomology. He lives in Weslaco, Texas.

We Call for a Moratorium on Border Wall Construction

The No Border Wall Coalition announced today that they are joining together with other organizations across the country in a call for a moratorium on the construction of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border. The groups claim that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) border wall project is politically motivated, that it will have no impact on immigration or smuggling, and will do nothing to protect the U.S. from terrorism. Yet the wall could have devastating consequences for the environment, the economy, and the communities of the border region.

The call for a moratorium comes on the eve of the primary elections in Texas, where there is vehement opposition to the border wall along the Rio Grande, the river that divides the U.S. and Mexico for 1,254 miles. The groups say that the moratorium was prompted in part by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s admission that no potential terrorists had ever been apprehended on the southern border. He told the New York Daily News last month, “I don't see any imminent threat" of terrorists infiltrating from Mexico. (“Michael Chertoff’s Deepest Fears: Terrorists Entering U.S. from Canada,” February 10, 2008)

The groups note, however, that DHS has frequently referred to the imminent threat of “terrorists and terrorist weapons” crossing the southern border in order to justify the breakneck speed of border wall construction. Indeed, DHS has fast-tracked the border wall project and expects to complete 370 miles of walls along the border by December of this year. The groups assert that the deadline of December 2008 is an arbitrary date timed to coincide with the last month of the Bush Administration’s period in office. This deadline, coupled with pressure from far right-wing pundits and politicians, has resulted in what the groups call “a mad rush to build the wall” without regard to any coherent operational strategy.

Citing the Border Patrol’s own statistics, they note that illegal crossing of the southern border has decreased significantly between 2006 and 2007, including a 34% decrease in the Rio Grande Valley Sector and a 46% decrease in the Del Rio Sector. Both Texas sectors are slated to get walls despite this decrease and in spite of intense local opposition. By contrast, the heavily fortified San Diego Sector, where a triple-layer wall divides the border, saw a 7% increase in illegal crossing, suggesting that walls are not a meaningful deterrent for undocumented crossers. Indeed, a June 2007 Congressional Research Service report concluded that the walls in San Diego had “no discernible impact” on the number of people entering the U.S. illegally (“Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border,” updated June 5, 2007). Border Patrol has also stated repeatedly that a wall only slows crossers down by a few minutes, rather than stopping them.

The groups are also calling for an immediate suspension and repeal of section 102 of the Real ID Act of 2005, which gives Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff the power to waive all laws in order to build the border wall without regard to the negative consequences it will have in the border region. The groups say that such power concentrated in the hands of an unelected official makes a mockery of Democratic processes and places border residents under an undue burden, denying them the same legal protections afforded the rest of America. Secretary Chertoff has invoked this unprecedented power three times in order to build walls in California and Arizona, waiving a host of laws in their entirety, including the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Texas border resident Scott Nicol said of Chertoff’s waivers, “The only reason to waive the laws is because you intend to break them.”

The Real ID Act also denies individuals and organizations the right to sue DHS for the damages the border wall will cause, limiting lawsuits only to those based on constitutional grounds. Thus, Chertoff can use the waiver provision as a trump card in the face of almost any legal challenge. The groups claim that this has had a chilling effect on those individuals and entities that have a legitimate case against DHS and has permitted the agency to disregard public safety, environmental protection, and humanitarian concerns whether or not a waiver is formally invoked.

In the hurricane-prone Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, the border wall is planned to be constructed on or near the flood control levees that line the bank of the Rio Grande. A levee-wall is also planned for Presidio, Texas in Big Bend. Yet, there have been no studies published that describe what impact the proposed wall would have on flooding or on the integrity of the levee system.

The desertlands of Arizona and the neighboring Mexican state of Sonora are home to the federally endangered Sonoran pronghorn, which must travel great distances back and forth across the border in search of water and forage. In recent years, they have bounced back from the brink of extinction thanks to a federal recovery program. Though miles of wall cutting across their range could have grave consequences for their survival, the wall is going up in Arizona with little analysis of these consequences.

DHS has continued to operate under the false assumption that the harsh conditions of the desert are a deterrent for people seeking entry into the U.S. As DHS build walls in populated areas, desperation drives more people into remote desert areas where they are more likely to die from dehydration and exposure. The General Accounting Office found that as walls have gone up, the number of people who have died attempting to enter the U.S. doubled between 1995 and 2005 (“Border-Crossing Deaths Have Doubled Since 1995,” August 2006). This is an ongoing humanitarian crisis that requires an immediate solution.

The groups note that the border wall is meant to be a permanent structure that will therefore have permanent consequences, and assert that it is irresponsible to erect the wall without full knowledge of what those consequences will be. DHS is pushing ahead with a timeline that is based solely on election year politics. DHS’s blind rush to draw lines on a map, heedless of the consequences on the ground, makes a moratorium on border wall construction imperative. The groups call upon Congress to take the time to evaluate the serious costs of the border wall and to determine whether it is in fact the best way to address the complex issues of immigration and national security.

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.