Members of Congress Urged to Support the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act

The No Border Wall Coalition has signed on to the following letter urging members of the U.S. House of Representatives to support H.R. 2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act. Signers include the Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Earthjustice, and a host of other organizations. While H.R. 2593 does not repeal the Secure Fence Act, it does repeal section 102 of the Real ID Act. This is the law that states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.” It gives Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff the unchecked power to ignore the laws of our nation, and to waive those laws when homeowners, landowners, and environmentalists try to force DHS to obey them.

Dear Representative:

We urge you to cosponsor H.R. 2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act. The
legislation amends existing border security laws which hinder strategic border security efforts and needlessly ignore environmental impacts and local communities.

The status quo mandates a weak border security mechanism and limits the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS): Currently, the Secure Fence Act requires DHS to construct a wall along non-continuous sections of the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Past experiences clearly show, border walls do not stop undocumented immigrants and drug smugglers. They just go around, climb over or dig under the wall. In addition, a rigidly mandated, one-size-fits-all border wall is inefficient and is an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. Border security can and should be more strategic. H.R. 2593 would provide experts at DHS the ability to decide whether fences, vehicle barriers, or virtual fences would be most effective way to secure the border.

The status quo results in uninformed construction to the detriment of wildlife, citizens and border security: At present, section 102(c) of the Real ID Act grants the DHS Secretary broad and unparalleled authority to waive any and all federal, state and local laws when constructing barriers along the U.S. Border. As a result important considerations, such as blocking vital cross-border wildlife movement, are dismissed in the rush to waive laws and push forward with construction. Citizens, border security experts and land management agencies are all but cut out of the border security decisions. Citizens are denied the right to establish how border walls may devastate local economies dependant on ecotourism, legal international trade and good relations. Indeed, in the most recent waiver case in San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, citizens were denied the right to participate or inform the decision at all. HR. 2593 would give land management agencies, Native American tribes, and local communities a voice in border construction and decisionmaking.

The status quo threatens the nation’s commitment to the rule of law: DHS has invoked the Real ID Act waiver three times, waiving more laws with each successive use. Recently, in response to a court determination that DHS border wall construction violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Secretary waived not just NEPA but eighteen other laws as well, each of which was passed by Congress to protect public health, imperiled wildlife, or to guarantee citizens the right and a process to address arbitrary and capricious decisions of their government. And yet, each was waived without congressional oversight, a means of recourse for the public impacted, or any explanation. A notice was filed in the Federal Register and automatically nineteen laws were dismissed. Authorizing DHS to ignore all laws is no way to signal that the rule of law is to be respected. The president does not have the authority to waive laws at will, neither should an unelected official. We need an urgent and strategic solution to border security, not a reckless one which threatens the rule of law. H.R. 2593 would require compliance with laws meant to protect the air, water, wildlife, culture, and the health and safety of people in borderland communities.

We all support national security, and we can have intelligent security without harm to our precious borderlands, wildlife, and border communities. Again, we strongly urge you to Cosponsor H.R. 2593, and support its passage by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Homeland Security is suing landowners to build the border wall

Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid issued the following press release:

WESLACO, Texas – Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA), the leading provider of legal aid in Texas, is making itself available to border landowners facing lawsuits from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for access to their land to build a wall along the Texas-Mexico border.
The lawsuits come after DHS requested access to landowners’ property to plan the location of a wall along the United States – Mexico border. Approximately 600 landowners received requests and an estimated 70 Texas landowners who refused to comply are expected to be sued by Homeland Security as a result.

DHS’s first lawsuit was filed against the City of Eagle Pass on Monday. That same day United States District Judge Alia M. Ludlum ruled on the matter and ordered Eagle Pass to allow government surveyors to access 233 acres of city land for 180 days. In exchange, the federal government paid $100. The orders came without any opportunity for the City of Eagle Pass to voice an objection.

According to TRLA attorney Rebecca Webber, “The fact that the Department of Homeland Security would resort to these fly-by-night tactics in Eagle Pass signals that a tough legal battle lies ahead. We’re preparing for it.”

Border landowners throughout Texas have been anticipating the federal government’s actions for several months. Members of GLOW (Granjeno Landowners Opposed to the Wall) have spent the last two weeks waiting for any sign that the government will be taking legal action against them.

“Many of these landowners are afraid that the government is going to take away land that has been in their families for hundreds of years. They may not have much, but they’re willing to fight to keep it,” added Webber. “For many of them, the anxiety of not knowing what is going to happen has been stressful enough.”

TRLA has partnered with the South Texas Civil Rights Project to provide free legal services to landowners needing representation, regardless of their income level. The groups are available to make referrals to private attorneys, provide general legal advice, and represent landowners in government lawsuits.

“Texas RioGrande Legal Aid is available to provide free legal advice at every step of this process,” added Executive Director David Hall. “If landowners don’t want the wall built on their land or want to make sure that they get the best possible price for their property, we can help.”
TRLA encourages landowners needing legal assistance regarding the border wall to call 1-866-757-1570.

Established in 1970, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. (TRLA) is a nonprofit organization that provides free civil legal services to low-income and disadvantaged clients in a 68-county service area. TRLA’s mission is to promote the dignity, self-sufficiency, safety and stability of low-income Texas residents by providing high-quality civil legal assistance and related educational services.

Contact:
Rebecca Webber, Attorney
956.447.4844 rwebber@trla.org

Cynthia Martinez, Communications Director
512.374.2764 cmartinez@trla.org

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.

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 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.

Border Walls Will Not Protect Texas From Terrorists

On the first page of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 70 miles of border wall that are scheduled to be built in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley in the spring, it states, “The mission of CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel.” (ES-1) Building the wall will allegedly aid them in this narrow goal by, “preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States.” (ES-2) The phrase “terrorists and terrorist weapons” is used over and over, showing up more frequently than references to drug-smuggling or undocumented immigrants. The pre-9/11 functions of the Border Patrol seem to have faded into the background, despite the fact that no terrorists or terrorist weapons have ever come across our southern border.

The assertion that the border wall will make our nation safer is absurd. While the Draft EIS makes grand claims for the efficacy of the border wall, spokespersons for DHS and the Border Patrol describe it much more modestly. Del Rio, Texas, Border Patrol Chief Randy Hill said, “We're going to see steel barriers erected on the borders where U.S. and Mexican cities adjoin. These will slow down illegal crossers by minutes.” Not “prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States,” or prevent anyone or anything else from entering the United States, but “slow down illegal crossers by minutes.” Rather than preventing the next 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security is building a $46 billion dollar speed bump.

If a border wall had stretched from sea to shining sea before September 11, 2001, it would have made no difference to the terrorists. None of the hijackers came into the United States across a land border. Instead, according to the 9/11 Commission, the 19 hijackers applied for and received visas which allowed them to enter and reenter the U.S. 33 times. Each time they came in through an airport, not by land. Only one terrorist is known to have tried to come into our nation by crossing a land border. He was the Millenium Bomber, caught trying to bring explosives across the Canadian border. To reach the nearest border wall, just south of San Diego on the U.S.-Mexico border, he would have needed to drive another 1,257 miles.

The Draft EIS for “Tactical Infrastructure” in the Rio Grande Valley also includes a “No Action” alternative, but dismisses it with the statement, “The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP mission or operational needs.” (ES-2) There is no further explanation as to why it would not meet these needs. This is striking because if one were to look objectively at the facts, it would appear that the needs of the stated USBP mission are currently being met without border walls. No terrorists or terrorist weapons have come across the border in the Rio Grande Valley. More strikingly, the number of illegal crossers apprehended by the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley dropped by 34% in 2007, bringing apprehensions in the area to a 15 year low.

Rather than analyze the Rio Grande Valley’s success, the Department of Homeland Security is poised to impose upon it a border wall that will cost billions and necessitate “the demolition of buildings and structures within the proposed project corridor” (4.11.38) and “the loss of approximately 150 acres of potential ocelot and jaguarundi habitat” (5.8.15), but will not stop border crossers. Despite the Draft EIS's repeated mantra of “prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons”, Chertoff is building the wall to placate xenophobic politicians like Hunter and Tancredo, not to help the Border Patrol do its job. Railing against immigrants and trumpeting the border wall helps them cling to dreams of reaching the White House because no one listens to anything else that they say. They know that the border wall will not protect Texas or the United States from terrorists; it is a politician's prop that only provides a false sense of security.

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.