Reprint from the Progress Times - October 5, 2007
©Progress Times 2007 - All Rights Reserved

Mission border fence draws fire from mayors

 

Three sections of the proposed border fence will directly impact Mission-area residents and landowners. Maps and documents released just over a week ago by U.S. Customs and Border Protection show portions of the fence are planned at the Los Ebanos Port of Entry (1.86 miles), from Penitas to Abram (4.35 miles) and at the proposed Anzalduas Port of Entry (1.73 miles).

The Rio Grande Valley Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol is slated to construct 70 miles of border fence starting in the spring of 2008. The fence will be constructed in 21 segments strategically placed along the Rio Grande River in the vicinity of Rio Grande City, Mission, McAllen, Mercedes and Brownsville. Individual segments will be from one mile to 13 miles in length; the longest section of fence will be constructed in Brownsville.

Much of the fence will follow the existing IBWC levee, leaving parcels of private and public lands fenced off, restricting access to those properties. Some portions will be built on privately-owned land as well as on portions of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Texas state parks.

The proposal calls for construction of "tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian fences, supporting patrol roads, lights and other infrastructure." Approximately 60 feet of property will be used along each section to construct the fence and unpaved road.

The final design is to be developed by a design/build contractor with oversight by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The design criteria require that the fence must be, at a minimum, 16 feet high, capable of withstanding a crash of a 10,000-pound vehicle traveling at 40 mph, capable of withstanding vandalism, cutting or penetrating, designed to survive extreme climate changes, able to reduce any minimal impacts on small animal movements, not impede the natural flow of water, and aesthetically pleasing.

Advance teams have already begun contacting landowners in the Mission area to gain access to private lands affected.

Mission and neighboring cities’ mayors voiced strong opposition to the proposed fence. Mission Mayor Beto Salinas didn’t mince words.

"I’m completely against the fence," said Mission Mayor Beto Salinas. "I don’t agree with the idea. We need more manpower not physical barriers. I have no problem with a fence being built in New Mexico or Arizona where there is no river," continued Salinas. "We do not need a fence in Texas because we have a river."

Salinas said that while he did not agree with people who crossed the river illegally, he felt the message that was being sent to Mexico was a bad one. The residents of the cities across the border come to Mission to shop, which contributes to the healthy border economy.

"The fence just sends a wrong message to our friends across the border. We (the mayors and public officials) will just have to work harder to have good relations with our neighbors. We have to let them know that the fence was not our idea but there is nothing we can do about it," said Salinas

"No, no, no!" shouted Granjeno Major Alberto Magallan, when asked whether residents of his community favored the fence. "We are completely against it and feel it is discriminating against our city."

Magallan went on to say that Granjeno would be destroyed by the fence. A small hamlet with a population of about 400 people, which borders south Shary Road as it curves into F.M. 107, the city has only one other street, Camino Real. The street backs up to the levee where the fence is proposed to be built.

"Those men who have been out here doing preliminary work have been telling residents who live on Camino Real that the government is going to buy them out and take their property. They will need 150 feet for the fence. If the government does that, it will displace up to 40 percent of Granjeno’s residents," said Magallan

Servando Ramirez, mayor of Penitas, said residents of Penitas do not want the fence. Many citizens feel that the fence will divide the two countries and cause many problems. They feel there are more important issues the country needs to address than a fence to act as a barrier to Mexico.

Speaking on a more personal note, Ramirez said he owned property that was adjacent to the river. He did not want it divided by a fence. And he did not want to sell it to the government.

He went on to question who would protect him if he went through a gate to enter the rest of his property should the fence make the land along the river become a no man’s land. Residents are being told that gates will be placed at intervals in the fence to allow land owners access to their land between the fence and the river.

Ramirez said that Penitas has many instances of illegal aliens crossing the river. If the fence angers them, Ramirez feared they might try to take revenge.

La Joya Mayor Billy Leo could not be reached for comment.

Dr. Sue Sill, CEO of the NABA International Butterfly Park, which is being developed along the river near the World Birding Center headquarters, is also opposed to the border fence. While the first phase of the fence will miss the park, other phases could possibly include it.

"The fence will hurt the Valley’s environment in so many ways," stated Sill. "It will destroy the ambiance of the Valley as well. Much valuable land will be lost. It will create a barrier that sends the wrong message through government on a social, economic, and cultural level. It will cost millions of taxpayer dollars and not solve the problem because drug dealers will just find another route for their drugs. There has to be another way to solve the problems without construction of a physical barrier."

Another concern for Sill is the possibility that since the NABA park will not be among the first entities to get the fence, there will be more illegal traffic of people and drugs through the park since other more popular routes will be closed.

"Why not wall the whole country?" she asked. "If the border is closed other routes to enter this country will be found."

Another property owner whose property escaped the fencing plans this round is Johnny Hart, owner of the Riverside Club, which is located south of the levee. Hart was not sure how customers would get to his business if the fence were erected.

"The government would probably have to buy all of us out,” he speculated. "In order for the public to access Pepe’s on the River, La Lomita Mission, the Riverside Club and other entities along the river there would almost have to be a Border Patrol station at the entrance to the levee. But it would be too costly to man it 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

Hart also expressed concern about safety if people tried to cross near the businesses where there was no fence.

Wallena Haynes, owner of Chimney Park, said she is relieved that the first round of fencing does not affect them.

She does not feel unsafe because the area is routinely patrolled by the Border Patrol, the military, the city of Mission and observed from the sky by a helicopter. The park has a boat dock that the Border Patrol often uses to put their boats in the water.

"Last week there was even a horse patrol that pulled in and unloaded here to ride the levee," she said. "And we hear the Border Patrol using four-wheelers often."

Brad Bentsen, spokesperson for the Secure Border Initiative in Washington, D.C. said, "Our mission is to secure the border, not just to keep illegal aliens out. It is to stem the illegal drug flow into this country and to stop terrorists from entering the country. If someone comes into this country for legitimate reasons, they do not swim across the river. If someone plans to cross for legitimate business, the government plans to make it as easy as possible."

Bentsen said the government is committed to construction of 225 miles of fence along the Texas border in 2008. Of that 70 miles are planned for the Valley. While there is much opposition to the plan, government workers have authority through a writ of entry to enter private property to look at what was needed and to make their initial report.

Bentsen was asked about the design on the fence. With wildlife refuges, World Birding Centers, state parks and the Wildlife Corridor, what modifications would be made in the fence to allow wildlife access to the river for water?

He said the fence would be from 12 to 16 feet high but the completion of the design was months away. Designers would be looking at how the needs of the wildlife could best be addressed.

Regarding how the fence would affect flood control, Bentsen said in areas where water normally flows during rainfall, a Ballard style fence, which consists of steel poles filled with concrete, will be used. The poles would be too close together for a person to come through, but would allow for the flow of water. The poles would be so strong a truck could not break them down by crashing into them.

On a personal note, Bentsen said that he grew up in San Diego where the area along the border was considered a no man’s land before the fence was built because of the crime. After the fence was built the crime rate dropped dramatically. The area filled with industry and subdivisions because the people felt safe.

"People in California cannot understand why Texans are so opposed to the fence," he said.

Bentsen also said the areas selected for the fence to be built first are areas with urban populations. "If we can keep illegal traffic of drugs and immigration crossings out of populated areas, everyone will be safer.

He concluded by saying that not all areas along the river would be fenced. Remote, hard-to-reach areas would not be fenced. And fences would not be the only tools used. Cameras, radar, ground sensors and other methods would also be employed.

"All of these tools, including the fence, will make it much easier for the Border Patrol to do its job," concluded Bentsen.