Area leaders slam border fence study as public comment period closes

“Orwellian,” “arbitrary and capricious,” “an alarming analytical failure” — the response from the Texas Border Coalition regarding a federal report on the local impact of a proposed border fence does not mince words about the government analysis, calling it “a meaningless farce.”

In a formal public comment submitted to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and written by Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster, the coalition of border mayors and county judges officially calls for the government’s draft environmental impact statement for the project to be thrown out and rewritten.

According to Foster, the statement relies on little or no evidence in dismissing all alternatives to fencing along the Rio Grande — including proposed levee system improvements that would incorporate a security barrier into the design for the upgrades — and in fact makes unsupported claims about the benefits the fencing would confer on South Texas.

The coalition submitted its letter to the federal agency Monday. CBP closed its 45-day public comment period on the draft environmental impact statement later that day.

Environmental concerns resulted in minor changes in the draft document compared to an earlier proposal, but the newer plan still recommends that barriers be built along several stretches of the Rio Grande.

A CBP spokesman did not return messages Wednesday seeking response to the coalition’s letter and information about the number of public comments CBP received regarding the government’s draft document.

When the 538-page draft was first released in November, agency spokesman Barry Morrissey said the process of accepting comments would produce a better decision from the government agencies involved in the border fence project.

“No one’s saying, ‘We’re plopping down (this fence) right here, and there’s nothing you can do about it.’” he said. “We do value input, and that’s what is behind these opportunities to comment.”

It’s not known when a final impact statement or plan for the border fence will be released.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced an aggressive timeline last year to secure the nation’s borders with a plan that calls for putting in place 370 miles of pedestrian fence, 200 miles of vehicle barriers and motion-sensor technology from San Diego to Brownsville by the end of this year.

Key quotes from letter:

> “For those of us that live, work and raise our families along the Texas-Mexico border, we demand and deserve better security proposals than the proposal embodied in the (government’s draft environmental impact statement).”

> “The (National Environmental Policy) Act does not permit the government to sanction an action based on hopes that future studies will justify the government’s actions.”

> “The Proposed Action will further destabilize the levee system and likely endanger the lives of the CBP officers who must patrol it. In contrast to this obvious fact, the DEIS asserts that the impact of the proposed fence on the hydrology or water flow within the Rio Grande Basin is expected to be ‘negligible.’ Â… No substantiation is included.”

> “Ironically, the government’s rejection of the Brownsville Weir alternative as proposed by (the Texas Border Coalition) is based in part on the fact that it would ‘disturb the movements of the jaguarondi and ocelot along the river.’ Â… How is it possible that disturbing the movements of jaguarondi renders the TBC alternative invalid but the same condition justifies the government’s action?”

> “Incredibly Â… the DEIS claims that isolating species from the river and the destruction of their habitat will be a blessing for them.”

> “The DEIS asserts that the project will have effects on ‘community cohesion, property values, and traditional family values (that) would be long-term and beneficial, both nationally and locally.’ As elected officials representing families who have resided in the region for centuries, we protest as absurd any contention that confiscating property and bulldozing homes in any form is beneficial to community cohesion, property values or traditional family values.”