City Council reacts to CBP’s rudimentary drawing and lack of alignment data at CBP’s Jan. 21 “Status of the Fence” presentation

Martinez III: “Do designs include access to the river or troughs or ponds for ranchers to water their livestock?”

Torres: “I was hoping that this presentation was going to be substantive and it was going to answer our questions.”

Vielma: “Evasive; plans are not constructive.”

Dr. M. Martinez: “What we were hoping to hear was something substantial being offered here, not that the federal government was in the preliminary stages.”

Altgelt: “When you come to us to cut our parks in half and to go through our creeks and streams, something other than a jagged blue line on a Google map is required.”

Balli: “Where’s your presentation? Where are the facts?”

The specter of a Border Wall that will truncate City parks and infrastructure, limit ranching and recreational access to the Río Grande, and wreak environmental disaster on the river and its riparian ecosystem inspired the rarity of impassioned consensus at the January 21 City Council meeting.

The like-mindedness was fueled by incredulity at the stick drawing of the proposed Border Wall that U.S. Border Patrol and CBP officials presented to the Council for Agenda Item XIII. 100: Presentation by Border Patrol on Status of the Fence.

After an ordinary narrative by Assistant BP Agent in Charge José Alfredo (Freddie) Castillo for 2019’s operational landscape ­— 72 agent assaults, 80 deaths of “illegal aliens” (undocumented immigrants), 3,000 rescue operations, and 12,000 apprehensions — the sight of an accompanying rudimentary and uninformative, computer-generated drawing changed the temperature in Council chambers.

The drawing offered little on the status of the proposed monolithic wall that will bear vast environmental, cultural, water quality, and historic impacts as its construction rips apart the unstable silt of the river vega and tears through City parks and infrastructure, the riverfront property of a Catholic home for children operated by Servants of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Poor, ranches, and private property.

Chief Castillo was accompanied at the podium by Tim Quillman, chief engineer for tactical infrastructure (TI) for Customs & Border Protection (CBP); and Paul Enriquez, the director of the Border Wall Program Management Office with CBP, who were present, it seems, not so much to inform of the status of the wall as to inform that a plan for the alignment of the wall rested on getting more Rights of Entry, including those for City-owned properties.

According to Enriquez, planning is in its “early stages” for the 70 miles of proposed wall earmarked from the Colombia Solidarity Bridge and south to the Falcon Reservoir in Zapata County. He said 40-percent of riverfront landowners in that stretch have granted Right of Entry to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for site assessment.

Enriquez said the purpose of the ROE was to allow government personnel and contractors into the border wall area so that real estate, metes and bounds, environmental, and design surveys could be conducted.

Engineer Quillman, whose all-business demeanor bore no veneer of interest or concern for a landscape he will irrevocably alter, said that what will be typical for most of Laredo is a barrier of steel bollards, light towers, cameras, roads, and cleared vegetation. He added that plans for downtown “are more of a solid wall, probably concrete “with allowances for aesthetics.” He said the 18-foot wall will be sunk into the river bank.”

BULKHEAD QUESTIONS

District V City Council member Nelly Vielma asked Quillman, “Do you have a rendering for what you are designing for downtown?”

“It is not part of this presentation right now,” Quillman answered.

RIVER ACCESS

District III Council member Mercurio Martinez III asked the engineer if designs included access to the river or troughs or ponds for ranchers to water their livestock, to which Quillman responded, “We are still in the very early planning stages. We have not gotten to that level.”

“Have you thought of that level?” Martinez pressed.

Martinez also asked if there were plans to deal with emergencies on the river side of the wall, such as snakebites or drownings.

Quillman said there would be mechanized gates and stressed once more the importance of getting Right of Entry from landowners so that plans could become better defined.

“Will we be able to use Tres Laredos Park?” Martinez asked.

“Will who be able to use it?” Quillman asked.

GIVE US RIGHT OF ENTRY, THEN WE’LL TALK ABOUT ALIGNMENT

Chief Castillo said the government’s plans would include gates to open to public places like “Dos Laredos Park.” He said, “We are asking for Right of Entry to finalize our alignments. Once we have those alignments, we’ll be better able to answer these questions a little more directly.”

Enriquez returned to the podium. “As we go through the process, and once we have our land surveys completed, we’ll identify the swath of land we need within that particular piece of property of that particular landowner or rancher. We’ll work directly with that rancher … what is it they have concerns with, access to the river, if they have infrastructure they need access to.”

District IV Council member Alberto Torres, weary of repeated references to how early the federal government was in its planning stages for a monolithic wall that will cost $25 million per mile and $3.1 billion for the 120 total miles in Webb and Zapata counties, made an earnest attempt to end the discussion.

Citing his responsibility to the citizenry of Laredo, Torres said, “For me, preliminary stages is not an answer, yet you want us to make the crucial decision tonight of giving you access. I was hoping that this presentation was going to be more substantive and it was going to answer our questions, but hearing of preliminary stages, I’m still in preliminary stages of making a decision tonight. It works both ways. I’m not hearing answers that should guide us as to what to do.”

District VI Council member Dr. Marte Martinez told the USBP and CBP officials that the City had made its position on the border wall “abundantly clear.” He said, “What we were hoping to hear was something substantial being offered here, not that the federal government was in the preliminary stages…We wanted some answers because we think it is critical for the citizens of Laredo to see that. Our responsibility is to do their bidding….This presentation is lacking. Maybe we can invite you back and do it again… I have to have confirmation that you guys are offering something for real…. There’s no way we can do this right now.”

Council member Vielma recalled the City’s negative interaction with the federal government regarding makeshift “tent courts” set up on the riverbanks to hear asylum cases.

Last fall the city offered the government blueprints for a vacant city building and made renovations to the clean structure that had bathrooms and air conditioning, “For one dollar,” Vielma said, “So that people could have a dignified court.” The plan was “cast to the wayside,” and the federal government issued a contract worth tens of millions of dollars as they had intended to do from the get-go for the “tent court.”

She referred to the Border Patrol’s status report on the Border Wall before City Council as “evasive,” adding, “These plans are not constructive. They do not answer our questions.”

District VIII Council member Roberto Balli recounted the City’s longstanding and mutually beneficial relationship with USBP and other federal law enforcement agencies. “Until recently, I would say,” Balli said, reiterating the government’s refusal to accept the offer of a City facility in which to hear asylum cases. He called the “tent courts” an attempt “to just humiliate people.”

“We got the benefit of a presentation privately as Council members. What we asked you is to come to a City Council meeting and bring forward as much information as you have because we had concerns at the time,” Balli said, adding that those concerns were that the wall would cut through City parks and could affect the City’s water and sewage treatment infrastructure.

Balli said he had expected an improvement in the presentation that members of the Council had seen. “We thought we would see something better. Where’s your presentation? Where are the facts? The public is here, the media is here, and you brought nothing. That’s very concerning. We expected more from you,” he said, adding that he expected a presentation that would convince the public that the government’s wall plan was a good one.

Torres weighed in with expediency to move on to other agenda items, referencing the CBP contingent “to not have them stay any longer.”

District VII Council member George Altgelt recounted a recent meeting at his office with USBP “brass” and a representative from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “I asked technical questions about how this structure is going to function in a flood plain. We know fences capture debris, and we know that we as a City when we get the USGS warning scurry down to parks to pull up park benches and all sorts of things so that they don’t impede the flow of water or become destroyed.  To my surprise the Army Corps of Engineers representative was a public relations specialist. He wasn’t an actual engineer or God forbid, a hydrologist.”

 The Council member said he recognized the need for strategic security structures and cited the fence at Laredo College as one “that works to deter illegal foot traffic.”

Altgelt, continued, “When you come to us to cut our parks in half and to go through our creeks and streams, something other than a jagged blue line on a Google map is required, and so very respectfully I would direct you all to — I know you are asking for Rights of Entry, but I think your hydrologist can look at elevations and give a best case scenario for how a strategic security structure would work, or not. But shooting from the hip on such a highly controversial issue on our only source of drinking water, that’s a concern. I think we are all very astute. You’ve got a cop on the Council. You’ve got a student of history. You’ve got ranchers. You’ve got folks who have built fences and walls. And you’ve got lawyers up here that toil away at dismantling government cases all day long. It’s a rough crowd, and you’re going to have to show up with something other than just nothing in your hand.”

Balli challenged the perceived conundrum of the federal government waiving 40+ federal laws to build the border wall — among them the Clean Water Act; the Clean Air Act; the Endangered Species Act; National Preservation Act of 1966; the Antiquities Act; the Natïve American Grave and Repatriation Act; and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the law that requires environmental studies and allows town hall meetings for public input for proposed projects that could adversely affect communities — and the government’s tenet that it will uphold and apply those laws.

“IF YOU’RE ASKING TO WAIVE THE LAW,

IT’S BECAUSE YOU’RE PLANNING TO NOT FOLLOW IT”

“What I’ve heard,” Balli began, “Is ‘we’re going to waive environmental laws, but then we are going to follow those environmental laws.’ The concern is if you’re asking to waive the law, you wouldn’t be violating the law because it’s waived. It’s the law, but basically you’re asking to not follow the law. If you didn’t have that permission, you’d be violating the law, and then you’re asking for us to trust that you would follow the law that you are asking to waive.

“That doesn’t make any sense, because if you’re asking to waive the law, it’s because you’re planning to not follow it. I just don’t understand that logic,” Balli said.

Attorney Enriquez answered Balli.

“What that waiver allows us to achieve is a certain time frame to be able to obligate the funds and execute the project. The intent is still for the agency to continue to meet the intent of the law as best as possible,” Enriquez said.

Balli was relentless in his exchange with the federal attorney.

“I understand that, but it puts a priority on finishing the work even though the work is shoddy and doesn’t follow environmental standards. It could cause flooding and all kinds of problems. You’re wanting to finish fast. When people want to finish fast and not go through all the steps and protocol, the result is usually bad,” he concluded.

Torres made a motion couched thus: “This discussion has lingered. We are going in circles. I would like to make the motion that we reaffirm our previous action to not grant access to any of our land for surveys for anything related to the border wall.”  

The motion passed with Altgelt abstaining.