Proposed border fence could face environmental obstacles
By Alicia A. Caldwell
Associated Press
Oct. 1, 2006
EL PASO — Plans to build a fence along about 700 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico could mean the destruction of costly environmental restoration projects and could cut in to lucrative tourism and cross-border spending in the Rio Grande Valley and elsewhere in South Texas.
Congress approved a homeland security bill Friday that included $1.2 billion for fence construction.
It’s unclear exactly where the two-layer fence could be built. But a House proposal includes plans for a barrier in El Paso, a nearly 60-mile stretch of fence between Del Rio and Eagle Pass and a final section along more than 220 miles of border between Laredo and Brownsville.
Republicans in Congress, including Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, hailed the plan as “a giant step” in controlling the flow of illegal immigration across the U.S. Mexico border.
Environmentalists say the plan could destroy habitats and cut off access to water for numerous creatures, including the already endangered ocelot and jarguarundi.
“They move back and forth across the water,” said Mary Lou Campbell, a conservation chairwoman with the Sierra Club’s Lower Rio Grande Valley Group. “When you isolate a species, you also (alter) their gene pool.”
Campbell said construction of the fence would also destroy the habitats of countless other creatures that live in the marshy brush along the river.
“We’re concerned about the overall animal population,” Campbell said. “I’m sure they would be cutting down trees, and brush and underbrush to make way for this wall and all of it will be destructive to wildlife.”
Some rare birds not found in other parts of Texas or the United States could also lose prey and either die off or be forced to leave the area in search of food, Campbell said.
The North American Butterfly Association, which runs the International Butterfly Park in the small border town of Mission, worries that the fence could cut off a part of their 72-acre park.
“It would have a huge negative impact on what we’re doing,” said Sue Sill, executive director of the park. “Seventy-two acres sounds like a lot, but it’s not.”
Sill said she and other park officials have spent nearly four years restoring native plants to the park, a project that was partially funded with about $205,000 in state and federal grants.
It’s hard to know how many people might shy away from the park’s annual events, including the Rio Grande Prix of Butterflying, but Sill said she suspects a massive wall designed to keep illegal immigrants out isn’t likely to help attendance.
“We want our border secure, we want to be protected, but we also don’t want to go overboard,” Sill said. “We would hate to see the destruction of what we’ve already done.”
Animals aren’t the only concerns in the Rio Grande Valley and South Texas, where crossing the international border is a daily event for thousands of residents in both Texas and Mexico.
Nancy Millar, vice president and executive director of the McAllen Chamber of Commerce’s Convention and Visitors Bureau, said McAllen is a top shopping destination for Mexican nationals. A fence could stymie that economic traffic the community has come to rely on.
“The whole idea of a fence is certainly going to give a negative impression of our hospitality here,” Millar said. “It depends on where it is built, but how could (Mexican tourists) not feel unwanted in our country?”
A negative impression could also deter eco tourists and the so-called “Winter Texans,” retirees from the north who spend each in south Texas.
“It (a fence) is very likely to affect all three,” Millar said.
Millar said she did not know exactly what economic impact the fence could have, but predicted that it would be “significant.”
Federal planners will also have to contend with international treaty restrictions that require that the construction of any structure at the border “does not obstruct or deflect the normal or the flood flows of the Rio Grande,” according to a spokeswoman for the U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
That could mean the fence would have to be built on land just north of the river, land that is sprinkled with numerous picnic and camp grounds, state and county parks and parts of two national wildlife refuges that are either at or near the river.
“Any way you look at it, it’s bad news for the border,” Millar said.
Posted by: Paul on October 06, 2006 at 12:52:29