Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Border Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landowners and officials push back as federal planning for border barriers prompts county action
Summary
County officials and local landowners raised alarms about federal plans for permanent border structures or vehicle barriers; the sheriff and federal contacts said a study/contract process is being considered, and the court authorized the judge to work with legal counsel and to send letters opposing barriers that would cut landowner access.
Commissioners, the sheriff and several landowners discussed emerging federal planning for permanent border infrastructure or vehicle barriers along parts of Val Verde County.
The sheriff told the court that, according to federal partners, the current step is a study and a planning/contracting process; he emphasized that the language in federal authorizing bills refers to permanent structures and that much of what is currently discussed is study work rather than construction. "By definition, a virtual structure is not considered a permanent structure," the sheriff said when explaining the difference between a virtual barrier and a permanent wall, and he added that nothing will be constructed on private land without landowner agreement.
Multiple landowners spoke during public comment. Becky Foster said the pushback by landowners has had effect but warned that any barrier could cut off river access and materially reduce property value: "We lose water is life in West Texas," she said, and urged the court to communicate landowner objections to federal officials. Another landowner, Patrick, said maps have changed and described repeated, confusing outreach to landowners; he said the project might be expedited and that proposals could include vehicle barriers, razor wire, gates and other infrastructure that would be costly and disruptive.
The court authorized the judge to coordinate with the county attorney and prepare letters to state and federal representatives (and to the regional border coalition of county judges) expressing concerns about landowner rights and access; the motion carried 5-0. Commissioners also discussed using the county’s federal lobbyist to escalate concerns.
No construction decision was made; the court emphasized it will monitor developments and continue coordinating with landowners and representatives.
