Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Feb 2 2010 letter from CBP Aguilar to IBWC Drusina regarding Texas border walls

Feb 2 2010 letter from CBP Aguilar to IBWC Drusina regarding Texas border walls

Ratings: (0)|Views: 54 |Likes:
Published by Scott Nicol
“Because the Mexican Section of the IBWC has opposed all proposed border fencing
within the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers’ floodplains since the enactment of the
Secure Fence Act (regardless of the expected floodplain impacts), Commissioner Ruth
was not optimistic that the Mexican Commissioner would agree to support the proposed
fencing and indicated during the January 6th meeting that an unilateral decision would
likely be needed to construct the fence segments. We understand that the Mexican
Commissioner did in fact recently inform Commissioner Ruth that Mexico would oppose
the fence segments if formally submitted to them for consideration.
For the numerous reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the USIBWC and
Department of State reconsider your position and approve a unilateral decision to allow
us to proceed with the design and construction of the O-1, O-2 and O-3 fence segments.”
“Because the Mexican Section of the IBWC has opposed all proposed border fencing
within the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers’ floodplains since the enactment of the
Secure Fence Act (regardless of the expected floodplain impacts), Commissioner Ruth
was not optimistic that the Mexican Commissioner would agree to support the proposed
fencing and indicated during the January 6th meeting that an unilateral decision would
likely be needed to construct the fence segments. We understand that the Mexican
Commissioner did in fact recently inform Commissioner Ruth that Mexico would oppose
the fence segments if formally submitted to them for consideration.
For the numerous reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the USIBWC and
Department of State reconsider your position and approve a unilateral decision to allow
us to proceed with the design and construction of the O-1, O-2 and O-3 fence segments.”

More info:

Categories:Types, Letters
Published by: Scott Nicol on Jul 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/01/2011

pdf

text

original

 
1
KEMPIN, JOSEPH C
From:Sent:
Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:09 PM
To:Cc:Subject:
RE: Quantification of info for O-1 thru 3 letter
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Red
Attachments:
info gaps for Commissioner Drusina ltr_v1 (2) (2).doc; 3 feb 10 draft Commissioner Drusinaltr_v1 (3).doc
info gaps forommissioner Dru...3 feb 10 draftCommissioner Dr...
The first attachment is the one you haven't seen. It includes number of x-sections,percentages, etc. You can take a look at that and draw your own conclusions.I've also attached another potential re-draft for your use.Please let me know if we can provide anything else.V/rPMPChief, Tactical Infrastructure Branchon Support Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-----OFrom:Sent:ruary 03, 2010 8:36 AMTo:Subject: RE: Quantification of info for O-1 thru 3 letter I don't won't to reference the number of cross sections that are outside the threshold w/oputting it into context of the bigger picture. If you could provide the number of crosssections evaluated for each segment, we can figure out how to best incorporate into theletter. Thanks ________________________________From:Sentebruary 03, 2010 9:07 AMTo:Subject: Quantification of info for O-1 thru 3 letter
FME006234
 
(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)
 
2
 Wanted to let you know we aren't ignoringV/rPMPChief, Tactical Infrastructure BranchEngineering and Construction Support Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FME006235
(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)
 
(b) (6)(b)(b) (5)
 
February 2, 2010Commissioner Edward Drusina, P.E.United States Section, International Boundary Water Commission (USIBWC)The Commons, Building C, Suite 100El Paso, Texas 79902Dear Commissioner DrusinaFirst, congratulations on your recent appointment. I look forward to working with youand maintaining the strong cooperative working relationship our agencies have had overthe last several years.With regards to your letter dated January 21
st
and our proposed border security fencingprojects O-1, O-2 and O-3, these primary pedestrian fence segments are very important toour Nation’s security as well as the safety of the nearby local communities. The fencesegments represent Border Patrol’s current number one priority relative to new tacticalinfrastructure construction in the Nation and were included in former SecretaryChertoff’s April 2008 waiver of applicable environmental and land management laws andregulations. The areas in which the fence segments are proposed are currently subjectedto extensive illegal border activity including illegal immigrant crossings and drugtrafficking. The proposed fencing must be built to provide constant persistent impedanceto these activities.For over three (3) years we have been working closely with the USIBWC on thesesegments trying to identify alignments that would be operationally effective from aborder security perspective while having minimal impacts on the floodplain of the RioGrand River. Numerous fence alignments have been evaluated and multiple floodplainstudies prepared based in part on direction received from your last three (3) predecessors.On January 6
th
, several of our senior leaders met with former Commissioner Ruth, Mr.Tuttle from the Department of State, and members of your staff regarding our currentproposed fence alignments and the associated floodplain impacts. At that meeting,Commissioner Ruth acknowledged that from a “practical perspective” the proposed fencealignments would have a negligible impact on the floodplain and the internationalboundary, and agreed to meet “informally” with the Commissioner of the MexicanSection of the IBWC to see if he would support the projects given that there would be noincrease in water surface elevations or deflection of flow relative to Mexico exceedingthe thresholds set by USIBWC and described below.
FME006236
(b) (5)

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->