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

8/6/2019 Feb 2 2010 letter from CBP Aguilar to IBWC Drusina regarding Texas border walls

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/feb-2-2010-letter-from-cbp-aguilar-to-ibwc-drusina-regarding-texas-border-walls 1/6

1

KEMPIN, JOSEPH C

From:Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:09 PMTo:Cc:

Subject: RE: Quantification of info for O-1 thru 3 letter

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag 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/r

PMPChief, Tactical Infrastructure Branch

on 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 the

letter. Thanks

________________________________

From:Sent ebruary 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 ignoring

V/r

PMPChief, Tactical Infrastructure Branch

Engineering and Construction Support Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

FME006235

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b)(b) (5)



February 2, 2010

Commissioner Edward Drusina, P.E.

United States Section, International Boundary Water Commission (USIBWC)

The Commons, Building C, Suite 100

El Paso, Texas 79902

Dear Commissioner Drusina

First, congratulations on your recent appointment. I look forward to working with you

and maintaining the strong cooperative working relationship our agencies have had over

the last several years.

With regards to your letter dated January 21st

and our proposed border security fencing

projects O-1, O-2 and O-3, these primary pedestrian fence segments are very important to

our Nation’s security as well as the safety of the nearby local communities. The fence

segments represent Border Patrol’s current number one priority relative to new tacticalinfrastructure construction in the Nation and were included in former Secretary

Chertoff’s April 2008 waiver of applicable environmental and land management laws and

regulations. The areas in which the fence segments are proposed are currently subjected

to extensive illegal border activity including illegal immigrant crossings and drug

trafficking. The proposed fencing must be built to provide constant persistent impedance

to these activities.

For over three (3) years we have been working closely with the USIBWC on these

segments trying to identify alignments that would be operationally effective from a

border security perspective while having minimal impacts on the floodplain of the Rio

Grand River. Numerous fence alignments have been evaluated and multiple floodplain

studies prepared based in part on direction received from your last three (3) predecessors.

On January 6th

, several of our senior leaders met with former Commissioner Ruth, Mr.

Tuttle from the Department of State, and members of your staff regarding our current

proposed fence alignments and the associated floodplain impacts. At that meeting,

Commissioner Ruth acknowledged that from a “practical perspective” the proposed fence

alignments would have a negligible impact on the floodplain and the international

boundary, and agreed to meet “informally” with the Commissioner of the Mexican

Section of the IBWC to see if he would support the projects given that there would be no

increase in water surface elevations or deflection of flow relative to Mexico exceeding

the thresholds set by USIBWC and described below.

FME006236

(b) (5)



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.

We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this with you and representatives of the

Department of State (as well as the Department of Homeland Security) if you believe it

would be beneficial.

Thank you in advance for your support on this important National security matter.

Sincerely,

David V. Aguilar

Acting, Deputy Commissioner

FME006237

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)



February 2, 2010

Commissioner Edward Drusina, P.E.

United States Section, International Boundary Water Commission (USIBWC)

The Commons, Building C, Suite 100

El Paso, Texas 79902

Dear Commissioner Drusina

First, congratulations on your recent appointment. I look forward to working with you

and maintaining the strong cooperative working relationship our agencies have had over

the last several years.

With regards to your letter dated January 21st

and our proposed border security fencing

projects O-1, O-2 and O-3, these primary pedestrian fence segments are very important to

our Nation’s security as well as the safety of the nearby local communities. The fence

segments represent Border Patrol’s current number one priority relative to new tacticalinfrastructure construction in the Nation and were included in former Secretary

Chertoff’s April 2008 waiver of applicable environmental and land management laws and

regulations. The areas in which the fence segments are proposed are currently subjected

to extensive illegal border activity including illegal immigrant crossings and drug

trafficking. The proposed fencing must be built to provide constant persistent impedance

to these activities.

For over three (3) years we have been working closely with the USIBWC on these

segments trying to identify alignments that would be operationally effective from a

border security perspective while having minimal impacts on the floodplain of the Rio

Grand River. Numerous fence alignments have been evaluated and multiple floodplain

studies prepared based in part on direction received from your last three (3) predecessors.

On January 6th

, several of our senior leaders met with former Commissioner Ruth, Mr.

Tuttle from the Department of State, and members of your staff regarding our current

proposed fence alignments and the associated floodplain impacts. At that meeting,

Commissioner Ruth acknowledged that from a “practical perspective” the proposed fence

alignments would have a negligible impact on the floodplain and the international

boundary, and agreed to meet “informally” with the Commissioner of the Mexican

Section of the IBWC to see if he would support the projects

FME006238

(b) (5)

(b) (5)



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 MexicanCommissioner 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.

We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this with you and representatives of the

Department of State (as well as the Department of Homeland Security) if you believe it

would be beneficial.

Thank you in advance for your support on this important National security matter.

Sincerely,

David V. Aguilar

Acting, Deputy Commissioner

FME006239

Documents

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