The $5B the House has approved for a border wall would be enough for about 215 miles of barrier
BY Todd J. Gillman
The Dallas Morning News
December 21, 2018
WASHINGTON — Homeland Security officials laid out the stakes in the budget brinkmanship that threatens a partial government shutdown late Friday: the $5 billion the House has approved for a border wall would be enough for about 215 miles of barrier.
Less than half of that — about 100 miles, mostly in South Texas — would be frontier that doesn’t already have a fence.
The rest would go to replacement fencing or to build secondary fencing.
President Donald Trump threatened to veto any stopgap spending measure that didn’t include $5 billion for a wall.
Senior officials from the Department of Homeland Security briefed journalists Friday afternoon on the funding.
The estimate of 215 miles for $5 billion works out to an average topping $23 million per mile.
That’s far higher than the cost of the nearly 700 miles of barrier already in place along the 2,000 mile U.S.-Mexico border. Most of that was authorized under George W. Bush, in the Secure Fences Act of 2006.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2009 that put the initial cost per mile at $2.8 million to $3.9 million. But that was in urban areas, where roads were already in place.
Some of the replacement fencing installed during the Trump administration has cost about $8 million per mile. The more remote the area, the higher cost per mile.
Homeland Security officials insisted Friday that comparisons are inappropriate.
“Every mile of border is different,” said one official. “It depends on the terrain” and other factors.
Since Trump took office, Congress has approved $341 million for 40 miles of replacement fencing and new gates in San Diego, New Mexico and West Texas, plus gates in the Rio Grande Valley to close gaps between existing fence. Of that, 34 miles is complete.
Earlier this year, Congress provided another $1.375 billion for about 84 miles of new and replacement border barrier.
That includes levee wall in the Rio Grande Valley, with construction expected to start in February, plus some new wall construction in that area of South Texas, along with replacement barrier in Arizona and California.
About $500 million in contracts have been awarded, and another $500 million worth could be finalized in coming weeks, officials said.
Homeland Security officials wouldn’t discuss the priorities for new construction, but have provided plans to Congress. Officials who spoke with reporters on Friday that the top priorities are in South Texas, segments around Laredo, Yuma, Ariz., and El Centro, Calif.
Most of the new construction would be bollard fencing — steel slats similar to the fencing already in place, though taller. Officials said the prototypes built near San Diego provided some lessons and certain design elements would be incorporated to improve reinforcement and fortification
When Congress authorized wall funding earlier this year, it restricted construction to designs already in use.
It’s unclear how much of the $5 billion would go to land acquisition, including costs to condemn property when landowners refuse to sell.
“Eminent domain is always an option. Eminent domain is a tool in our toolbox,” said one senior Homeland Security official. “People would have a very difficult time finding a more public use for property than defending the United States’ borders.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: There have been calls for the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy Seabees to construct the wall if Congress refuses to fund it. It is believed that as Commander in Chief the President can order the military to construct the wall as a national security project.
In 2013, the Seabees assisted the Border Patrol’s enforcement efforts by constructing a roadway along the border in South Texas.
Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s incoming chief of staff (maybe), said this in 2015 about the wall:
“The fence doesn't solve the problem. Is it necessary to have one, sure? Would it help? Sure. But to just say build the darn fence and have that be the end of an immigration discussion is absurd and almost childish for someone running for president to take that simplistic of [a] view.”
No comments:
Post a Comment