“We’re going to build the Wall. Okay, believe me. So, we’re going to build it. It will be paid for. Who’s gonna pay for the Wall? Who is going to pay for the Wall?”
—Donald Trump
In a 2015 rally, presidential nominee Donald Trump declared the idea of building a contiguous southern border wall to an enlivened rally crowd. The 2016 Trump presidential campaign promised a strong crackdown on illegal immigration with a border wall as the cornerstone of the plan to keep illegal immigrants out. To a roaring crowd, he posed the question, “Who’s gonna pay for the wall?” Then, with a smile on his face, he answered: Mexico!
This massive border wall undertaking comes with a high price tag. The Build the Wall, Enforce the Law Act of 2018 funds over sixteen billion dollars to physical barrier construction. To receive immediate wall funding, the military diverted 3.9 billion dollars to finance eleven, high-priority border wall projects. While the steep price tag raises concerns about federal spending and military infrastructure, an unaccounted-for cost brings the whole project into question of its worth. A closer look at the logistics of an expansive southern border reveals an unmentioned third party who will pay for the wall—the southwestern US ecosystems.
The cost of ecological damage inflicted upon delicate Southwestern US habitats must figure into the price of building an extensive border wall. In a geographic region, already struggling from man-made desertification, the aggressive insertion of a formidable wall adds insult to injury. Bob Dreher, attorney for the Defenders of Wildlife conservation program, warns, “Whatever they build, it’s going to be destructive to natural habitat. It’s about the physical reality of what a permanent barrier will do in one of the most sensitive landscapes in North America.” Deserts, perceived as rough and barren, actually teem with unique lifeforms of plants and animals. Because of limited annual rainfall, deserts struggle to recover from disruption. When the cost of Southwestern habitat degradation is weighed in the balances with the enormous price tag for President Trump’s border wall, the price is far too high to pay. The projected increase of national security on the southern borders is not worth the destruction of invaluable US land. America must protect the land that sustains its people.
The history of a border wall between the US and Mexico began long before President Trump ran his 2016 Presidential campaign. Construction of the first wall began in the early 1990s in San Diego, California. This barrier was partly on land and had a “surf fence” that extended out 300 feet in the Pacific Ocean, attempting to block illegal crossings by land and water. In 2006, President George W. Bush enacted the Secure Fence Act to add 700 more miles of fencing along the southwest border and to equip the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with advanced surveillance equipment. President Obama proposed a plan to utilize mobile surveillance across the 2,000-mile border, but the project stopped after one billion dollars spent yielded only fifty-three miles of virtual surveillance. This history demonstrates that over the last two decades the federal government already attempted to address immigration issues with a border wall.
Although past White House administrations addressed illegal immigration by funding a border wall in target areas, President Trump proposed the most aggressive plan of any president. His proposal calls for a structure of reinforced concrete “eighteen feet above the border and sunk at least six feet into the ground to prevent tunneling.” In some rural areas, a simple fence suffices for a border, like the one seen in the photo below taken on a Native reservation. (Figure 1.1) Other areas of the border wall need strengthening and repairing, as shown in Figure 1.2. Trump wants to heighten the existing wall structure and add more miles of wall coverage. In September 2019, the President visited a border construction site and stated his goal to extend the border by about 500 miles by the end of 2020.
An exact number of the total miles of border wall Trump wants to build proves difficult. Does he want a full contiguous wall? No, not exactly. In total, Trump said he would like 700 to 900 more miles of wall to the 650 miles of wall that already exist. That would bring the total barrier mileage to 1,550 miles. The total length of the entire southern border is 1,954 miles. If 900 more miles of wall gets added, while the wall would not be completely contiguous, only about 404 miles would remain open. The Rio Grande River covers 889 miles of natural border. For there to be 900 miles of added barrier, it would logically follow that some 400 miles of the Rio Grande would get walled off. While leaving 404 miles of US/Mexico border open would not technically make the wall complete, that much of a barrier would effectually cut off all hope of existence between numerous ecosystems north and south of the border.
Continuance of the border wall threatens diverse landscapes and disrupts nationally protected lands. Along the US-Mexico border are six ecoregions that include desert scrub, temperate forest and woodlands, semidesert and plain grasslands, subtropical scrublands, freshwater wetlands, and salt marshes. Each distinctive area supports vast numbers of unique life forms. As shown in the map below, the topography of the ecoregions does not end at the southern border, but the ecological ranges extend into Mexico. A long border wall may seem like a cut and dry solution for immigration, but for the ecoregions listed, the wall is just a painful cut and not a solution at all.
Many nationally protected conservation areas will be disrupted by the wall. They are as follows: The Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Big Bend National Park, the National Butterfly Center in Texas and the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe National Monument, and San Pedro Riparian national conservation area in Arizona. The National Butterfly Center, home to over 200 species of butterflies, would be divided by a wall, placing seventy percent of the sanctuary on the Mexican side. These diverse, nationally protected lands house some unique eco-regions and deserve to be left wild.
Scientists are speaking out against continued border wall construction. In July 2018, a team of conservation experts published a paper intended to persuade the government and public of the potential damages caused by the border wall. They listed reasons for the “unintended but significant consequences for biodiversity” from a border wall in “the name of national security.” Their research identified 1,506 native animals and plants, including 62 critically endangered species, among these the Peninsular bighorn sheep, the Mexican gray wolf, and the Sonoran pronghorn. All of these native plants and animals are adapted to harsh life in the desert and need the full extent of their ranges to survive.
The wall has the potential to disrupt life cycles and patterns of the desert regions it bisects. For instance, it would prevent natural migration patterns and disrupt access to resources like food and water. Severing territories in half would also reduce genetic diversity among animals because they would be forced to inbreed due to a lack of availability to new mating partners. As a result, animals like jaguars and ocelots could face local extinction in the US due to the restricted range. The endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly and the threatened ferruginous pygmy-owl are both low-flying species that could not fly over a tall barrier. Restriction of natural range for desert wildlife will put their survival at risk. Many plants and animals already risk endangerment and extinction in the Southwest. The border wall will tax an already suffering environment. Below illustrates a few key species facing danger from the border wall.
The border wall promises environmental destruction, and it has already begun. Early in October 2019, bulldozers began clearcutting “large swathes of once-protected habitat in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPNM), a 571-square-mile preserve in Arizona.” Footage of this recent destruction circulated online, and some Arizonans now protest the demolition of the saguaro cacti, a keystone desert plant. The public now notices the environmental cost to border protection, yet the problem is not new. Officials at the Department of Interior (DOI) say “it is just a continuation of the destruction that has been unfolding for years.” President Trump’s border wall plan takes desert destruction to a new level by seizing federally protected land in the name of national security. The saguaro cactus, shown below, is one of the many causalities of his plan.
The loss of keystone cacti is not the only problem at OPNM. Another immediate cause of concern relates to the desert’s water storage system called aquifers. Aquifers are underground permeable rock layers that hold groundwater and provide the main source for water in desert ecosystems. According to a report from Brocius with Arizona Public Media, the Department of Homeland Security authorized construction crews to use local groundwater for the sixty miles of proposed wall in Arizona. The crews need water to mix with concrete to build the deep, six feet wall foundations, as specified by the Trump administration. The contractor building at OPNM proposed drilling new wells, citing the need for 84,000 gallons of water per day, the equivalent of one Phoenix resident’s water use over two years. While one local expert does not think the project will completely dry up the OPNM aquifers, he worries that the heavy depletion of water will negatively impact the already declining water levels in OPNM. Thus, the disruption of saguaro cacti and depletion of groundwater could compromise the OPNM ecosystem.
Rosemary Schiano, a wildlife biologist, has conducted independent research at Organ Pipe National Monument for a decade. She studies the park because of its uniqueness, and she cares for OPNM by monitoring the environmental impact from park activity, recording animal behaviors, and tracking narcotic smuggling in the park. In a 2017 interview with Public Radio International, Schiano explains,
What I would like to say to the people who want an impenetrable border wall, is that there’s no such thing. It would probably be impenetrable to watersheds, many wildlife species, but it will not be impenetrable to people. They will find a way over it, around it, or under it. The damage that will be caused from blocking these migratory routes from wildlife and watersheds, that are incredibly important, that are connected and a part of both of our countries, that don’t have a natural wall between them, that would cause tremendous harm to our own water sources and especially with climate change coming about, it will have even more detrimental effects.
Besides the blatant effects of the border wall on desert ecosystems, border protection comes with additional, less apparent consequences. One source of consistent abuse in the desert comes from the on-ground presence of border law enforcement. Since 2006, Border Patrol agents (CBP) have had the authority to travel in wilderness areas with little restriction and almost no accountability. Satellite data in 2011 from the US Fish and Wildlife Service show “8,000 miles of roads created by Border Patrol agents and smugglers,” but “the greater proportion of new roads and trails” were from Border Patrol. The agency fails to track mileage driven in the desert and do not file consistent reports about off-road wilderness driving. CPB’s heavy vehicular presence and lack of accountability to National Park Services contribute to abuses of desert habitat.
The concern about border patrol off-roading is warranted because of the large-scale damage that vehicles are known to cause to the desert floor. The desert floor is much more than just sand. It is a complex, living system of cryptobiotic crusts and desert pavement. Cryptobiotic crust, nicknamed “desert glue,” protects soil from wind erosion, absorbs rainfall and provides surface area for nutrients to adhere to the ground. Desert pavement, a layer of pebbles, also protects sediment below the pebbles from wind erosion. In a book about desert restoration, author David Bainbridge explains, “Even minor disturbances that would be of little concern in wetter and more temperate ecosystems can lead to profound and long-lasting changes that limit recovery in the desert.” Soil must remain protected from excessive traffic to avoid disruption of the soil homeostasis.
If the desert top floor is disturbed by vehicles, the whole desert ecosystem is negatively impacted. As I mentioned earlier, when the soil structure is exposed and damaged, the water cycle is disrupted and land erodes causing large scale habitat destruction. Since the 1940s, deserts in California have been used for military training. Researchers have studied the impact of military operations and found that “a single pass by a tank, trampling by soldiers, or construction of temporary camp roads can significantly compact the upper 20-30 cm of coarse-textured soils for at least forty years.” Noting the fragile nature of desert soil from the long-term impact of military operations in desert areas, it can be safely assumed that off-road CBP activities have severely disrupted large tracts of Southwest habitat. The heavy machinery used for border wall construction will produce even more damage to the soil pavement.
Along with destroying precious soil crust, Border Patrol agents and wall construction crews cause damage to the topography of the land. Richard and Sandra Martynec spent twenty-five years studying The Las Playas in Arizona. Martynec defines playas as “a Spanish word for beach; however, in the sense that it is used in the Southwest, it signifies a low area that fills after rainfall because there is no lower place for the water to go.” As CPB agents cruise through off-road desert areas, the new trails they create disrupt water distribution. Federman explains the problem as follows: “the new roads have begun to change the way water moves in this part of the Sonoran Desert. . . . Now when seasonal rains occur, the water no longer flows into the playas but often runs in torrents along the roadways.” Disruption of already scarce water flow endangers animals and plants dependent on the seasonal playas.
Not only are new trails disrupting waterways, but the border wall itself threatens the natural flow of water during rainstorms. Arizona has already seen flooding problems from the border wall. The town of Nogales flooded in 2008 after 700 miles of wire mesh fence was erected. There, the wall trapped debris and acted as a dam causing severe flooding in the nearby town. A similar incident occurred again to Nogales in 2014. Experts are concerned that other areas, like Rio Grande City, Texas will succumb to flooding if proposed wall sections are built. Therefore, flooding could be even more problematic in Texas because the state gets more significant annual rainfall than Arizona. The potential for increased flooding due to rainwater obstruction should cause alarm for at-risk border towns who will incur millions of dollars in damages to property and infrastructure.
Disrupted water distribution will cause flooding and erosive damage to the Southwest, yet the problems do not stop there. Residents of southern border towns in the Texas counties of Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron will not only live with increased risk of flooding, but they may lose access to the Rio Grande River. The river provides recreation, tourism and beauty to South Texans. The town of Rio Grande City has fought wall-building efforts for years; now citizens consign themselves to eventual defeat. A city official from a small Texas border town concedes, “We’re getting a structure whether we like it or not.” The communities along the southern Texas border hope they can at least reach a compromise with the wall construction that will not severely disrupt their way of life.
Not only will residents lose enjoyment of the Rio Grande, but a wall would sit on shaky legal ground. Building a barrier along the Rio Grande would potentially violate a 1970 US/Mexico treaty. The treaty states, “the two countries must ensure that anything built along the Rio Grande does not cause deflection of obstruction of the river’s normal flow or flood flows.” The meandering river needs room to move and flood, but a border wall would disrupt the Rio Grande’s natural movements. As a result, a structure inhibiting the river could cause increased tensions between Mexico and the US for breaking the 1970 boundary treaty.
A barrier wall would negatively impact the Rio Grande’s water movement and also take away land from private property owners. Laura Parker from National Geographic explains, “to build a wall north of the river would, in effect, cede control of those land to Mexico and isolate property and homes owned by US citizens on the Mexican side of the wall.” Privately owned lands and Native reservations present more legal issues with proposed sections of the wall. With all these legalities in mind, the Trump administration would have to demonstrate strong overreach to acquire the land needed to complete his proposal.
Private land ownership should stand in the way of Trump’s wall, but he contrived a solution. His plan for dealing with private land rests on the “principle of eminent domain, through which the government would exercise the power to take private property for public use provided it rewards the landowner with ‘just compensation.’” Conservatives accused President Obama of a federal land grab when he established national parks on public during his presidency, but the amount of land Trump will forcefully take from private landowners for his wall is egregious. If Trump follows through with his border wall game plan, private landowners should expect forced government seizure of land. In turn, it will cost the landowners millions in legal fees, should they choose to fight, and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in legal battles and owner payouts.
The seizure of private lands for border wall construction has happened in the past and will happen again. The government land grab for privately owned property began in 2006 when Congress passed the Secure Fence Act. This act “launched the most aggressive seizure of private land by the federal government in decades. In less than a year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security filed more than 360 eminent domain lawsuits against property owners, involving thousands of acres of land in the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.” Though landowners attempted to fight the forced government acquisition of their land, most lacked the financial means necessary to take legal action. Some people felt they received a fair value for their land, but others felt cheated and robbed of land they never wanted to sell. Landowners will certainly lose to the wall.
History also loses to the wall. Archeologists worry that numerous archeological sites will be irreparably damaged by border wall construction in Arizona’s Organ Pipe National Monument (ORPI). According to Veech in an internal article for the National Park Service (NPS) but released by the Washington Post “human groups have been present across ORPI’s arid landscape for at least 10,500 years, and perhaps far longer.” NPS conducted a five-day archeological evaluation from June 24-28, 2019, due to the “imminent border fence construction project” in ORPI. Archeologists explored a specific section of the park named Roosevelt Reservation because it is “an area of great concern, whose cultural and natural resources are imperiled.” Ultimately, Veech’s NPS report found five new archeological sites recommended for immediate recovery. Because human populations have dwelled along the southern US border for thousands of years, it would be safe to assume that other undiscovered historical sites could be destroyed during wall construction.
Besides the destruction of ancient Native archeological relics, modern Native Americans may pay for the border wall as well. The Tohono O’odam Nation owns borderland in southern Arizona between Pipe Cactus National Monument and Tucson. A report from the American Immigration Council (AIC) explains that a wall on the reservation would “effectively cut the reservation in half” separating families from those in Mexico and restricting access to tribal burial sites. Set laws should protect the Tohono O’odam from any unwanted construction on their land. However, AIC claims the federal government could condemn the land and remove it from the trust of the tribe. Any loss of land for Natives would add to the list of serious offenses inflicted by the Trump administration on its relentless campaign for a southern border wall.
The solution to immigration control is not clear or easy. Sometimes, we may not know the solution, but we know what not to do. Randy Serraglio, a southwest conservationist, observed that since the 1990s, when border security began to harden the ports of entry, and barrier walls were built between border cities, problems began that had never happened before. Like a dam blocking water to re-route it elsewhere, the walls block immigrant traffic into border towns, only to divert migrants into rugged desert terrain. Serraglio says “all of a sudden, you have thousands of border patrol vehicles and thousands of people moving around in these remote areas creating a lot of damage that just really never happened before.”
Thus, if what Serraglio says is true, the answer to better border security may be no wall at all. Illegal immigrants would naturally travel into urban areas for protection, and an on-ground presence of border patrol in towns could apprehend illegals there instead of manhunting in the desert. It seems that America is thirty years too far down the path of the border wall to see any alternate solutions anymore, yet we must try to innovate new ideas for immigration control.
President Trump’s plan may provide some kind of short-term regress in illegal border crossing, but those who want to find a way illegally into the United States will do so, wall or no wall. We must ask ourselves if the ends of the wall justify the means. The only real promise the border wall makes it that of bulldozers and environmental destruction. No one can say with certainty that a wall would completely stop illegal immigration and drug trafficking but inflicting irreparable harm to the Southwest is a guarantee. A contiguous southern border wall breaks the free and open spirit of the southwest because the land along the southern border does not conform to political boundaries. Generations may look back and see the wall as the catalyst that broke the desert’s back.
The question remains: Who is going to pay for the wall? The answer is: everyone. The United States taxpayer will pay in government spending costs. The unique plants, birds, reptiles, and mammals of the Southwest will pay for the wall through lost habitat, access to food and water resources, and decreased mating partners. The locals living near the wall will pay in property damage from flooding when the wall dams their cities. Mexico, by way of broken treaties, habitat loss for animals, and a closed-door from the US will also pay. Native Americans, who have long endured abuse by the US government will pay through lost land and prohibited access to family and traditional religious sites in Mexico. The whole world will pay when history gets lost after the inevitable destruction of historic archeological sites. If the Southwest ecosystems continue to be misunderstood and mistreated, desertification in the Southwest will intensify and future generations will pay for the wall when they get stuck with the bill from a Southwest wasteland.
The idea that a solid, large wall will fix America’s problems turns a blind eye to the fact that the wall will create a multitude of new complications. There may not be a clear answer to what should be done in protecting the US’s southern borders, but from research of the Southwest ecology, it is clear what should not be done. Nine hundred more miles of southern border wall would be such an ecological disaster that it’s construction would not outweigh the beßnefits of projected immigration reduction. Protecting our nation must also mean protecting our land. Our government and policymakers must go back to the drawing board to create new solutions for illegal immigration because a continued southern border wall must not stand.
***
Elizabeth Canright is a long-time resident of Colorado Springs and a wife and mom of three. She enjoys spending time outdoors with her family and reading literature.
