Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS LAREDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
982.6894 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR
LESS, SITUATED IN WEBB COUNTY,
STATE OF TEXAS; AND CITY OF
LAREDO
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-31
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT CITY OF LAREDO’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER OF IMMEDIATE POSSESSION

KRISTINA K. LAUREL HALE
CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF LAREDO
ALYSSA J. CASTILLON
Assistant City Attorney for City of Laredo
Federal I.D. No.: 3114327
Texas State Bar No.: 24064568
City of Laredo Office of the City Attorney
1110 Houston Street
Laredo, Texas 78040
Telephone: (956) 791-7319
Facsimile: (956) 791-7494
Email: acastillon@ci.laredo.tx.us
Attorney in Charge for Defendant City of Laredo

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 36

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4
Summary of Argument .................................................................................................................. 4
Argument ....................................................................................................................................... 5
I.

The power of eminent domain is vested in Congress, which may delegate that
power to the executive branch with any limitations it deems fit. ...................................... 5

II.

Congress did not delegate to the Government the authority to condemn the City of
Laredo’s property for the purpose of constructing border fencing. ................................... 8
A.

The 2018 DHS Appropriations Act that the Government invokes as
authority for the taking restricts construction of new fencing to locations
other than Laredo. .................................................................................................. 9

B.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act does
not appropriate funds for the construction of border fencing, either in
Laredo or anywhere else. ..................................................................................... 11

C.

The Declaration of Taking Act does not immunize the Government’s
taking from judicial challenge. ............................................................................ 15

Conclusion and Prayer ................................................................................................................. 16
Certificate of Service .................................................................................................................... 17

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 36

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
2,953.15 Acres of Land v. United States,
350 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1965) .................................................................................................6, 7
Abbott v. Beth Israel Cemetery Ass’n of Woodbridge,
100 A.2d 532 (N.J. 1953)...........................................................................................................6
Border Patrol Sectors,
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, https://www.cbp.gov/bordersecurity/along-us-borders/border-patrol-sectors ......................................................................11
Catlin v. United States,
324 U.S. 229 (1944) .............................................................................................................7, 15
Transohio Sav. Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision,
967 F.2d 598 (D.C.Cir.1992) .....................................................................................................8
United States v. 162.20 Acres of Land,
639 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1981) .....................................................................................................7
W. Union Tel. Co. v. Penn. R.R. Co.,
195 U.S. 540 (1904) ...............................................................................................................6, 7
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
343 U.S. 579 (1952) ...............................................................................................................6, 7
Statutes and Constitutional Provision
5 U.S.C. § 706(2) .............................................................................................................................8
8 U.S.C. § 1103(b) .........................................................................................................................11
10 U.S.C. § 284 ..............................................................................................................................14
40 U.S.C. § 3113 .......................................................................................................................4, 15
40 U.S.C. § 3114 ..................................................................................................................8, 12, 15
40 U.S.C. § 3118 ............................................................................................................................15
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. No. 115–31, div. F, tit. VI, 131
Stat. 135 (2017)........................................................................................................................12
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. 115-141, div. F, tit. II, 132 Stat.
348 (2018) ............................................................................................................................9, 13
2

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 36

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 116–6, div. A, tit. II, 133
Stat. 13, 28 § 230(a) (2019) .....................................................................................................13
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-93, div. D, tit. II, 133
Stat. 2317 § 209(a) (2019) .......................................................................................................13
U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 7 .........................................................................................................11

3

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 36

INTRODUCTION
On March 4, 2020, the United States of America (“the Government”) filed a Complaint in
Condemnation, at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
In that Complaint, the Government, through a Declaration of Taking, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. §§
3113 and 3114, exercised the power of eminent domain to take the property of the City of Laredo.
The City waived service of judicial process and has separately filed its Answer to the Complaint.
On April 8, 2020, the Government filed its Opposed Motion for Order of Immediate Possession.
By this filing, the City of Laredo responds in opposition to that Motion.
In its Complaint, the Government states that “[t]he estate taken” from the City of Laredo
is a “temporary, assignable easement” to conduct “investigatory work.” Complaint in
Condemnation, Schedule E. But the Government’s intent to permanently take the City’s property
for the purpose of constructing a massive border wall is manifest not only from its filings with this
Court, but also from its public pronouncements. The Government has indicated that it plans to
contract for the construction of a massive border wall in the Laredo Sector, including across the
span of the City’s parcels, as early as mid-May.
The Government should refrain from binding itself to any such contract pending this
Court’s resolution of the parties’ competing arguments as to whether Congress has granted the
Government the requisite construction authority. During the current pandemic crisis, it is
particularly urgent that the Government not commit itself to the expenditure of precious taxpayer
dollars on an extraordinarily expensive construction project that, as the City will demonstrate
below, is congressionally unauthorized.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The power of eminent domain is vested in Congress. When Congress delegates that power
to officers in the executive branch, it may condition the delegation with limitations as it deems fit.
4

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 36

With respect to the construction of fencing on the southwest border, Congress has been very
deliberate in imposing limitations on any powers it decides to confer.
The Government’s authority to construct border fencing is controlled by Congress through
its annual appropriations to DHS. In its statement of the authority for the taking under the
Declaration of Taking Act, the Government has identified the source of its funding, i.e., delegated
authority, for this taking: Congress’s 2018 DHS Appropriations Act, which the Government
represents to the Court “appropriated the funds that shall be used for the taking.”
Even a cursory review of that Act shows that it did no such thing; Congress expressly
limited funding for new-fencing construction to locations within the “San Diego Sector” and the
“Rio Grande Valley Sector.” The City of Laredo’s property is not in either of these Sectors. The
property is in the Laredo Sector, a location for which Congress did not allocate funding for
construction of new fencing. Because Congress has not delegated authority to the Government to
take this property for the public purpose on which the Government bases the taking, the Court
should deny the Government’s motion to take immediate possession of the City’s property.
ARGUMENT
By its Motion, the Government requests this Court to order the City of Laredo “to
immediately surrender possession of the condemned estate to the United States.” Mot. for
Possession at 1. This Court should deny the Government’s motion, because Congress has not
delegated authority to the Government to condemn the City of Laredo’s property, and hence that
unauthorized taking is ultra vires.
I.

The power of eminent domain is vested in Congress, which may delegate that power
to the executive branch with any limitations it deems fit.
The Supreme Court has long recognized the fundamental right to property ownership in

this country, and the significant threat that the power of eminent domain poses to that right. “The
5

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 36

exercise of the power of eminent domain is against common right. It subverts the usual attributes
of the ownership of property. It must, therefore, be given in express terms or by necessary
implication.” W. Union Tel. Co. v. Penn. R.R. Co., 195 U.S. 540, 569 (1904).
To protect property owners, such as the City of Laredo here, neither the President nor any
other officer in the executive branch possesses independent authority to exercise eminent domain.
Rather, in keeping with centuries of common law tradition, that power is vested in the legislative
branch. “The power of eminent domain is a high sovereign power that has been allotted to the
legislative branch of the government since the Magna Carta.” 1 The Fifth Circuit has recognized
this longstanding tradition, observing that, under our Constitution, “[t]he exercise of the power of
eminent domain is vested in the legislative branch of the Government.” 2,953.15 Acres of Land v.
United States, 350 F.2d 356, 359 (5th Cir. 1965).
The allocation of eminent domain authority to Congress is not altered by a presidential
decree of a national emergency, even in wartime. The Supreme Court shined a spotlight on this
fundamental truth in its 1951 Youngstown decision, when it considered President Truman’s
proclamation of a national emergency and issuance of an executive order directing the Secretary
of Commerce to take possession of most of the Nation’s steel mills during the height of the Korean
war. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 582 (1952).
The Court did not refute that a nationwide steelworkers’ union strike justified the
President’s proclamation of a national emergency: “The indispensability of steel as a component
of substantially all weapons and other war materials led the President to believe that the proposed
work stoppage would immediately jeopardize our national defense and that governmental seizure

1

Abbott v. Beth Israel Cemetery Ass’n of Woodbridge, 100 A.2d 532, 540 (N.J. 1953) (citing Blackstone’s
Commentaries (Browne’s ed.1897), at 39, 44; Jahr, Eminent Domain, (1953), §1, at 1-5).

6

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 36

of the steel mills was necessary in order to assure the continued availability of steel.” Id. at 583.
However, even the indisputable existence of that national emergency did not sway the Court’s core
holding that “[t]he President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of
Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Id. at 585.
The Court found no such power in the Constitution. It held, first, that the President’s order
to seize property “cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President’s military power as
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.” Id. at 587. The Court held, second, that “the seizure
order [cannot] be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant executive
power to the President.” Id.
Because the Constitution does not confer on the executive branch any authority to exercise
the power of eminent domain, that “power, if any . . . must stem . . . from an Act of Congress.”
Id. at 585. Due to the “serious nature of the right of eminent domain,” the Supreme Court has held,
“it is accompanied and restrained by inexorable limitations.” W. Union, 195 U.S. at 567. Beyond
the basic constitutional limitations, Congress may impose additional statutory limits on the
eminent-domain authority that it delegates to the executive branch. The Fifth Circuit has
recognized Congress’ authority to delegate the power of eminent domain “to be exercised in any
manner the Congress sees fit as long as constitutional restraints are not violated.” 2,953.15 Acres
of Land, 350 F.2d at 359. When Congress imposes limits, the executive branch is not free to
disregard them. As the Fifth Circuit has explained, “It is clear that a condemnee may challenge
‘the validity of the taking for departure from the statutory limits.’” United States v. 162.20 Acres
of Land, 639 F.2d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 1981) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 240
(1944)).

7

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 36

The Administrative Procedure Act authorizes reviewing courts “to hold unlawful and set
aside agency action . . . in excess of statutory . . . authority . . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). “It is ‘central
to the real meaning of “the rule of law,” [and] not particularly controversial’ that a federal agency
does not have the power to act unless Congress, by statute, has empowered it to do so.” Transohio
Sav. Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, 967 F.2d 598, 621 (D.C.Cir.1992) (citations
omitted). “Agency actions beyond delegated authority are ‘ultra vires,’ and courts must invalidate
them.” Id.
The City of Laredo makes precisely such an ultra vires challenge to agency action here.
As demonstrated in the following section, Congress delegated border-barrier construction
authority to a federal agency – the Department of Homeland Security – through its appropriations
in the 2018 DHS Appropriations Act. But, in that Act, Congress limited the Government’s
authority to construct new fencing to specific locations on the border. The City of Laredo lies
outside those locations. Thus, the Government’s condemnation of the City’s property for a purpose
that Congress expressly declined to authorize is beyond the Government’s statutory authority.
Congress did not delegate to the Secretary of Homeland Security, or any other officer in the
executive branch, the power to condemn any of the property owned by the City of Laredo. Thus,
the Government’s “actions beyond delegated authority are ‘ultra vires,’ and [this Court] must
invalidate them.” Id.
II.

Congress did not delegate to the Government the authority to condemn the City of
Laredo’s property for the purpose of constructing border fencing.
The Declaration of Taking Act (“DTA”) requires the Government to file a declaration of

taking that “contain[s] or ha[s] annexed to it a statement of the authority under which, and the
public use for which, the land is taken.” 40 U.S.C. § 3114(a)(1) (emphasis added). The
Government sought to comply with that statutory requirement here by stating the authority upon
8

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 10 of 36

which it relies for the taking in Schedule A to its Complaint in Condemnation and the public
purpose for the taking in Schedule B. However, Congress did not delegate to the Government the
authority to condemn the City of Laredo’s property for the Government’s stated purpose of
constructing fencing.
The Government states that the “Public Purpose” for the taking is “to conduct surveying,
testing, and other investigatory work needed to plan the proposed construction of . . . fencing, . . .
to help secure the United States/Mexico border within the State of Texas.” Schedule B. As its
“Authority for the Taking” of the City of Laredo’s property, the Government cites several Acts of
Congress. Schedule A. None of these Acts delegate power to construct border fencing in the
Laredo Sector, which is where the City of Laredo’s property is located.
A.

The 2018 DHS Appropriations Act that the Government invokes as authority
for the taking restricts construction of new fencing to locations other than
Laredo.

The heading of Argument Section B of the Government’s Motion for Possession reads as
follows: “The United States Needs Immediate Possession in Order to Meet the Congressional
Directive to Construct Fencing in the Laredo Sector.” Mot. for Possession at 4. But, as
demonstrated below, Congress has not directed the Government to construct fencing in the Laredo
Sector. To the contrary, it has limited the Government’s fencing-construction authority to locations
outside of the Laredo Sector.
In Schedule A, the Government invokes as “Authority for the Taking” Congress’s 2018
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (“2018 DHS Appropriations Act”). See
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. 115-141, div. F, tit. II, 132 Stat. 348, 607 (2018).
The Government asserts that this Act “appropriated the funds that shall be used for the taking.”
Schedule A. But in the 2018 DHS Appropriations Act, Congress expressly imposed specific,
geographic limitations when it delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to
9

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 11 of 36

construct barriers along the southwest border. And as noted in § I, when it delegates the power of
eminent domain within constitutional parameters, Congress may impose limitations in any manner
that it sees fit.
By its express terms, the 2018 DHS Appropriations Act did not appropriate any funds for
the construction of new border fencing in the Laredo Sector, which is the “Public Purpose” for
which the Government claims it is entitled to take the City of Laredo’s property. Schedule B.
Rather, the Act expressly limited the use of the appropriated funds to construction of border
fencing in geographic locations other than the Laredo Sector.
In the 2018 DHS Appropriations Act, Congress was very precise in designating where
along the border the Government could construct new border fencing (as opposed to replacement
of already-existing border fencing) with the funds it appropriated:
Of the amount made available in this Act under “U.S. Customs and Border
Protection—Procurement, Construction, and Improvements”, $1,571,000,000 shall
be available only as follows:
(1) $251,000,000 for approximately 14 miles of secondary fencing, all of which
provides for cross-barrier visual situational awareness, along the southwest border
in the San Diego Sector;
(2) $445,000,000 for 25 miles of primary pedestrian levee fencing along the
southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector;
(3) $196,000,000 for primary pedestrian fencing along the southwest border in the
Rio Grande Valley Sector;
(4) $445,000,000 for replacement of existing primary pedestrian fencing along the
southwest border;
(5) $38,000,000 for border barrier planning and design; and
(6) $196,000,000 for acquisition and deployment of border security technology.
Id. 132 Stat. at 616, § 230(a).

10

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 12 of 36

As the plain language of this Act makes clear, the only amounts that Congress appropriated
for the construction of new border fencing limits such construction to two geographic locations:
the “San Diego Sector” and the “Rio Grande Valley Sector.” The City of Laredo’s property is
not located in either of those Sectors; its property is located entirely in the Laredo Sector. 2
Because the Government proposes to construct new border fencing on property that falls outside
the geographic limits of the 2018 DHS Appropriations Act, Schedule B, that Act provides no
authority for the Government to take the City of Laredo’s property, Schedule A.
B.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act does not
appropriate funds for the construction of border fencing, either in Laredo or
anywhere else.

As additional authority for the taking of the City of Laredo’s property, the Government
cites “the Act of Congress approved September 30, 1996, as Public Law 104-208, Division C,
Section 102, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554-55, as amended and codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1103(b) &
note.” Schedule A. This Act is known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”).
IIRIRA empowers the Attorney General to buy or condemn “any interest in land . . . in the
vicinity of an international land border when the Attorney General deems the land essential to
control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States against any violation of this
Act.” 8 U.S.C. § 1103(b)(1), (3). But IIRIRA does not itself appropriate the funds necessary for
the Government to construct fencing along the border. Through its power of the purse, 3 Congress
maintains control over such funding and, hence, over the “public use” that justifies the

2

See Border Patrol Sectors, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, https://www.cbp.gov/bordersecurity/along-us-borders/border-patrol-sectors
3

See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 7 (“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law . . . .”).

11

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 13 of 36

Government’s congressionally delegated power to condemn properties in specific locations. 40
U.S.C. § 3114(a)(1).
Congress exercises such control through its annual appropriations to DHS. Since the
inception of the Trump administration, Congress has made four such annual appropriations to
DHS. In each one, Congress has specified the amounts that the Government may expend for
construction of specified types of border barriers and, with respect to the construction of new
fencing, has limited the locations where such construction may take place.
 2017 DHS Appropriations Act:
For an additional amount for “Procurement, Construction, and Improvements”,
$497,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 2021, which shall be
available based on the highest priority border security requirements as follows:
(1) $341,200,000 to replace approximately 40 miles of existing primary
pedestrian and vehicle border fencing along the southwest border using
previously deployed and operationally effective designs, such as currently deployed
steel bollard designs, that prioritize agent safety; and to add gates to existing
barriers. 4
 2018 DHS Appropriations Act:
Of the amount made available in this Act under “U.S. Customs and Border
Protection—Procurement, Construction, and Improvements”, $1,571,000,000 shall
be available only as follows:
(1) $251,000,000 for approximately 14 miles of secondary fencing, all of which
provides for cross-barrier visual situational awareness, along the southwest border
in the San Diego Sector;
(2) $445,000,000 for 25 miles of primary pedestrian levee fencing along the
southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector;
(3) $196,000,000 for primary pedestrian fencing along the southwest border in
the Rio Grande Valley Sector;

4

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. No. 115–31, div. F, tit. VI, 131 Stat. 135, 433-34 (2017)
(emphasis added).

12

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 14 of 36

(4) $445,000,000 for replacement of existing primary pedestrian fencing along
the southwest border. 5
 2019 DHS Appropriations Act:
Of the total amount made available under ‘‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection—
Procurement, Construction, and Improvements’’, $2,370,222,000 shall be available
only as follows:
(1) $1,375,000,000 is for the construction of primary pedestrian fencing,
including levee pedestrian fencing, in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. 6
 2020 DHS Appropriations Act:
Of the total amount made available under “U.S. Customs and Border Protection—
Procurement, Construction, and Improvements”, $1,904,468,000 shall be available
only as follows:
(1) $1,375,000,000 for the construction of barrier system along the southwest
border ***
(b) The amount designated in subsection (a)(1) shall only be available for barrier
systems that—
***
(2) are constructed in the highest priority locations as identified in the Border
Security Improvement Plan. 7
With respect to Congress’s 2020 appropriation to DHS for barrier-system construction, as
far as the City of Laredo can determine, DHS has never made publicly available the Border
Security Improvement Plan identifying the “highest priority locations” for such construction.
However, in its February 2019 letter to the Department of Defense (“DoD”) setting forth its

5

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-141, div. F, tit. II, 132 Stat. 348, 616 § 230(a)
(2018) (emphasis added).

6

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 116–6, div. A, tit. II, 133 Stat. 13, 28 § 230(a) (2019)
(emphasis added).
7

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-93, div. D, tit. II, 133 Stat. 2317, 2511-12 §
209(a) (2019) (emphasis added).

13

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 15 of 36

“Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284,” DHS identified its eleven highest priority
locations, in order of priority:
The DHS request for assistance includes approximately 218 miles in which DHS
requires road construction, the installation of lighting, and the replacement of
existing vehicle fencing or dilapidated pedestrian fencing with new pedestrian
fencing within the Project Areas. DHS requests that DoD’s support under 10 U.S.C.
§ 284 address the requirements in order of priority as DoD resources allow. The
DHS order of priority is as follows:
1. Yuma Sector Project 1
2. Yuma Sector Project 2
3. El Paso Sector Project 1
4. El Centro Sector Project 1
5. Tucson Sector Project 1
6. Tucson Sector Project 2
7. Tucson Sector Project 3
8. Tucson Sector Project 4
9. Yuma Sector Project 3
10. El Paso Sector Project 2
11. Tucson Sector Project 5
Id. at 10 (emphasis added).
None of these highest-priority project areas encompasses the City of Laredo’s property in
the Laredo Sector. In short, by enacting IIRIRA in 1996, Congress did not empower the
Government to construct fencing in the Laredo Sector and to take the City of Laredo’s property
for that unauthorized use in 2020.

14

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 16 of 36

C.

The Declaration of Taking Act does not immunize the Government’s taking
from judicial challenge.

The only other authority that the Government invokes for the taking of the City of Laredo’s
property is “40 U.S.C. §§ 3113 and 3114.” Schedule A. These provisions are part of the
Declaration of Taking Act itself. As demonstrated below, the DTA affords the Government
expedited condemnation authority. But it does not immunize the Government’s taking from
judicial challenge.
The DTA is an extraordinary procedural device inasmuch as it vests title in the Government
immediately upon the filing of the declaration of taking:
On filing the declaration of taking and depositing in the court, to the use of the
persons entitled to the compensation, the amount of the estimated compensation
stated in the declaration-(1) title to the estate or interest specified in the declaration vests in the Government;
[and]
(2) the land is condemned and taken for the use of the Government.
40 U.S.C. § 3114(b). However, as the Supreme Court has explained, “the statute is not an
independent one for condemnation. It provides for no new condemnation proceeding. It merely
affords steps ancillary or incidental to suits brought under other statutes.” Catlin, 324 U.S. at 240.
The DTA “is declared expressly to provide rights which are to be ‘in addition to’
preexisting rights and are not to ‘be construed as abrogating, limiting, or modifying’ them.” Id.
(quoting what is now 40 U.S.C. § 3118, with non-substantive modification). The DTA “preserv[es]
the owner’s preexisting right to question the validity of the taking as not being for a purpose
authorized by the statute under which the main proceeding is brought.” Id. at 241.
Here, the City of Laredo has properly questioned the validity of the Government’s taking,
as the Supreme Court has made clear it has the right to do. And though the DTA provides the
Government with a right of title, it cannot serve as an independent source of condemnation
15

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 17 of 36

authority. Because the “statute[s] under which the main proceeding is brought,” id., do not
authorize the taking of the City of Laredo’s property for the purpose of constructing border fencing,
this Court should deny the Government’s motion to take possession of the City’s property.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, the City of Laredo respectfully prays that this Court deny the
Government’s Opposed Motion for Order of Immediate Possession.

Dated: May 4, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,
KRISTINA K. LAUREL HALE
CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF LAREDO
By:

16

/s/ Alyssa J. Castillon
ALYSSA J. CASTILLON
Assistant City Attorney for City of Laredo
Federal I.D. No.: 3114327
Texas State Bar No.: 24064568
City of Laredo Office of the City Attorney
1110 Houston Street
Laredo, Texas 78040
Telephone: (956) 791-7319
Facsimile: (956) 791-7494
Email: acastillon@ci.laredo.tx.us
Attorney in Charge for Defendant City of
Laredo

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 18 of 36

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that, on the 4th day of May, 2020, she
electronically submitted a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Immediate Possession with the Court via the CM/ECF system,
which will serve a copy on all counsel of record.
/s/ Alyssa J. Castillon
ALYSSA J. CASTILLON

17

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 19 of 36

INDEX
1. Complaint in Condemnation Schedule A
2. Complaint in Condemnation Schedule B
3. Complaint in Condemnation Schedule E
4. DHS Request § 284

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 20 of 36

APPENDIX 1

Case
Case 5:20-cv-00031
5:20-cv-00031 Document
Document 11
1-1 Filed
Filedon
on05/04/20
03/04/20ininTXSD
TXSD Page
Page21
2 of
of 53
36

SCHEDULE A
AUTHORITY FOR THE TAKING
The property is taken under and in accordance with 40 U.S.C. §§ 3113 and 3114,
which authorize the condemnation of land and the filing of a Declaration of Taking; the
Act of Congress approved September 30, 1996, as Public Law 104-208, Division C,
Section 102, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554-55, as amended and codified at 8 U.S.C. §
1103(b) & note; and the Act of Congress approved March 23, 2018, as Public Law 115141, div. F, tit. II, 132 Stat. 348, which appropriated the funds that shall be used for the
taking.

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 22 of 36

APPENDIX 2

Case
Case 5:20-cv-00031
5:20-cv-00031 Document
Document 11
1-1 Filed
Filedon
on05/04/20
03/04/20ininTXSD
TXSD Page
Page23
4 of
of 53
36

SCHEDULE B
PUBLIC PURPOSE

The public purpose for which said property is taken is to conduct surveying, testing,
and other investigatory work needed to plan the proposed construction of roads, fencing,
vehicle barriers, security lighting, cameras, sensors, and related structures designed to help
secure the United States/Mexico border within the State of Texas.

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 24 of 36

APPENDIX 3

Case
Case 5:20-cv-00031
5:20-cv-00031 Document
Document 1-1
11 Filed
Filed on
on 05/04/20
03/04/20 in
in TXSD
TXSD Page
Page 25
42 of
of 36
53

SCHEDULE E
ESTATE TAKEN
Webb County, Texas
Tracts: LRT-LRN-1005 thru 1005-9
LRT-LRN-1005-11 thru 1005-36
LRT-LRS-1002 thru 1002-5
LRT-LRS-1002-7 thru 1002-36
LRT-LRS-1002-38 thru 1002-47
LRT-LRS-1002-49 thru 1002-63
LRT-LRS-1002-66 thru 1002-68
LRT-LRS-1009
LRT-LRS-1004 thru 1004-3
Owner: City of Laredo
Acres: 982.6894
The estate taken is a temporary, assignable easement beginning on the date
possession is granted to the United States and ending 12 months later, consisting of the
right of the United States, its agents, contractors, and assigns to enter in, on, over and across
the land described in Schedule C to survey, make borings, and conduct other investigatory
work for the purposes described in Schedule B and to access adjacent lands; including the
right to trim or remove any vegetative or structural obstacles that interfere with said work;
reserving to the landowners, their successors and assigns all right, title, and privileges as
may be used and enjoyed without interfering with or abridging the rights hereby acquired;
subject to minerals and rights appurtenant thereto, and to existing easements for public
roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines.

 Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 26 of 36

APPENDIX 4

0123ÿ565789
8   
 8   ÿÿÿ  9  3  ÿ  85ÿÿÿ   3 ÿ   
  57ÿÿÿ 1 3ÿ5 ÿ !ÿ
"

Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 27 of 36

Executive Secretarr
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington. DC 20528

Home land
Security
February 25 , 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR:

CAPT Hallock N. Mohler Jr.
Executive Secretary
Department of Defense (DoD)

FROM:

Christina Bobb · , ,i,-: ;, ,f,.,, ,~·~ ,. 1//
.
i1I v.l'
..,.(.·~
Executive Secretary 1
Department of Homeland Security (OHS)

SUBJECT:

Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284

I. Overview
As the government department tasked with border security, the Department of Homeland
Security (OHS), through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is requesting that
the Department of Defense assist OHS in its efforts to secure the southern border. The
Secretary has directed me to transmit this request for assistance to your attention . his
memorandum supersedes the Februarx 22 2019 version.
In Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996, as amended (IIRIRA), 8 U .S.C. § 1103 note, Congress has directed DHS to
construct border infrastructure in areas of high illegal entry to deter illegal crossing of
both drugs and people into the United States. Pursuant to Section l 02, DHS has
identified the areas set forth in Section II below as areas of high illegal entry where CBP
must take action (the Project Areas).
Within the Project Areas, DHS is experiencing large numbers of individuals and
narcotics being smuggled into the country illegally. The Project Areas are also used by
individuals, groups, and transnational criminal organizations as drug smuggling corridors.
Mexican Cartels continue to remain dominant in these areas, influencing and controlling
narcotics and human smuggling operations, within their respective strongholds.
DHS must use its authority under Section I 02 of IIRIRA to install additional physical
barriers and roads in the vicinity of the United States border in order to deter and prevent
illegal crossings within the Project Areas. The construction of border infrastructure
within the Project Areas will support DHS ' s ability to impede and deny illegal entry and
drug smuggling activities within the Project Areas.

III

11

I

-- oSD0Ot68tJct9/C M00021"93°19 --

 0123ÿ565789
8   
 8   ÿÿÿ  9  3  ÿ  85ÿÿÿ   3 ÿ   
  57ÿÿÿ 1 3ÿ5 ÿ !ÿ
"

Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 28 of 36

Subject: Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284
Page2
The Project Areas identified are adjacent to some of the most densely populated
metropolitan areas of Mexico and are also home to some of the strongest and most
violent drug cartels in the world. Deterring and preventing illegal cross-border activity
will help stem the flow of illegal narcotics and entries in these areas. Similarly, the
improved ability to impede, deny, and be mobile within the Project Areas creates a safer
operational environment for law enforcement.
To support DHS's action under Section 102 ofIIRIRA, DHS is requesting that DoD,
pursuant to its authority under 10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7), assist with the construction of
fences roads, and lighting within the Project Areas to block drug-smuggling corridors
across the international boundary between the United States and Mexico.
II. Capabilities Requested

Within the Project Areas there is existing vehicle fence and dilapidated pedestrian
fencing. Vehicle fencing is intended to stop vehicles from illegally entering the United
States, but can be climbed over or under by individuals. Pedestrian fencing is intended to
prevent and deter individuals and vehicles from illegally crossing into the United States.
DHS requests that DoD assist in the execution of projects, within the Project Areas set
forth below, to: (1) replace existing vehicle barriers or dilapidated pedestrian fencing
with new pedestrian fencing; (2) construct roads; and (3) install lighting.
The new pedestrian fencing includes a Linear Ground Detection System, which is
intended to, among other functions, alert Border Patrol agents when individuals attempt
to damage, destroy or otherwise harm the barrier. The road construction includes the
construction of new roads and the improvement of existing roads. The lighting that is
requested has an imbedded camera that works in conjunction with the pedestrian fence.
The lighting must be supported by grid power.
The segments of fence within the Project Areas identified below are situated on federal
property. DHS will be responsible for securing, to the extent required, any other real
estate interest or instrument that is required for project execution. In the event a real
estate interest or instrument that is needed for project execution cannot be obtained for a
segment of fence within a Project Area in a time frame that is within the requirements of
this request for assistance, the segment may be withdrawn from this request. In addition,
DHS will be responsible for any applicable environmental planning and compliance to
include stakeholder outreach and consultation associated with the projects.

 0123ÿ565789
8   
 8   ÿÿÿ  9  3  ÿ  85ÿÿÿ   3 ÿ   
  57ÿÿÿ 1 3ÿ5 ÿ !ÿ
"

Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 29 of 36

Subject: Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284
Page3
Project Areas:
II.A. El Centro Sector

Within the United States Border Patrol El Centro Sector (El Centro Sector) DHS is
requesting that DoD assist by undertaking road construction, by replacing approximately
15 miles of existing vehicle barrier with new pedestrian fencing, and by installing
lighting in the specific locations identified below.
The specific Project Area identified below is located in Imperial County, California and
has been identified by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as a High

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). Multiple local transnational criminal
organizations known for smuggling drugs into Calexico from Mexico using a variety of
tactics, techniques, procedures, and varying concealment methods operate in this area,
including Cartel De Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG) as well as remnants of the
Beltran Leyva Organization and La Familia Michoacana organizations. CJNG, based in
Jalisco, was previously a faction of the Sinaloa Cartel. CJNG broke away from the
Sinaloa Cartel and has become an established Mexican Cartel. The Mexican government
has declared CJNG as one of the most dangerous cartels in the country.
Due to the close proximity of urban areas on both sides of the border, the El Centro
Sector suffers from some of the quickest vanishing times - that is, the time it takes to
illegally cross into the United States and assimilate into local, legitimate traffic. These
quick vanishing times enable the illegal activities of transnational criminal organizations,
whether they are smuggling people or narcotics.
Border Patrol's own experience with apprehensions between border crossings bears this
out. In fiscal year 2018, there were over 29,000 apprehensions of illegal entrants
attempting to enter the United States between border crossings in the El Centro Sector.
Also in fiscal year 2018, Border Patrol had approximately 200 separate drug-related
events between border crossings in the El Centro Sector, through which it seized over
620 pounds of marijuana, over 165 pounds of cocaine, over 56 pounds of heroin, and
over 1,600 pounds of methamphetamine.
The specific Project Area is as follows:

•

El Centro Project 1:
o The project begins approximately 10 miles west of the Calexico Port of
Entry continuing west 15.25 miles in Imperial County.
o Start coordinate: 32.63273, -115.922787; End coordinate: 32.652563,
-115.662399

 0123ÿ565789
8   
 8   ÿÿÿ  9  3  ÿ  85ÿÿÿ   3 ÿ   
  57ÿÿÿ 1 3ÿ57ÿ !ÿ
"

Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 30 of 36

Subject: Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284
Page4
II.B. Yuma Sector

Within the United States Border Patrol Ywna Sector (Ywna Sector) DHS is requesting
that DoD assist by undertaking road construction, by replacing approximately 36 miles of
existing vehicle barrier and approximately 6 miles of dilapidated pedestrian fencing with
new pedestrian fencing, and by installing lighting in the specific locations identified
below. The specific areas identified below are located in Yuma County, Arizona.
Yuma County has been identified by the ONDCP as a HIDTA. Of particular note is the
operation of the Sinaloa Cartel in this area. The Sinaloa Cartel continues to be the most
powerful cartel in the country and controls illicit networks and operations in the United
States. Despite the arrest of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman-Loera, its narcotics business has
continued uninterrupted. As a result, there have been no significant changes within the
Sinaloa Cartel's hierarchy, or any changes in the illicit operations conducted by the
Sinaloa Cartel.
Border Patrol's own experience with apprehensions between border crossings bears this
out. In fiscal year 2018, there were over 26,000 apprehensions of illegal entrants
attempting to enter the United States· between border crossings in the Yuma Sector. Also
during fiscal year 2018, Border Patrol had over 1,400 separate drug-related events
between border crossings in the Yuma Sector, through which it seized over 8,000 pounds
of marijuana, over 78 pounds of cocaine, over 102 pounds of heroin, over 1,700 pounds
of methamphetamine, and over 6 pounds of fentanyl.
The replacement of ineffective pedestrian fencing in this area is necessary because the
older, wire mesh design is easily breached and has been damaged to the extent that it is
ineffective. Additionally, this area is notorious for border violence and narcotics
smuggling. Furthermore, while the deployment of vehicle barrier in the Yuma Sector
initially curtailed the volume of illegal cross-border vehicular traffic, transnational
criminal organizations quickly adapted their tactics switching to foot traffic, cutting the
barrier, or simply driving over it to smuggle their illicit cargo into the United States.
Thus, in order to respond to these changes in tactics, DHS now requires pedestrian
fencing.
The specific Project Areas are as follows:
•

Yuma Project 1:

o The project begins approximately 1 mile southeast of the Andrade Port of
Entry continuing along the Colorado River for approximately 5 miles in
Yuma County.
o Start coordinate: 32.704197, -114.726013; End coordinate: 32.642102,
-114.764632)

 0123ÿ565789
8   
 8   ÿÿÿ  9  3  ÿ  85ÿÿÿ   3 ÿ   
  57ÿÿÿ 1 3ÿ
 ÿ !ÿ
"

Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 31 of 36

Subject: Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284
Page 5
•

Yuma Project 2:
o The project involves the replacement of two segments of primary
pedestrian fencing in Yuma Sector for a total of approximately 6 miles.
This includes approximately 2 miles of fencing along the Colorado River.
o Start coordinate: 32.37755528, -114.4268201; End coordinate:
32.3579244, -114.3623999;
o The project also includes replacement of primary pedestrian fencing
approximately 17 miles east of the San Luis Port of Entry, on the
Barry M Goldwater Range, continuing east for approximately 4 miles.
o Start coordinate: 32.51419938, -114.8011175; End coordinate:
32.49350559, -114.8116619

•

Yuma Project 3:
o The project begins approximately 0.4 miles east of the
Barry M. Goldwater Range continuing approximately 31 miles east
through the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Yuma County.
o Start coordinate: 32.232935, -113.955211; End coordinate: 32.039033,
-113.33411

111.C. Tucson Sector

Within the United States Border Patrol Tucson Sector (Tucson Sector) DHS is requesting
that DoD assist by undertaking road construction, by replacing approximately 86 miles of
existing vehicle barrier with new pedestrian fencing, and by installing lighting in the
specific locations identified below. The specific areas identified below are located in
Pima, Cochise, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona.
Pima, Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties have been identified by the ONDCP as a
HIDTA. The Sinaloa Cartel relies on their local associates to coordinate, direct, and
support the smuggling of illegal drugs and aliens from Mexico to the United States.
Since Arizona is contiguous with the U.S.-Mexico International Boundary, the Tucson
and Phoenix metropolitan areas are major trans-shipment and distribution points for
contraband smuggling. Plaza bosses operate as a Sinaloa Cartel leader within their
specific area of operation along the Sonora-Arizona corridor of the U.S.-Mexico
International Boundary.
Border Patrol's own experience with apprehensions between border crossings bears this
out. In fiscal year 2018, there were over 52,000 apprehensions of illegal entrants
attempting enter the United States between the border crossings in the Tucson Sector.
Also in fiscal year 2018 Border Patrol had over 1,900 separate drug-related events
between border crossings in the Tucson Sector, through which it seized over 1,600
pounds of marijuana, over 52 pounds of cocaine, over 48 pounds of heroin, over 902
pounds of methamphetamine, and over 11 pounds of fentanyl.

 0123ÿ565789
8   
 8   ÿÿÿ  9  3  ÿ  85ÿÿÿ   3 ÿ   
  57ÿÿÿ 1 3ÿ
5ÿ !ÿ
"

Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 32 of 36

Subject: Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284
Page6
In addition, the absence of adequate pedestrian fencing, either due to the presence of
vehicle barrier only or ineffective pedestrian designs, in the Tucson sector continues to be
particularly problematic as it pertains to the trafficking of illegal narcotics. Rival
transnational criminal organizations frequently employ "rip crews" who leverage the
remote desert environment and lack of infrastructure to steal one another's illicit cargo
resulting in increased border violence.
The terrain also provides high ground to scouts seeking to protect and warn smuggling
loads being passed through the area. Transnational criminal organizations have
successfully utilized this advantage in furtherance of their illicit activity and for this
reason the area is in need of an improved capability to impede and deny illegal crossings
or people and narcotics. In addition, the area hosts a number of tourist attractions that
allow illegal activity to blend into legitimate activity; avoiding detection and evading
interdiction.
The specific Project Areas are as follows:

- - -

- -

•

Tucson Project I:
o The project includes replacement of two segments of vehicle barriers. The
first segment begins approximately 2 miles west of the Lukeville Port of
Entry continuing west approximately 30 miles.
o Start coordinate: 32.038278, -113.331716; End coordinate: 31.890032,
-112.850162
o The second segment project begins approximately 3 miles east of the
Lukeville Port of Entry and continues east approximately 8 miles in Pima
County, Arizona.
o Start coordinate: 31.8648, -112.76757; End coordinate: 31.823911,
-112.634298

•

Tucson Project 2:
o The project includes approximately 5 miles of primary pedestrian fence
replacement around the Lukeville Port of Entry extending from
approximately 2 miles west of the port to approximately 3 miles east of
the port.
o Start coordinate: 31.88999921, -112.850162; End coordinate: 31.8648,
-112.76757

-----

------~---- -----

- - -

----

-------

- - -

- - - - - - - -

 0123ÿ565789
8   
 8   ÿÿÿ  9  3  ÿ  85ÿÿÿ   3 ÿ   
  57ÿÿÿ 1 3ÿ

ÿ !ÿ
"

Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 33 of 36
Subject: Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284
Page7

•

Tucson Project 3:
o

o
o
o

•

The project includes three segments of vehicle barrier replacement
beginning approximately 18 miles west of the Naco Port of Entry and
continuing to approximately 25 miles east of the Douglas Port of Entry (or
approximately 5 miles west of the Arizona/New Mexico state line) for
approximately 20 miles of non-contiguous vehicle barrier replacement in
Cochise County, Arizona.
Start coordinate: 31.333754, -110.253863; End coordinate: 31.333767,
-110.250286;
Start coordinate: 31.334154, -110.152548; End coordinate: 31.334137,
-110.147464;
Start coordinate: 31.333995, -109.453305; End coordinate: 31.332759,
-109.129344

Tucson Project 4:
o

The project begins approximately 9 miles east of the Nogales Port of Entry
and continues eastward for approximately 30 miles with approximately 26
miles of non-contiguous vehicle barrier replacement in Santa Cruz and
Cochise Counties, Arizona.
o Start coordinate: 31.333578, -110.79579; End coordinate: 31.333511,
-110.775333;
o start coordinate: 31.33328, -110. 70545; End coordinate: 31.333602,
-110.288665)
o Note: An additional approximately 0.3 miles of new pedestrian fence
could be built between the existing segmented vehicle barrier locations to
fill existing gaps if appropriate real estate interest can be verified

•

Tucson Project 5:
o

The project includes approximately 2 miles of vehicle barrier replacement
beginning approximately 4.5 miles east of the Sasabe Port of Entry
continuing east in six non-continuous segments for approximately 15
miles in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona.
o Start Coordinate: 31.460175, -111.473171; End Coordinate: 31.459673,
-111.471584;
o Start Coordinate: 31.453091, -111.450959; End Coordinate: 31.449633,
-111.440132;
o Start Coordinate: 31.440683, -111.412054; End Coordinate: 31.437351,
-111.40168;
o Start Coordinate: 31.423471, -111.358336; End Coordinate: 31.422541,
-111.355444;
o Start Coordinate: 31.42221, -111.354379; End Coordinate: 31.421321,
-111.351608;

 0123ÿ565789
8   
 8   ÿÿÿ  9  3  ÿ  85ÿÿÿ   3 ÿ   
  57ÿÿÿ 1 3ÿ
!ÿ "ÿ
#

Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 34 of 36

Subject: Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284
Page8
o Start Coordinate: 31.386813, -111.243966; End Coordinate: 31.385462,
-111.239759)
11.D. El Paso Sector

Within the United States Border Patrol El Paso (El Paso Sector) DHS is requesting that
DoD assist by undertaking road construction, by replacing approximately 70 miles of
existing vehicle barrier with new pedestrian fencing, and by installing lighting in the
specific locations identified below. The specific areas identified below are located in
Luna, Hidalgo and Doiia Ana Counties, New Mexico. Luna, Hidalgo and Doiia Ana
Counties have been identified by the ONDCP as a HIDTA.
There are three specific transnational criminal organizations of interest operating in the El
Paso Sector - the Sinaloa Cartel as well as remnants of the Juarez Cartel and the Beltran
Leyva Organization. In the El Paso Sector the Sinaloa Cartel employs a variety of tactics,
techniques and procedures depending upon the terrain and environment to move drugs
across the border. While the Sinaloa Cartel has a strong presence and control of
territories at the flanks of the Sector, it does not have full control of the territory
throughout the El Paso Sector. The Juarez Cartel, traditionally a major trafficker of
marijuana and cocaine, has become an active member in opium cultivation and heroin
production.
Border Patrol's own experience with apprehensions between border crossings bears this
out. In fiscal year 2018, there were over 31,000 apprehensions of illegal entrants
attempting to enter the United States between border crossings in the El Paso Sector.
Also in fiscal year 2018, Border Patrol had over 700 separate drug-related events between
border crossings in the El Paso Sector, through which it seized over 15,000 pounds of
marijuana, over 342 pounds of cocaine, over 40 pounds of heroin, and over 200 pounds
of methamphetamine.
Although the deployment of vehicle barrier in the El Paso Sector initially curtailed the
volume of illegal cross-border vehicular traffic, transnational criminal organizations
quickly adapted their tactics switching to foot traffic, cutting the barrier, or simply
driving over it to smuggle their illicit cargo into the United States.
Thus, in order to respond to these changes in tactics, CBP now requires pedestrian
fencing. Successfully impeding and denying illegal activities or transnational criminal
organizations in this area is further complicated by the close proximity of New Mexico
Highway 9 to the border. In some cases the highway is less than a half a mile, allowing
illegal cross-border traffic to evade detection and apprehension and quickly vanish from
the border area.

- - - - - - -

 0123ÿ565789
8   
 8   ÿÿÿ  9  3  ÿ  85ÿÿÿ   3 ÿ   
  57ÿÿÿ 1 3ÿ
 ÿ !ÿ
"

Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 35 of 36
Subject: Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284
Page9
The specific Project Areas are as follows:

•

El Paso Project 1:
o

The project includes 46 miles of vehicle barrier replacement beginning
approximately 17.5 miles west of the Columbus Port of Entry continuing
east in non-contiguous segments to approximately 35 miles east of the
Columbus Port of Entry within the Luna and Dofia Ana Counties, New
Mexico.
o Start Coordinate: 31.7837, -107.923151; End Coordinate: 31.783689,
-107.679049;
o Start Coordinate: 31.783672, -107.573919; End Coordinate: 31.783741,
-107.038154

•

El Paso Project 2:
o

o
o

o
o
o

III.

The project includes 23.51 miles of Vehicle Barrier replacement in noncontiguous segments within Hidalgo and Luna Counties, New Mexico.
The first segment begin approximately 5.1 miles east of the New
Mexico/Arizona Border continuing east 4.55 miles.
Start Coordinate: 31.332323, -108.962631; End Coordinate: 31.332292,
-108.885946;
The second segment begins approximately 3 miles west of the Antelope
Wells Port of Entry to 3 miles east of the port of entry for 6.12 miles of
Vehicle Barrier replacement.
Start Coordinate: 31.333368, -108.582412; End Coordinate: 31.333407,
-108.47926;
The third segment begins approximately 20 miles west of the Columbus
Port of Entry extending west 12.84 miles.
Start Coordinate: 31.783722, -108.182442; End Coordinate: 31.783708,
-107.963193;

Technical Specifications

As set forth above, DHS requires road construction, installation of lighting, and the
replacement of existing vehicle barrier or dilapidated pedestrian fencing with new
pedestrian fencing within the Project Areas. DHS will provide DoD with more precise
technical specifications as contract and project planning moves forward.
Given DHS's experience and technical expertise, DHS plans to coordinate closely with
DoD throughout project planning and execution, to include review and approval of
design specifications, barrier alignment and location, and other aspects of project
planning and execution.

 0123ÿ565789
8   
 8   ÿÿÿ  9  3  ÿ  85ÿÿÿ   3 ÿ   
  57ÿÿÿ 1 3ÿ
!ÿ "ÿ
!

Case 5:20-cv-00031 Document 11 Filed on 05/04/20 in TXSD Page 36 of 36
Subject: Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284
Page 10

IV. Sequencing
The DHS request for assistance includes approximately 218 miles in which DHS requires
road construction, the installation of lighting, and the replacement of existing vehicle
fencing or dilapidated pedestrian fencing with new pedestrian fencing within the Project
Areas. DHS requests that DoD's support under 10 U.S.C. § 284 address the requirements
in order of priority as DoD resources allow. The DHS order of priority is as follows:
1. Yuma Sector Project 1

2. Yuma Sector Project 2
3. El Paso Sector Project 1
4. El Centro Sector Project 1
5. Tucson Sector Project 1
6. Tucson Sector Project 2
7. Tucson Sector Project 3
8. Tucson Sector Project 4
9. Yuma Sector Project 3
10. El Paso Sector Project 2
11. Tucson Sector Project 5

V. Funding
DHS requests that DoD provide the above-referenced border fences, roads, and lighting
on a non-reimbursable basis as support to block drug smuggling corridors.
DHS will accept custody of the completed infrastructure and account for that
infrastructure in its real property records.
DHS will operate and maintain the completed infrastructure.

VI.

Conclusion

DHS requests DoD assistance under 10 U.S.C. § 284 to construct fences, roads, and to
install lighting in order to block drug smuggling corridors in the Project Areas set forth
above. The Projects Areas set forth above are also areas of high illegal entry under
IIRIRA § 102(a), and the requested fences, roads, and lighting will assist in deterring
illegal crossings in the Project Areas.