The Texas Observer

A federal judge punted border wall construction back to Congress this week. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ruled that the Texas Border Coalition did not have any standing to file a lawsuit challenging the construction of a border wall through their cities and counties because they were not property owners.

The Texas Border Coalition is an organization of border mayors, county judges and business leaders from the Texas-Mexico border region. Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster, a member of the coalition said they were puzzled by the judge’s ruling.

“I’ve got fence going through my community,” Foster says. “I don’t understand how the judge could rule that I don’t have standing in the lawsuit.” Foster says that coalition members are speaking with their lawyer about whether they can file an appeal.

Judge Walton’s decision is not much of a surprise.  Just about every court that has heard a border fence lawsuit has kicked the can down the road by ruling that it’s up to Congress to stop the construction of the border wall. Despite the obvious violations of constitutional rights –such as seizing property without fair compensation — judges aren’t willing to side with landowners.

The building of 670 miles of 18-foot wall along the border continues under Obama — a disappointment to the hundreds of landowners in Texas who hoped their properties would be saved once Bush left the White House.

The Houston Chronicle is reporting today that President Obama won’t keep shoveling money into the Border Wall boondoggle. Finally some good news out of Washington.  At least taxpayers won’t be spending billions on an 18-foot steel and concrete wall which won’t solve an iota of the United State’s immigration issues.

Border landowners have been praying for this ever since Obama took office. The bad news is the government is going to finish the remaining miles of fence near Brownsville. The Obama Administration is going to fulfill the 670 miles of fence required by Congress under George W.’s reign.  Cameron County gets the tail-end of a raw deal — the poorly crafted and politicized public policies incorporated in the Secure Fence Act and the Real ID Act.

No one feels this more acutely than Brownsville Landowner Eloisa Tamez who has been fighting the Department of Homeland Security for two years over the construction of fence in her backyard. She recently lost her court battle and DHS threw up the wall almost overnight on her land. In a recent conversation with Tamez she said she plans to turn her home into a border and human rights center where academics can study immigration and border policy. What better place than 20 feet from the border wall — one of the worst government experiments in immigration policy to date.

Voters in Andrews, the West Texas oil-town that’s ga-ga for radioactive waste, have an interesting proposition before them as they go to the polls this week. They’re being asked by Waste Control Specialists - who’s paying for the election - to authorize the issuance of $75 million in general obligation bonds to finance the construction of Waste Control’s radioactive waste dump. Even for a company that has a long record of ballsy moves, this one takes some major cojones.

Harold Simmons, who owns Waste Control, is the 146th richest man in the world, according to Forbes, down from 66th last in 2008. Even after losing $3 billion, the man is still worth $3.6 billion. But there he is, going before the people of Andrews (poverty rate: 16 percent) like a pauper with an open palm. Hubris, thy name is Harold Simmons.

It’s worth asking if some voters will understand what they’re voting on. The ballot, as approved by the Andrews County Commissioners Court, refers to a “solid waste disposal facility.” No mention of radioactive waste.

County Judge Richard Dolgener says he stands behind the wording.

“I feel [t]hat the ballot language is correct when the court voted on it to be placed on the ballot,” he wrote in an email and referred further questions to the county’s bond counsel, who did not respond to a phone call.

Granted, folks in the Andrews area have been hearing about Waste Control’s plans for radioactive waste for quite some time and may be well aware that they’re voting on an issue connected to that. On the other hand, a 2006 public opinion survey by Austin-based pollster Baselice & Associates produced some surprising results. (TCEQ ordered Waste Control to do a more scientific poll after the company submitted interviews with the town’s business and political elite, who were almost universally in favor of radioactive waste disposal.)

Some even think it’s a local landfill.

The company says it needs taxpayer-backed municipal bonds because credit is too expensive otherwise. At least a few people in Andrews who have supported the company through the years are now saying tough titty. One couple, Rhonda and Tom Stark wrote to the county and Waste Control:

My wife and I have an infinite respect for the work WCS does for the county and also, importantly for our country. We believe in nuclear power and responsible environmental protection.

My issue with you is the hasty, high pressure sales pitch and lack of disclosure about WSC’s [sic] and Valhi’s financial state.

Waste Control says the deal won’t cost the county a dime and that if something does go awry, the county will be left holding $500 million in stock and assets. But the Starks think the deal is still too risky. In an email to the Observer they pointed to the collapse of Valhi stock and Fitch’s downgrading of the company’s credit rating to ‘junk’ status. They also question the true value of WCS’ “assets” that the county would presumably own in the event of a bankruptcy.

“What’s the value of land, buildings and equipment contaminated by radioactive waste?”

Still, Waste Control continues to have the full faith and credit of the town’s business and government leaders. Here’s an excerpt of a recent Andrews County News letter to the editor from one Bob Stewart, Andrews businessman:

If you don’t think this is a credit problem, then you need to go back to the homework deal. There is a good reason that he is a Billionaire—why pay 16 percent when he can get 7.75 percent from Andrews. That is just good business!