Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
County residents who don’t want a second international bridge or the route connecting that bridge and U.S. Highway 90 built near their properties packed the most recent meeting of county commissioners court to voice their concerns.
County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr. and several members of the court spoke before Owens recognized the county residents who wished to address the court.
County resident Lionel Reyes was the first to step up to the podium.
“I guess progress must happen. I’m not saying that. I’m opposed to this bridge; however, this body or the previous body (court), may be in error, and if it goes further, through whatever legal channels may happen, you might be in for a surprise,” Reyes told the court.
Reyes contended an agreement signed by Ciudad Acuña, Coah., and state of Coahuila, Mexico, officials, as well as by the then-Val Verde County Judge and the mayor of Del Rio on the proposed site of the second international bridge, about midway between the existing bridge and Amistad Dam northwest of Del Rio, is illegal because the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from entering into agreements with foreign powers.
“You have entered into a compact. I see no signatures from the federal government on this compact. This body may be in error, and should it go further, this body’s decision, or the previous body’s decision, could possibly be reversed. . . The state has no power making compacts with foreign powers. A municipal government or county government doesn’t have that authority either. So be very careful of where you tread on this issue,” Reyes said, sitting down to cheers and clapping.
Del Rio resident Bea Vallejo also spoke to the court.
She thanked the court for work on county projects and for looking to the future, but reminded the court, “That vision of progress should not include ruining the livelihoods of county residents, but overextending your partnership with the city of Del Rio and a foreign government, which is against our nation’s constitution.”
She reminded the court the residents who would be displaced by the construction of the bridge connector route are also county taxpayers.
“You should avoid at all costs the notion of displacing people because the city of Del Rio prefer(s) a future that will only bring in more crime, more danger, and all for economic growth for the profits of a few who do not live in our county,” Vallejo said, her voice shaking with emotion.
Vallejo also reminded the court the county is “in imminent danger” from sinkholes beneath Amistad Dam and urged the city and county to immediately develop a coalition to address the issue.
Bradley Bains, an attorney who owns property in the county’s Agua Vista area on the east side of U.S. Highway 90, told the court he began working on the second international bridge issue about 11 months ago, and sent “a very lengthy” open records request to the city “because they wouldn’t meet with us, they wouldn’t hear us.”
He said he has received about 3,000 pages of requested documents from the city, but he called them “woefully deficient.”
Bains said he wanted to know what documents the city provided to the court “such that now we’ve heard from three commissioners that we have to have a second bridge and it has to be on the north side.”
Owens replied, “I will tell you, I was never presented with a document. I did make some phone calls to some individuals in Mexico, individuals at the state level or here, right across (the river) and my concern was, would we be able to get another permit or get something else signed (for a site) downstream (of the existing bridge). The answer was always no.”
“And the comment was made that we represent you, not the Mexicans, but at the end of the day, do I vote – and I’m just one of five, so I’m speaking for myself – do I vote to keep it downstream, knowing it’s not going to happen, or do I vote to put it upstream and argue like hell and be adamant that unless that route (previously suggested by the court) is picked, we will fight you tooth and nail? That’s where I’m at today. As for a document, I never did get it. We made phone calls,” Owens added.
Bains said he has seen no document provided by the city “to say why the bridge needs to be on the north side.”
Owens replied as long as he has been on the court, since 2011, all conversations about a second bridge have assumed its construction upstream of the existing bridge.
Bains characterized planning for the bridge as suffering from “a complete lack of due diligence.”
County Commissioner Pct. 3 Beau Nettleton said he and Owens met with Texas Department of Transportation officials early in the summer “and they’d never heard of this project.”
Bains also charged that all of the Ports-to-Plains infrastructure that will be built in Val Verde County will be in the southeast corner of the county between Del Rio and Eagle Pass.
“So why would you put a bridge eight to 10 miles away from where the action is, just to support the maquilas built on the west side of Acuña? One has to ask themselves that. It makes absolutely no sense, except for one family and some land speculators,” Bains told the court.
Bains also said he has not heard a single area elected official “articulate to the public as to why a bridge is needed on the northwest side, 10 miles from the city, especially if Ports-to-Plains gets built on the southeast side.”
Owens replied he believes local officials need to plan for a second bridge, adding if those plans started today “and hopefully have something built within 10, 15, 20 years, it would have to be built on the north side.”
When members of the audience called out, “Why?” Owens replied, “Because we won’t get any type of permits.
“Why are we letting Mexico strong-arm us? Where’s the loyalty? Is it to Mexico or is it to all your constituents?” several citizens called out.
“Permits from who, judge?” Bains asked.
“Permits from the Mexican side,” Owens replied, adding, “My loyalty is to the citizens of the county, but at the end of the day, do we do what’s right for everybody or for a few?”
Several other citizens also addressed the court, including Jordan Ediger, a county resident who has spoken to the court on numerous occasions.
Ediger reminded the court it had voted to send the city a letter saying the court would not support any route between a bridge on the north side of Del Rio going through the Lake Ridge area.
Ediger also reminded the court of his petition, containing 1,200 signatures of county residents who don’t want a bridge or bridge route northwest of Del Rio.
“What you’re offering today is no more than you were offering last November,” Ediger charged.
County resident Bruce Henderson also addressed the court. Henderson, too, had spoken to the court on numerous occasions over the past year.
He accused the court of caving in to the city’s demands.
“You gentlemen agreed to stand with us 120 days ago, and now you’re flip-flopping,” Henderson said. He added he was not against progress, but said it must be done the right way, adding a bridge south of Del Rio and building the connecting routes there makes more sense. He also accused the court of pandering to a few area business people, rather than the 1,200 citizens who signed the petition.
Owens said once the court had heard everyone who wanted to speak, he would ask the court what its members wanted to do.
Several other persons also addressed the court, including Ronda Hargrove, who said no one from the city or county has informed the U.S. representative for the county about the bridge project and said the county does not have the commercial truck traffic crossing to warrant a second bridge and wondered aloud if there was permit “to come across Ramon’s country” on the Mexico side and who authorized such a permit, if one exists.
“I don’t want another bridge. I don’t want to live in Eagle Pass. I don’t want to live in Laredo. I don’t want that. The city has run off businesses that wanted to come here, and now they’re preaching more business. No. It’s wrong,” she told the court.
Others who also addressed the court were Kerr Wardlaw and Sharon Ansick.
After the court heard those who wished to speak, Owens asked the court if anyone wanted to make a motion, and Nettleton said his motion would be “to leave what we originally presented to the city of Del Rio,” that the court would only support a second bridge site southeast of Del Rio, downstream of the existing bridge.
County Commissioner Pct. 1 Martin Wardlaw gave the second, and Nettleton, Wardlaw, County Commissioner Pct. 2 Juan Carlos Vazquez and County Commissioner Pct. 4 Gustavo “Gus” Flores voted in favor of the motion.
Owens was the sole vote against the motion.
After the vote, there were angry murmurs among the audience of “trying to appease us” and “we know where your loyalty is.”
But when one woman said loudly, “Put that money in your pocket,” Owens called back, “You need to be careful with the comments, okay, about ‘the money in the pocket.’ We sat here and listened to you all. You all knew my position, and don’t be bringing up anything that you can’t back up because we’ll be in court tomorrow, suing you all. This ‘money in the pocket,’ that shit don’t work. I don’t do that. . . Please keep your comments like that to yourself unless you’re willing to back it up in court.”
A resident of the Sundance Estates, James Robert Fisher, also spoke to the court after the vote and said he has never been notified of the second bridge and connector route situation. Fisher also said he has a large cave on his property that he believes directly affects the aquifer.
Owens said he would send another letter to the city, informing its officials and administrators the court had voted not to support any bridge construction or route north of Del Rio.
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com .
