By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
County commissioners have reaffirmed a previous call for the city to place a second international bridge downstream of the existing bridge, but County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr. says he now believes a new bridge must be built northwest of Del Rio.
Discussion of the city’s proposed second international bridge was again on the agenda of county commissioners court during its first evening meeting Oct. 25.
County residents from Lake Ridge Estates and other areas northwest of Del Rio packed the court’s meeting room in the old county court-at-law building. Most of those residents have opposed the placement of a second international bridge northwest of Del Rio, mainly because the proposed route connecting the bridge with U.S. Highway 90 would go through the middle of those residential developments.
Before Owens allowed county commissioners or concerned citizens to comment on the bridge issue, he said he wished to make a statement.
Owens said the court had previously sent a letter to the city saying it would only support a second bridge built downstream of the existing bridge, with a connector route crossing the former Moody Ranch property to tie into State Loop 79 and U.S. Highway 277 south of Del Rio.
“I’m of the opinion right now that that bridge is not going to be built downstream from the bridge that we have right now,” Owens said.
The county judge said he believes “it’s just not possible” to build a bridge south of Del Rio. He said he believes the options are to build the bridge northwest of Del Rio or not build a bridge at all.
When several members of the audience called out, “No bridge!” Owens replied, “And that’s easy for you all to say, but . . . I represent you all, and I represent 48,000 other people, too, and I’m not willing – and I’m saying this because I need you all to know where I stand – I’m not willing to vote not to build a bridge. My vote’s not going to be that.”
“I will tell you all right now, if it comes to a vote, my vote will be to build a second bridge, in order to spur economic development in Val Verde County; my vote will be for a second bridge to be upstream from the bridge that we have now,” Owens said.
After he finished his statement, Owens said he would first allow the county commissioners to make statements before he opened the floor for citizens to address the court.
Owens asked citizens to try and keep their remarks to shorter than five minutes.
One woman in the back of the room called out that she had been unable to hear Owens’ comments, so, after adjusting the microphones, Owens said he would repeat what he had said.
“What I said a little while ago, I believe that the second bridge needs to get built. . . If we continue to argue about that we want it downriver from the bridge we have right now, then a bridge will not be built, but I believe a second bridge needs to get built, so my vote will be, if it comes to that and the court makes a motion, my vote would be to build a second bridge and to build it upriver from the bridge that we have right now,” Owens reiterated.
“What we would be arguing about would be the route that would go from the second bridge to (Highway) 90 or to the highway going towards Amistad Dam,” Owens added.
County Commissioner Pct. 3 Beau Nettleton spoke next.
After going over some of the costs of constructing the various bridge-to-highway routes being proposed by the city, Nettleton said, “While I agree the bridge needs to be built at some point, I think we’re 20, 30 years away from it, personally.”
Nettleton also discussed the Amistad Zoning and Land Use Order passed in the 1970s, which deals with land use around the Amistad National Recreation Area.
“‘The powers granted under this subchapter are for the purposes of promoting public health, safety, peace, morals, general welfare and encouraging the recreation use of this land.’ That is the purpose of the legislation that was created and what this court is obligated under statute to enforce. Taking a road through the middle of these areas, I think, goes probably completely against all of that,” Nettleton said.
“I believe that we need to plan for the future. I don’t disagree with that one bit, but if we have to build it on the north side of town, I think the only route that complies with this (order) to the best of its ability, and deals with the issues the public has, is taking the route along the railroad track out to the road going to the dam,” he said.
“I’ve heard lots of comments that if we don’t build it there, then Mexico won’t build (their share of the bridge), but the last time I checked, I was elected to represent the people on this side of the river,” Nettleton said.
The commissioner also reminded those attending the meeting that the bridge is a city project. He said although he initially supported the plan for the route connecting the bridge and Highway 90 via Las Brisas Boulevard, he added the area around the road has seen a great deal of residential development that was not present when those initial plans were made.
Nettleton said the only connector route he would support is one that would take traffic north from the bridge to the highway between U.S. 90 and Amistad Dam.
“I have my concerns about pulling the trigger today on this, but I know we are going to be forced to take a vote, so it is what it is, but I will not support any other route, simply because of the development and the way that area has changed since this was looked at 15, 20 years ago. And I think we have an obligation as a court to try to comply with the (Amistad Zoning and Land Use Order) as closely as we possibly can to deal with those issues,” Nettleton said.
Owens displayed a map of the route Nettleton had proposed on the video screens in the courtroom and said Nettleton’s route had been presented to the city. He said city officials were not in favor of that route because it crosses the railroad tracks twice, and they were concerned about the construction costs.
Owens also went over several of the other routes that had been proposed to link the new bridge and U.S. Highway 90.
Owens then recognized County Commissioner Pct. 1 Martin Wardlaw, who said he, too, supported the concept of a second international bridge.
“I do oppose the fact that a prior county judge obligated this court, and Mexico is demanding that we build this where they say, and I support the south route for the bridge. To me it makes more sense, not going out through private property and all. One ranch is affected (by a bridge south of Del Rio) and it would be total, total improvement on that ranch, and what I see here is so many people are being affected and properties are being devalued by this road going through there,” Wardlaw said.
County Commissioner Pct. 4 Gustavo “Gus” Flores also weighed in.
“I’d like to say that I’m a big supporter of a second bridge, a big believer in economic development. Economic development will create an industrial park, create jobs, tax dollars, and we cannot stop growth. If we want it or not today, it’s going to happen tomorrow or the day after. We need that second bridge. . .There’s traffic going right now through the middle of the city. We need to detour it, get it out of Del Rio. That is my opinion,” Flores said.
When several audience members called out to disagree with Flores, Owens said he understood the fact that for many attending the meetings the issue is personal and said the court wants to listen to them, but added, “I don’t really want this to turn into a screaming match back and forth.”
After hearing from some of the citizens who attended the meeting, Owens asked the court if it wished to take a vote.
Nettleton said his motion was to “leave what we had originally sent to the city of Del Rio,” referencing a letter the court had sent the city, saying it would only support a second international bridge built southeast of Del Rio, downstream of the existing bridge.
County Commissioner Pct. 2 Juan Carlos Vazquez gave the second, and Nettleton, Vazquez, Flores and Wardlaw voted in favor of the motion.
Owens gave the sole dissenting vote.
—
Contact the author at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com
