“That entire section where access to the river is desirable may end up being a series of motion sensors, electric eyes, cameras, and response teams with no physical barrier.”
Yes - that is used at other parts of the border with success. I’m guessing it would be pretty challenging to built anything of substance in many areas with shifting sand, swelling clay, unstable river bottoms. Of course adding 5000 more border agents will help for all of the high-tech barriers.
Interesting about the treaty not allowing a barrier in the river - is it considered “navigable” or perhaps for fisheries?
I was reading (not sure what year) where Mexico is supposed to allow enough flow for Texas irrigation, but in some years they weren’t letting enough through as per the treaty. I imagine if push-came-to-shove the Mexicans could try to use that as a threat against increased border security. I’m not sure it would help their cause any.
I don’t think it has anything to do with navigability. It is strictly to guarantee access to the water for irrigation and livestock, I think. Why a permeable barrier is not allowed is a mystery to me.
I think anchors screwed into the bottom of a river — those corkscrew things — 20 or 30 feet deep would be enough to hold a military link fence in place, with buoys at the surface supporting a ten foot height above the water surface. It might slow people down enough for the response team to get there before they can disappear.