I've seen interviews with border ranchers who want a fence built because illegals constantly cross their property and cause damage and commit theft as they cross. And I expect there are solutions to the water problems some ranchers might have.
Unless there are significant natural, physical barriers in a section of the border, then double fencing and personnel are the only way to control that border short of stationing BP or a military guards several per mile. And that won't happen for many reasons.
But it's the US/Mexico border and not the Texas/Mexico. If some local priorities must be trumped by national priorities, that's precisely what should happen.
And as I've said several time already, letting border state politicians determine what is or isn't done has been and would continue to be a huge mistake, assuming there is ever a real intent to control the border.
Instead, I'm trying to help you understand some practicalities that apply to the Texas portion of the U.S.-Mexico border (did that description satisfy you?).
Practicalities which might cause Gov. Perry -- whom I am not supporting -- to call a fence "ridiculous". Practicalities which could cause severe economic hardship for U.S. citizens and businesses and, thus, are legitimate concerns.
At the same time, most Texans are in favor of "securing the border". But they want to find the best way to do that, respecting the hardships that it might work on innocent citizens and businesses.
If you have no interest in understanding this quandary and are set on a single, exclusive solution -- irrespective of its impact (as well as its efficacy) -- that's your decision.