People keep asking this question as though it's one of those eternal universal mysteries that can't be solved.
The Rio Grande can be fenced on the US side, as long as you provide controlled access points for those US citizens and agencies that require ready access to the water.
Put more border guard personnel and stronger security measures at those access points, than along the rest of the fence. This just isn't an insoluble problem.
Indeed. There is a stream about 100yds from my fence line and I get all the water I want from that stream, gravity fed.
I do not believe that all those who oppose the idea of a fence or wall are doing so because of a water issue that can easily resolved. I believe they just do not want the fence be it because they are soft on ILLEGAL immigration, they want the cheap labor, they want to defend La Raza Rick's opposition to a fence, or they don't want our neighbors to the south hating us because we have fenced them out.
I find none of the above reasons to be a logical or acceptable basis for not utilizing the benefits a fence would provide. None.
Come on Windflier, you know there is a better way to deal with the Rio. Putting a fence on our side of the river is just giving up more to Mexico than we already are. But I will agree to fence the other side. We push into Mexico and set up a DMZ and tell them if they want it back, come and take it. It’s Mexico, what are they going to do?