There is much discussion, mostly by negative pundits, about the effectiveness and ecological impacts of the increased border wall along the US southern border. Here are details that outline impacts from several sources.
Also note that the “wall” is more than a wall; it is construction of the 18’-30’ high hardened steel-bollard barriers, new and improved all-weather access roads, perimeter lighting, enforcement cameras, and other related technology. It is, in reality, a system of tools made up of 3 elements: The wall, agents, and technology.
According to a DHS report in late 2020, border barriers began being built over 30 years ago and have proven “a critical component in gaining operational control of the border” and as of October 23, 2020, construction of the wall system breaks down as follows:
FUNDED: 738 miles
COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION: 386 miles
UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 195 miles
PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE: 157 miles
It was expected that 450 miles would be completed by the end of 2020. This goal was essentially met.
According to reports from several sources, the new barrier has been highly effective across several previously uncontrolled factors. In the San Diego sector it has reduced manpower needs by 150 agents every 24 hours (note the agency is already severely understaffed and is facing critical manpower shortages). At the same time seizures of fentanyl, marijuana, and methamphetamines have grown alarmingly from FY19 to FY20, demonstrating they are being forced by the wall into areas where they are more easily captured – border entry points.
In the Yuma sector illegal entries have plummeted 87% from FY19 to FY20 as more wall segments are completed. Sanchez Canal entries have dropped by more than 1,000 per month since wall installation. In FY19 Yuma apprehended 12 groups of 100 or more. In FY20 they have apprehended zero (at the time of this platform penning) with wall in place. Family Unit entries have dropped from 51,961 in FY19 to 2,940 in FY20.
In the RGV sector, where zero infrastructure existed prior to the new wall, there has been a 79% decrease in apprehensions since completion. There has also been a 26% decrease in narcotics seizures. Human smugglers have now been forced to attempt to cross further west, where no wall is deployed yet, but in more open territory, making it easier for CBP surveillance to detect and dispatch to apprehend.
In the El Paso sectors, zones 14 and 15 apprehensions have decreased by 60% and 81%, respectively. In zones 20-23, apprehensions have dropped by 70%.
Net effect has been extremely positive for safety and security of not only the border area where the new overall system is deployed, but also a reduction in crime in those areas, and danger to CBP agents. It has also significantly eased the strain on CBP agents, who are struggling to manage the influx across unprotected border and official entry stations (currently at over 2,400 per day).
Environmental impact is also a topic that must be visited: Scientists have raised concerns that US-Mexican scientific collaboration is hampered by border security (not the wall but delays by agents in not allowing them to freely and frequently accessed both sides of the territory). They are concerned that (up to) 34% of the non-flying terrestrial and freshwater species could be disconnected. Since the wall is porous and above water the freshwater species potential impact does immediately fall into question. They are concerned that the wall will increase soil erosion and exacerbate flooding (citing one example where the old wall of wire mesh in SW Arizona trapped debris during a 90-min thunderstorm, causing 2’-7’ water pools to form). It also disconnects over 110 wildlife species from their full range. This concern did not exclude the smaller species, that would, in fact, be able to move through the wall as necessary. But Mexican gray wolves, jaguars, and ocelots are also at risk for re-establishing in the US (this has been happening for some time, prior to the new wall, incidentally). There is also wildlife refuge impacts, most notably the National Butterfly Center, where it is believed that the wall will place 70% of the 100 acre sanctuary on the Mexican side. DHS did shelve plans to put wall through the Santa Ana NWR, however, where more than 400 species of birds, armadillos, and wildcats live.
Net is that environmental impacts do exist and have already been felt with prior barriers that were constructed. Care must be taken to build using methods to ensure minimal environmental impact, however the wall system (all 3 components mentioned previously) do have the desired positive impact on the immigration and trafficking problems they are designed to curb. Fortunately, exceptions and varying strategies have been used, where possible, to meet the demands of as many interests as possible (noting the SANWR example, and also the ability to shift resource concentrations as needed, e.g., more agent presence where wall does not exist, etc.).