Trump's Border Wall Would Split Texas Ranch In Two

The proposed border wall between Mexico and the United States threatens to cut through a ranch that has belonged to the Cavazos family for 250 years. ( Wyatt Bechtel )

The proposed border wall between Mexico and the United States threatens to cut through a ranch that has belonged to the Cavazos family for 250 years.

A map of the “Border Infrastructure Project” shows a red line that cuts through the Cavazos family barn, through their rental house and through a field where they graze cattle, leaving the family with land on both sides and cutting them off from the Rio Grande river.

“They want to divide the property in half and cut us off from the river,” Fred Cavazos told The Washington Post. “Who wants to live on the other side of that wall? If this goes through, our property is useless.”

Cavazos, 69, has worked on the family land his entire life, a witness to border politics that have continued to transform the property and illegal immigration has increased in the Rio Grande Valley. His pasture is now a busy route for human trafficking, with as many as 30 migrants passing through on some days, according to the Washington Post.

The Cavazos’ 77-acre property is located near Madero, situated in far South Texas between McAllen and the Rio Grande, and where Cavazos and his cousin Rey Anzaldua, 73, have opposed the concept of a border wall since it was first proposed during the George W. Bush administration. Now, Cavazos is turning away government officials who come to ask for permission to access his land. They want him to sign a “Right of Entry” form so they can take soil samples, survey the flood plain and plot the path of the wall.

A pro-bono lawyer has explained the family’s options. They can sign the forms, grant access to their land and expect to sell some of it to the government at market price. Or they can refuse to sign, risking a lawsuit and possible eminent domain.

“What kind of choice are they giving us? We let them have access, or they take it,” Cavazos said. “Either way, we lose.”

Comments
Submitted by Justin on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 15:35

Why would Drovers high a democrat to write about ranching? Greg might be better suited for the Huff Post. Nobody likes the government grabbing land, but I dont like 30 illegals entering the country through this ranch either.

Submitted by bob on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 17:08

Why not build the wall north of this 77 acre spread?

Submitted by bob on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 17:08

Why not build the wall north of this 77 acre spread?

Submitted by Sam on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 07:02

They will be paid well. Just like everyone who has ever had a farm split in half by; interstate highways, rail roads, pipelines, power lines...

Submitted by RGV Cattleman on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 08:26

We have land in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, right on the river. We already have the boarder fence in Cameron County. It stops and starts at our east and west property lines. Our property has essentially become a funnel for the illegals to move through ... we leave the farm before it gets dark as it is not safe to stay there anymore. We have found trophy "rape" trees (look it up to learn what those trees are) on the farm drugs and illegals. We have had equipment vandalized, stolen and barns/equipment broken in to on a regular basis. We never go to the farm, even in the daylight, unarmed.

From what I have seen, they will build a gate in the fence for the land owner to have access to both sides of the fence, thus, his property. Better to have this fence than to have the illegal trafficking he already contends with.

Submitted by Col on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 09:24

77 acres?!?!?! Take the money, don’t be assholes, it’s for the good of the country! If U KNOW 30 illegals are crossing Ur land daily, U KNOW it’s right to build the wall!!!

Submitted by Terry Wynne on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 09:44

I am an American rancher. This is not a Texas ranch if the wall will split it. It is half Texas and apparently half Mexico ranch. He has illegal activities happening that our agents need to monitor. I am all for cattlemen, but more for safety and the rule of law! Just my observation and opinion.

Submitted by Tom Hogan on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 09:48

Really? You're calling 77-acres in South Texas a "ranch"? How many cattle do they run on 77-acres in the dessert of S. TX , , 3 head? And you are quoting the Washington Post? One of the most liberal DNC propaganda pamphlets in the U.S.? Damn Greg, have you gone Lib-tard on us? If & when the wall goes through, trust me they will be compensated generously, then maybe they will have enough to go buy a real "ranch"

Submitted by WInnallan@yahoo.com on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 13:01

This is a ridiculous article. They are already separated by an international border! Build the Wall!

Submitted by bob on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 14:22

wow so in texas 77 acres is a ranch? thought things were bigger and better there. Personally if my "ranch" was being used by human traffickers i would welcome the feds to fix the problem. Even if i had to give up some acres.

Submitted by Michael L. on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 15:54

This family should be rightly angry, but at the illegal aliens crossing our border, not Trump. If the law would be followed and this country's sovereignty respected, all of this would go away immediately. Common sense plus adult behavior would cure a lot of problems quickly...

Submitted by C.J. Smith on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 17:55

Give me a FN break. We owned property on the Rio Grande and You do not make a living on 77 acres. Course 30 "wets" a day at $10 a head I guess you could.
The family and I had our problems with the immigrants from nice folks to mainly not giving a Damn about your property.

Submitted by Estil on Wed, 09/12/2018 - 20:29

These folks allow a thousand illegals through per year? And I should be sorry? Eminent Domain that place now!

Submitted by barrmfarm@gmail.com on Wed, 09/12/2018 - 20:56

This is a problem that is to be expected in a wall traversing over a thousand miles. The fact the the ranch has been in their family for over 250 years is a testament of the flexibility of at least 4 countries (Spain, Mexico, Texas, U.S.A., C.S.A. and finally the U.S.A. again) who maintained jurisdictional governance of that land for so long. With the same ranch land changing citizenship so often for so many years, one would reasonably expect boundary disputes and restrictions. This is a perfect example of when eminent domain should be used if an agreement can not be made in compromise. There is no cause more important than a Nation's security. Thankfully, over the more then 1000 miles of border wall proposed, this may be the only serious case of land dispute.

Submitted by Estil on Wed, 10/03/2018 - 20:44

Thirty per day. Sounds like a wall is in order.