Twenty-two Republican members of Congress have turned to the book of Genesis for justification on why the State of Texas and not the federal government should have control of the Rio Grande River that serves as a border between the U.S. and Mexico.
Attorneys for the Texas Public Policy Foundation — which is known for promoting school vouchers and advocating “the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels” by rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change — wrote the amicus brief in the case brought by the Biden administration against Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
As part of his well-publicized campaign against immigrants, Abbott has ordered troops to push migrants back into the water and has erected a line of enormous buoys that have been shown to house razor-sharp metal plates like circular saw blades wedged between the orange buoys. Those plates have been described as “serrated metal plates to pierce the flesh of anyone who tries to pass them.”
The White House contends neither Abbott nor the State of Texas have authority to obstruct the river — much less mutilate people in the water.
Besides immigration matters being delegated by law to federal control, the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act prohibits unapproved structures being placed in federally controlled waterways.
The Republican Congressmen — acting on behalf of Abbott — contend the Rio Grande does not meet the criteria for federal control because its waters are not navigable, even though both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard manage to navigate it.
Buoy barriers are installed and situated in the middle of the Rio Grande River on July 18 in Eagle Pass, Texas. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
About 1,000 miles of the river’s 1,800-mile expanse form a portion of the U.S. Mexico border. Only 20% of the river’s volume makes it to the Gulf of Mexico because so much water is siphoned off along the way for water supply. That makes some portions of the river less flowing at certain times of the year.
This variation is the basis of the Republican claim that the feds shouldn’t control the Rio Grande — although the portions they contend are not navigable are in New Mexico, not along the Texas border.
Just because a river once upon a time was deemed navigable doesn’t mean it should always be considered navigable, the Congressmen assert.
And that’s where Genesis come in.
The brief explains: “The geologic record shows that most of Texas was once covered by seas. Indeed, if one takes the Book of Genesis literally, then the entire world was once navigable by boats large enough to carry significant amounts of livestock. Genesis 7:17-20 (ESV). Under the federal government’s theory, these anecdotes would render any structure built anywhere in Texas an obstruction to navigation subject to federal regulation.”
While this appears to be a bow to young earth creationism — which teaches the earth is only 6,000 years old and for 40 days was covered by a worldwide flood — it actually mixes creationism with the more standard scientific view that makes the earth millions of years old.
Citing the “geologic record” to show most of Texas once was covered by seas appeals to the standard scientific teaching that the state’s land mass was entirely covered by an ancient sea 265 million years ago.
So while advancing both young earth creationism and modern scientific teaching at the same time, the brief contends if a territory once was navigable but now is not, that doesn’t mean the feds get to control it.
An up-close look at the metal plates between buoys placed in the Rio Grande River by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. (Source: Representative Sylvia Garcia via Twitter)
Thus, if any part of the Rio Grande today is unnavigable, Abbott ought to be allowed to place barriers in any other part of the river — even if that part is navigable — the argument seems to go.
Slate wrote of the situation: “This resort to young-earth creationism should tip off the reader that Texas has no plausible legal argument in this case. And still the worst is yet to come. After wrapping up this water business, the state takes a big swing: Unauthorized border crossings, the state’s lawyers write, is tantamount to an ‘invasion,’ and Texas ‘has the constitutional power to repel that invasion’ to ‘protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of its citizens.’”
Rep. Jodey C. Arrington is the lead claimant in the amicus brief. He represents the 19th Congressional District of Texas, which covers a section of West Texas that includes Lubbock and Abilene. The southernmost tip of his districts lies more than 200 miles away from the Rio Grande.
Other Congressmen who signed onto the brief include Brian Babin, Texas; Andy Biggs, Arizona; Vern Buchanan, Florida. Michael C. Burgess, Texas; Kat Cammack, Florida; John Carter, Texas; Michael Cloud, Texas; Jeff Duncan, South Carolina; Jake Ellzey, Texas; Lance Gooden, Texas; Sam Graves, Missouri; Clay Higgins, Louisiana; Ronny L. Jackson, Texas; Nathaniel Moran, Texas; August Pfluger, Texas; David Rouzer, North Carolina; Chip Roy, Texas; Keith Self, Texas; Pete Sessions, Texas; Beth Van Duyne, Texas; Roger Williams, Texas.
Related articles:
Texas officials once again separating migrant families
Supreme Court sides with White House and against Greg Abbott on immigration