The United States’ border with Mexico spans almost 2,000 miles, with Arizona and Texas sharing 387 and 697 miles of that border respectively. The U.S. border with Mexico comprises different types of terrain, a fact that presents a significant challenge to border security efforts. For example, in Arizona, the border is characterized by desert and rugged mountains; in Texas, the border is divided by the Rio Grande. Southern California comprises coastal beaches, inland mountains, rugged canyons, and high desert, whereas in New Mexico the border is mountainous. Additionally, the area along the southwest border is composed of federal, state, tribal, and private lands; federal and tribal lands make up 632 miles, or approximately 33 percent, of the nearly 2,000 total border miles. Private and state-owned lands constitute the remaining 67 percent of the border, most of which is located in Texas. See figure 1 for a map of the southwest border. In Texas, farms and ranches, sometimes passed down from generation to generation, are commonplace. According to the Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas has 248,800 farms and ranches covering 130.2 million acres. Texas is also the nation’s leading cattle and cotton producer, with cattle sales earning $10.5 billion in 2012, and is the leading exporter of beef with $855 million in exports. The top crops grown in south Texas include cotton, sugarcane, grain sorghum, and citrus. Damage to privately owned property in south Texas could negatively affect business and the safety of the farms and ranches on or near the border. The damage can include bent and cut fences; rammed and battered gates; stolen and destroyed vehicles; broken irrigation pipes; and discarded garbage, including empty water jugs, clothing, and backpacks. See figures 2, 3, and 4 for examples of private property damage experienced by landowners in south Texas. Threats along the southwest border include illegal border crossers and the smuggling of drugs, firearms, and currency by criminal networks. Along the southwest border, Border Patrol has 9 sectors and 73 stations, and Border Patrol reported that about 79 percent of apprehensions and almost 90 percent of drug seizures in this region occurred in the Laredo, Tucson, and RGV sectors during fiscal year 2013. Additionally, according to Border Patrol data, agents apprehended a total of 821,308 illegal border crossers in these 3 sectors from fiscal years 2011 to 2013, with yearly increases in Laredo and RGV. To enhance partnerships and interactions with the community along the northern and southern borders, CBP implemented the Border Community Liaison (BCL) Program within Border Patrol in 2011and expanded this program to all CBP components in 2012. Within Border Patrol, BCL agents conduct outreach and educate the community on the role and responsibilities of CBP and its offices. BCL agents are located within each of Border Patrol’s 20 sectors across the United States and many of its stations. In addition, as part of the BCL Program, the ranch liaison position has been created in some sectors and stations along the southwest border to specifically work with the ranching community. Among other things, BCL agents and ranch liaisons serve as a direct line for landowners to report property damage that allegedly resulted from illegal border crossers or law enforcement activity to Border Patrol. CBP has a tort claims process, pursuant to which individuals may make a claim for compensation by submitting a completed Standard Form 95 (SF 95), which sets forth allegations of property damage or loss, personal injury, or death caused by the negligent acts or omissions of an employee of CBP. As part of this process, CBP’s OCC is to review the submitted claim to determine whether an individual is eligible for compensation under the FTCA, and where the claim cannot be settled under the FTCA, then under 19 U.S.C. § 1630 or the Small Claims Act (SCA). Upon its review of the claim and applicable legal standards, OCC is to make a recommendation to the appropriate deciding official as to (1) whether to grant or deny the claim, and (2) the amount, if any, to be offered in settlement of a claim that is either fully or partially granted. Generally, under the FTCA, a claimant may be eligible for compensation where such claimant suffers injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by a CBP employee’s negligent or wrongful act or omission committed within the scope of his or her official duties, subject to certain exceptions. The claimant must submit a claim meeting the applicable legal requirements, and also provide sufficient evidence and documentation in support of the claim. Granted claims can be paid from CBP’s Salaries and Expenses account or the Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund, depending on the dollar amount and statutory basis pursuant to which the claim was granted. See figure 5 for a flowchart of the steps CBP is to take during the administrative tort claims process. Landowners we spoke with reported that damage occurs to private properties in south Texas on a regular basis, the majority of which affects fencing as a result of individuals trying to illegally cross the border. Damage reported by landowners includes broken gates, destroyed crops, and injured or lost livestock. For example, suspected illegal border crossers cutting directly through private fields have resulted in bent or broken crops, ultimately diminishing the crop yield. Additionally, landowners reported livestock falling ill as a result of eating trash left behind by illegal border crossers, as well as cattle being severely injured by speeding vehicles. Property damage is particularly problematic when it occurs in the middle of the night and landowners are not alerted until the morning, or depending on the type and size of the ranch, until days or weeks later, according to the landowners we interviewed. This type of damage can lead to the escape of livestock, which could result in injury not only to the animal, but also to area drivers. Although the 33 landowners we spoke to stated that most damage they experienced is caused by illegal border crossers, 21 of these landowners have also experienced damage that may have resulted from Border Patrol as well as state law enforcement activities or were aware of such events occurring in their community. Examples of such damage reported by landowners include agents accidentally setting fire to grass with catalytic converters, speeding on and damaging unpaved roads, and crashing into fences and pipelines. A farm manager told us that despite putting up a sign prohibiting Border Patrol’s use of dragging tires, a process used to clear footprints and other signs left by illegal border crossers, dragging was still occurring on this property, resulting in damaged crops. This farm manager explained that dust caused by dragging can be particularly harmful to grapefruit trees, which are plentiful in south Texas. Some landowners in south Texas installed ladders along their fences to discourage illegal border crossers from damaging the fences in an attempt to circumvent Border Patrol. However, landowners told us that illegal border crossers are not using the provided ladders, and as a result, they are continuing to experience fence damage. See figure 6 for an example of a ladder along a fence we observed during our visit to south Texas. Some landowners keep records of the property damage they experience potentially as a result of illegal border crossers and corresponding enforcement activities. For example, local landowners and law enforcement collected information on an ad hoc basis on private property damage from 2011 to 2014 in Kleburg, Jim Wells, Brooks, Duval, and Kenedy Counties in Texas, citing over $120,000 of fence and gate damage during that time period. Some landowners reported that fence damage could cost up to about $30,000 per mile to replace depending on the type and height of fence. A ranch could have multiple layers of fence around the property of varying types, a fact that may increase potential repair costs. Damage to fencing can also lead to additional costs to the landowner in the form of escaped livestock. One ranch manager stated that a lost or killed cow can cost between $1,000 and $1,500. In addition, ranch managers explained that cattle are separated for various reasons, including breeding and disease quarantine, and a cut fence could allow the cattle to merge, resulting in the potential loss of revenue. For example, another ranch manager stated that if 20 cows were not able to be bred, this could result in lost revenue of approximately $26,000. This ranch manager also stated that it cost about $500 per incident to repair fence damage, and in 2013, the ranch spent about $31,000 on such repairs. Another ranch manager stated that the world record class White- tail buck on the property cost up to $30,000 each and even one displaced or lost buck resulting from a cut or bent fence would be a major financial loss. Border Patrol sector officials have cited damaged fencing as the most common type of damage as well, but the extent to which private property damage occurs is unknown. According to CBP officials, collecting such information would be resource-intensive and would not change the administrative tort claims process or agents’ responsibilities related to securing the border. BCL agents in stations within five of the nine southwest border sectors are collecting some information on private property damage and corresponding repairs. For example, one sector independently keeps a log of each SF 95 filed and whether the claim was granted or denied, wherever possible. BCL agents in another sector log how many times they have spoken to ranchers, any complaints or comments the ranchers might have, and if the ranchers have made any types of repairs, but there is no specific log for reported private property damage. One station keeps a log of damage suspected to be caused by persons illegally crossing the border and Border Patrol agents, and the cost of temporary repairs made on the property to address the reported damage. Border Patrol sector officials expressed mixed opinions on the benefits of collecting data on property damage.