A teeny-tiny Texas Town Fights Trump’s Wall Plans

Picture: Gregory Bull AP

🌵🚔

A small Texas border town is taking on the Trump administration in federal court over plans to build a border wall through the community’s flood-control levee system.

The town of Presidio, which has just over 3,200 residents, argues that the proposed wall could increase the risk of flooding and that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is moving ahead without following required legal procedures. A federal judge heard arguments Tuesday as the administration continues its push to complete a border wall stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.

The case is one of several legal challenges facing the administration’s border wall project. Landowners, environmental organizations, Native American tribes, and local communities have raised concerns that rapid construction could damage historic sites, cultural resources, and the environment. Critics also question the urgency of the project, noting that illegal border crossings are currently at some of the lowest levels in decades.

At the center of the lawsuit is Presidio’s flood protection system. The town is protected by a network of berms and levees built during the 1970s and 1980s along the Rio Grande and nearby waterways to reduce the risk of flash flooding.

According to court filings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) plans to replace part of an existing earthen levee with a concrete wall topped by 30-foot steel bollard fencing. Presidio’s development district says it has repeatedly asked CBP for detailed construction plans but has been told the information cannot be released because of national security concerns.

Lawyers representing the town say they are worried because previous CBP construction projects have caused or worsened flooding in other areas along the border.

The lawsuit also argues that DHS failed to comply with the Rivers and Harbors Act, which generally requires approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before construction takes place on or near levees. Although DHS has waived many federal laws to speed up border wall construction, the town argues that the agency is still required to consult with the Army Corps under the wording of that law.

The federal government disagrees. Government attorneys told the court that no final design or construction plan has been approved for the Presidio project, making the town’s concerns premature. They also argue that Congress gave DHS broad authority to waive many legal requirements in order to speed up border barrier construction.

Since the wall project resumed, Homeland Security officials have waived numerous environmental and historic preservation regulations that would normally apply to large federal construction projects. Supporters say those waivers are necessary to build the wall quickly, while opponents argue the administration is using its authority more broadly than Congress intended.

Another major question is when construction will actually begin. Crews have already staged materials, including steel wall panels, near the area, but no wall construction has started.

During Tuesday’s hearing, a Justice Department lawyer said work is unlikely to begin at the start of August, as some had feared. Instead, construction could begin in late August, September, or October.

Homeland Security officials have said finishing the wall remains a top priority. During congressional testimony in June, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the first phase of construction should be completed by around this time next year. CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott has said the agency is currently building about six miles of wall each week.

Judge Reggie Walton questioned both sides during the hearing. While the administration argued that its goal is to reduce illegal border crossings to zero, Walton said it is unrealistic to believe people will ever completely stop trying to cross the border.

The judge also acknowledged that Congress has given DHS significant authority to waive certain legal requirements, making it unclear how much power the court has to limit the agency’s actions.

Walton said he expects to issue a decision sometime next week.