Judge Allows Border Wall Through Texas Town’s Levee System

A federal judge has cleared the way for the Department of Homeland Security to proceed with plans to build a border wall through the levee system protecting the small Texas border town of Presidio, rejecting arguments that the construction could lead to catastrophic flooding. The ruling, issued late Sunday by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, marks a significant victory for the Trump administration as it races ahead with its $46 billion border wall program.

The Ruling

Judge Walton denied the Presidio Municipal Development District’s motion for a stay, finding the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its case. In his ruling, the judge acknowledged the community’s concerns while concluding that Congress had granted the DHS Secretary broad waiver authority under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“For the foregoing reasons, despite the understandable concerns expressed by the plaintiff regarding the harms it and the plaintiff’s residents might sustain by the potential construction of the Smart Wall, the Court is compelled to deny the plaintiff’s motion for a stay,” Walton wrote, as reported by NBC News.

The judge also wrote that it was clear “that Congress did not intend to limit the Secretary of DHS’s waiver authority,” bolstering the administration’s argument that it has the legal power to bypass dozens of federal regulations to expedite construction.

A Town’s Flood Safety Concerns

Presidio, a community of approximately 3,200 residents in the Big Bend region of southwestern Texas, is protected by a series of berms and levees built in the 1970s and 1980s along the Rio Grande. The levee system, known as the Presidio Flood Control Project, is owned by the International Boundary and Water Commission and provides flood protection to roughly 52 square miles of urban and agricultural land.

The stakes of that protection were made clear in 2008, when Tropical Depression Lowell caused catastrophic flooding in the area, with some homes filling with up to 10 feet of water. The International Boundary and Water Commission invested millions of dollars in upgrades to the flood control system after that event.

The development district filed its lawsuit on June 17, arguing that Customs and Border Protection’s plans to “replace the earthen slope of the existing levee with a concrete wall, with 30-foot steel bollard panels installed on top” could compromise the flood protection system. The district said it asked the agency for more details but was told the plans couldn’t be shared due to “national security” concerns.

“We are very disappointed that the court will allow this potentially disastrous construction to continue, but we remain committed to protecting the Big Bend area and those who rely on the threatened levees,” the town’s development district said in a statement Monday, according to The Associated Press via Chron.

The Legal Battle Over the Rivers and Harbors Act

At the heart of the case is the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, a federal law that requires engineering approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when significant alterations are planned for a levee system. The development district argued that DHS violated this law by not seeking permission from the Army Corps before moving forward with construction plans.

In response, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin issued a waiver on July 2 that added the Rivers and Harbors Act to a list of more than 30 federal laws being waived for the border wall project, including the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. As Marfa Public Radio reported, the move effectively eliminated the legal requirement that the government had been accused of violating.

“When faced with our lawsuit raising the government’s non-compliance with the Rivers and Harbors Act and related safety concerns, of course DHS’s response was to rush to waive the legal requirements of that law too,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs.

John T. Kennedy, executive director of the Presidio Municipal Development District, said the waiver does not answer the flood safety concern that led his group to bring the case in the first place.

“The government is now acknowledging in court that it does not intend to comply with the Army Corps process and that interagency review remains unfinished,” Kennedy said in a statement. “That is exactly why this case matters: no construction affecting Presidio’s levee or floodplain should be allowed before the legally required safety assessment is conducted.”

The Smart Wall Program

The Trump administration’s border wall program, dubbed the “Smart Wall,” is a $46 billion effort funded through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law on July 4, 2025. The project spans approximately 175 miles across Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio counties in Texas, according to Customs and Border Protection.

The planned infrastructure includes 30-foot steel bollard panels on concrete bases, patrol roads, advanced detection technology, cameras, and lighting. Fisher Sand & Gravel was awarded a $1.2 billion contract in March 2026 to build the section through Presidio.

Construction could begin as early as late August or September/October 2026, according to court testimony. DHS Secretary Mullin has said the preliminary layer of the wall will be finished by “this time next year,” and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott has stated the agency is putting up 6 miles of wall per week.

Broader Opposition and Legal Challenges

The DHS has faced opposition from multiple groups along the border as it pushes forward with construction. As The Independent reported via Yahoo News, the administration has faced legal challenges from environmental groups, Native American tribes, and religious organizations.

In June, Arizona’s Tohono O’odham Nation sued to block a portion of wall allegedly on tribal land, claiming it would violate tribal sovereignty. As Cronkite News reported, the tribe, which straddles 62 miles of Arizona’s border with Mexico, has long opposed construction of a wall on its land, arguing that thousands of tribal members live on both sides of the border.

A Catholic diocese in New Mexico has also claimed the administration is infringing on 14 acres of church land for a border wall. Additionally, The Guardian reported that construction crews in drought-stricken New Mexico were ordered to stop drilling wells after ranchers said pumping groundwater to produce concrete could threaten their livestock.

What’s Next

The ruling denying the stay allows construction to proceed while the underlying litigation continues. The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the development district can continue to pursue its claims about flood danger and local damage.

Opponents also question the urgency of the project given that migrant crossings from Mexico are already at extreme lows. Official statistics show apprehensions in the Big Bend Sector fell 74% between 2023 and 2025, and the sector is one of the least trafficked along the border due to its remote and challenging terrain.

However, the government has argued that low crossing numbers are an “anomaly” and that the goal is “zero illegal crossings.” Judge Walton, during a July 21 hearing, acknowledged the reality of border crossings, saying it’s “just a reality” that people will always try to cross the border.

As construction moves forward, the people of Presidio will be watching closely. The town’s development district has vowed to continue fighting, with Kennedy emphasizing that the community’s safety remains the top priority.

“Here in Presidio, the river has never divided us. It’s the reason our whole community is here, on both sides,” Kennedy said after filing the lawsuit. “The levee is what lets us live safely alongside it, and we’re asking that it get the flood-safety review the law requires before anyone builds on it.”