06/10/2026
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/7b9dcd3f418b4086988532ace99a4bfc?fbclid=IwY2xjawSWbl5leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE4U3U5ZDJhdzVCcEZ1d2p5c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHt_YfmO8EMiSXiBW5uYJ-z9-WUUg7eXyvd24k-3zMl0QBiBNuiKg9bi61Dwu_aem_SQ7i65T5-qC4yTUzNMXmtA
Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Border Barrier and Road Construction in Brewster County, Texas
To Whom It May Concern,
I am submitting this comment regarding the proposed border barrier and associated road construction projects planned for Brewster County, Texas.
My husband and I own an electrical contracting business, a nightly rental property, and several other small businesses in Brewster County. We are local residents, property owners, employers, taxpayers, and active members of this community. We also own multiple parcels of land throughout the county. As individuals whose livelihoods and future are directly tied to this region, we are deeply concerned about the proposed project and its long-term consequences.
The Big Bend region is one of the most ecologically, culturally, and economically significant landscapes in the United States. The proposed construction threatens resources that are irreplaceable and fundamental to the character of the region. Just as importantly, the area's pristine wilderness is essential to the economic backbone of our communities: tourism.
First, the project would fragment critical wildlife habitat and disrupt long-established migration corridors used by numerous native species. The Rio Grande serves as a lifeline in an otherwise arid landscape, and many animals depend on unrestricted access to river corridors and cross-border habitat. Physical barriers and expanded road networks would further isolate wildlife populations and reduce ecological resilience.
Equally troubling is the decision to waive nearly every federal environmental and cultural protection that would normally govern a project of this magnitude. These protections were established to safeguard natural resources, historic sites, water quality, wildlife habitat, and public lands. By bypassing them, the federal government is effectively asking local communities and future generations to bear the unknown consequences of a project that may permanently alter this landscape. The environmental, economic, and cultural costs of those decisions will be carried by the residents and wildlife of Brewster County for decades to come.
Second, the Big Bend region is internationally recognized for its scenic beauty, dark skies, and outdoor recreation opportunities. Outdoor recreation in Texas generates approximately $52 billion annually and supports more than 400,000 jobs. Protecting Big Bend's natural resources is not only environmentally responsible—it is economically essential.
Tourism associated with Big Bend National Park, Big Bend Ranch State Park, the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, and surrounding communities is the primary economic driver for much of Brewster County. Visitors travel from around the world to experience an unspoiled landscape unlike any other in the United States. The introduction of industrial-scale infrastructure, extensive road construction, lighting, and border barriers would diminish that experience and threaten the businesses that depend on it. Local lodging providers, restaurants, guides, outfitters, artists, retailers, and service providers all rely on preserving the region's unique natural character. Tourism generates sustainable economic benefits that many of these communities simply cannot survive without.
Third, the proposed construction raises serious concerns regarding impacts to cultural, archaeological, and historic resources. The Big Bend region contains significant Indigenous, Mexican, ranching, and borderland heritage sites that deserve careful protection and consultation prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Yet many of the regulations designed to safeguard these resources have been waived. Similar waivers used during previous border wall construction projects have resulted in documented damage to sensitive cultural and archaeological sites. Once these resources are destroyed, they cannot be restored.
Additionally, many local elected officials, law enforcement leaders, business owners, conservation organizations, and residents have questioned the necessity of a physical border barrier in this rugged and remote terrain. According to publicly available FY2024 data, the Big Bend Sector encompasses roughly one-quarter of the southern border yet accounts for only a fraction of overall unlawful crossings. Given this reality, the destruction of protected landscapes surrounding Big Bend National Park and Big Bend Ranch State Park is difficult to justify.
Big Bend's 1,500-foot limestone canyons, vast desert expanses, rugged mountains, and remote geography already serve as formidable natural barriers. The region experiences comparatively low crossing activity, especially when compared to sectors such as the Rio Grande Valley. A border wall in Big Bend would therefore be redundant, environmentally destructive, and unlikely to provide meaningful improvements to border security.
This concern is shared by leaders across the political spectrum. On February 28, State Representative Eddie Morales Jr., joined by 46 members of the Texas House of Representatives, formally requested that plans for border wall construction in the Big Bend region be halted. Opposition to this project is not a partisan issue. Local residents, business owners, conservation groups, outdoor recreation advocates, elected officials, and visitors from around the world have expressed concern over the irreversible impacts this project would have on one of America's most treasured landscapes.
Reports and expert assessments have repeatedly suggested that modern surveillance technologies, targeted enforcement strategies, and the region's existing natural barriers may provide more effective and less destructive alternatives. These are the recommendations of people and institutions that know this region best—those responsible for public safety, economic stability, and stewardship of the land.
I am also deeply concerned about the companies selected to manage and construct this project.
Parsons Government Services Inc. was awarded a contract valued at more than $609 million despite a documented history of compliance failures, cost overruns, litigation, and project performance concerns spanning decades. Public records indicate previous False Claims Act settlements, federal investigations, and repeated concerns regarding project management on large-scale government contracts. Given the extraordinary environmental sensitivity of the Big Bend region and the unprecedented waivers granted for this project, taxpayers should expect the highest possible level of accountability, transparency, and oversight.
Similarly, Fisher Sand & Gravel has faced multiple controversies related to border wall construction, including erosion and structural concerns, disputes involving international water treaty compliance, contract claims and litigation, procurement investigations, and substantial penalties associated with previous infrastructure projects. These histories raise legitimate questions regarding whether adequate safeguards are in place to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and that environmental damage is minimized.
The proposed road construction deserves equal scrutiny. New and expanded roads can create long-term environmental impacts, including erosion, habitat fragmentation, invasive species spread, dust generation, and the visual degradation of previously undisturbed landscapes. In our area, contractors have already begun unauthorized work on certain roadways, resulting in county intervention and cease-and-desist orders. Such incidents only reinforce concerns regarding oversight and compliance.
Furthermore, roads built into previously inaccessible areas can create lasting changes in land use patterns and human activity. Statistics show that building roads, where none currently exist, only encourages illegal border crossings because you have paved the way for them literally. Once established, these impacts often persist long after construction is complete. Roads can become permanent scars on the landscape, regardless of whether the larger project ultimately achieves its stated goals.
In essence, the proposed wall and associated infrastructure represent not only an environmental and cultural threat, but also a significant financial burden on taxpayers given the minimal demonstrated need and questionable return on investment in terms of border security.
I respectfully request that U.S. Customs and Border Protection fully evaluate and publicly disclose the project's impacts on wildlife, tourism, local economies, dark sky resources, cultural sites, water resources, property owners, and the quality of life of residents and visitors. I further urge the agency to seriously consider less invasive alternatives that can achieve border security objectives while preserving the extraordinary natural and cultural resources of Brewster County.
The Big Bend region is a national treasure. It belongs to all Americans, and we have a responsibility to protect it for future generations. Decisions made today will have consequences lasting decades, if not centuries. Any action that would permanently alter this landscape should be undertaken only with the highest standards of transparency, scientific analysis, public engagement, and fiscal responsibility.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Jamie Flack
Terlingua, Texas
Request for Input
