In September 2008, the Rio Grande rose beyond anything Presidio had seen in living memory. The Rio Conchos multiplied its flow and sent a wall of water through the valley that overwhelmed our levee system, flooding homes, destroying farms, and forcing a binational emergency response.
As officials surveyed the damage from the air, tragedy struck. The U.S. and Mexican commissioners of the International Boundary and Water Commission were killed in a plane crash in the mountains outside Presidio, along with the executive director of the Rio Grande Council of Governments. They were there for one reason: to understand a river that does not forgive bad assumptions.
What followed was a years-long federal reconstruction effort. The United States rebuilt roughly 15 miles of engineered levee, originally constructed in 1975, at a cost of more than $14 million. Today, that system, with a replacement value approaching $100 million, stands between our community of 4,000 people and one of the most hydrologically volatile stretches of the Rio Grande. It is not an abstraction. It is the reason Presidio exists as a functioning town.
Now the same federal government that rebuilt that levee proposes to build a border wall on top of it. Not beside it—on it. In a letter received April 3, U.S. Customs and Border Protection outlined a plan for a reinforced concrete levee wall with 30-foot steel bollards installed above it, asserting that the project would enhance both security and flood protection.
No engineering analysis was provided to support that claim.
We are not opposed to border security. Presidio sits on the border. We understand its realities better than anyone drafting waivers in Washington. But a waiver designed for border security does not waive the laws of physics. Water does not read the Federal Register. The Rio Conchos does not care what statutes have been suspended. If you build on a levee without proper engineering review, the flood will find the wall, and the wall will find the town.
This is not hypothetical. In 2019, when Fisher Industries built bollard fencing in the Rio Grande floodplain near Mission, Texas, without proper authorization, the Department of Justice intervened. The government’s position was clear: construction in a floodplain without adequate review threatens lives and property downstream. That same contractor has now been awarded a $1.2 billion contract to build here. The principle has not changed—only the builder.
You may have heard that the national park has been taken off the table. The maps changed. But Big Bend is not just a park boundary. It is a region: communities, infrastructure, working land, and people. Across roughly 175 miles of this region, real impacts remain very much on the table. When attention narrows to what was spared, it can obscure what is still at risk.
In Presidio, CBP has confirmed that it has identified parcels in our service area for potential acquisition and access. We are a political subdivision of the state of Texas with active economic development assets. These include a geothermal energy project, a master-planned industrial park, a downtown revitalization initiative, and a direct interface with the Presidio-Ojinaga International Rail Crossing, one of only five in Texas. Tens of millions of public dollars have been invested in that crossing, including a new $33 million inspection facility. The rail bridge itself was rebuilt to the profile of the levee now proposed for modification. These are not separate issues. They are the same floodplain, viewed from different angles.
And we are not alone. In Zapata County, commissioners have moved to retain experts to evaluate flood impacts tied to wall construction. In Valentine, a standing-room-only crowd gathered to confront the implications of housing hundreds of transient construction workers in a community served by a single well. Across the region, from Candelaria to Laredo, communities are asking the same questions and receiving the same lack of clear answers.
Local officials have asked to be consulted before decisions are made. So have we. On March 4, the Presidio Municipal Development District unanimously adopted a resolution and sent formal letters to CBP, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water Commission. We asked straightforward questions about engineering review, flood impacts, and infrastructure risk. CBP acknowledged our concerns but provided no substantive answers. The Corps has not responded. The IBWC acknowledged receipt and went silent.
We did this because it is what a local government is supposed to do. When federal action threatens the safety and economic future of your community, you raise the issue on the record and insist on an answer. If the answer does not come, you preserve your rights and prepare for what comes next.
Presidio has endured floods, fires, and a century of being overlooked until something goes wrong. We rebuilt after 2008. We invested in infrastructure. We planned for a future that includes energy, trade, and opportunity. We did the work small communities are expected to do when they want to survive and grow.
We are not afterthoughts. And we are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for something far more basic: that the federal government follow its own laws, respect the realities of this landscape, and demonstrate, before construction begins, that what is proposed will not put the people of this region at risk from a river we know all too well.
John T. Kennedy is the executive director of the Presidio Municipal Development District, a political subdivision of the state of Texas established by local election in 2012.