Texas’s Natural Heritage Matters
Recent debate over border wall construction in the region has made one thing clear: our natural heritage still matters, and Texans across the political spectrum are willing to defend it.
Big Bend remains one of the largest and most untouched landscapes in Texas. Rugged mountains rise from the desert floor while the Rio Grande cuts a distinct path through canyons and open land. Concrete and steel don’t exactly fit in a landscape like that. It is a place defined by distance, silence, and the dramatic character of the land itself.
Recent debate over border wall construction in the region has made one thing clear: our natural heritage still matters, and Texans across the political spectrum are willing to defend it.
For years, proposals to construct a physical wall through Big Bend National Park and surrounding lands have come and gone. Each time, local communities, conservationists, and policymakers raise concerns, and have made a real impact. Most recently, federal maps removed planned wall construction within the national park itself, which the Texas Tribune reported. This decision reflects growing recognition in Washington and across Texas that although our border security remains important, some places carry a different weight. Big Bend is one of them.
More than almost anyone, Texans understand the need for a secure border, and opposition to a wall in Big Bend doesn’t undermine that. Many live with the results of border security deficiencies every day. The reality is, though, Big Bend is one of the least-trafficked stretches of the southern border. The remote, harsh landscape itself serves as a deterrent, making large-scale migration improbable. Much of this land is privately owned, worked by outdoorsmen and ranchers who have stewarded it for generations.
Forcing a massive construction project through these lands raises serious concerns about property rights and federal overreach, especially in a region where land and livelihood are closely tied.
Ranchers, law enforcement, and local officials all carry that responsibility. In truth, a continuous physical barrier in this region offers limited strategic value but introduces numerous, lasting consequences. Technology offers a more precise approach. Drones, sensors, and mobile surveillance units allow agents to monitor activity without reshaping, scaring, or littering the landscape. This is ultimately just a matter of applying the right tool to the right place.
The costs of getting this wrong are dire. Big Bend supports a fragile and diverse ecosystem shaped over centuries. Wildlife moves freely across the river corridor and the surrounding desert. Construction on the scale required for a border wall would disrupt migration patterns, fragment habitats, and alter the overall character of the land in ways that cannot be undone. Americans set aside national parks to protect them from development and alteration for a reason. Leaders like Theodore Roosevelt understood some places carry a value that cannot be replaced once lost. Big Bend falls squarely in that category. These parks exist for a reason; they protect spaces that define the American landscape and Texas’s identity. Once altered, they do not return to their original form. You cannot reclaim them, and future generations lose connection to the lands that once were.
Voices from across Texas have come together in recent months to make this case, gathering at the state capitol to oppose construction in the region. Leaders on the right and left have called for a more measured approach. Brandon Herrera, for instance, a deeply conservative candidate running for Congress, has repeatedly elevated this issue on the campaign trail while also advocating for strong border security. Protecting Big Bend and other similar areas from a destructive border wall is not a fringe position and not just one held by left-leaning environmentalists with potentially alternative motives. It reflects a broad understanding rooted in common sense and shared values.
American border security is not reliant on a border wall running through Big Bend and Texas does not need to sacrifice its most iconic landscapes to enforce the law. Both priorities can stand together. These are not competing goals but rather responsibilities that demand careful balance. Texans have always understood how to live with the land rather than reshape it beyond recognition. That instinct remains strong today and guides the desire to see Big Bend remain what it has always been: wild, open, and unmistakably Texan.
Stephen Perkins is the chief operating officer at the American Conservation Coalition (ACC). A lifelong Texan, he now resides in San Antonio.
 | A guest post by
|