Driving south to Terlingua on Highway 118 in the Big Bend region of West Texas, it’s customary to see old abandoned cars, wandering donkeys, sun-faded buildings and wide-open vistas in between. But this past summer, locals got an unexpected new neighbor — a sprawling, dusty “man camp” facility designed to house as many as 200 border wall construction workers.
“ It kinda looked like the little cottage mining industry we have here, but then they just kept bulldozing and it became something monstrous,” said Emily Greenwood, a resident of the mostly off-grid Terlingua Ranch community, who owns land next to to the development.
Construction on the man camp stirred up dust and made way for dozens of RVs, fuel storage tanks, water tanks, storage containers, trucks, industrial lights and heavy machinery, all patrolled by armed security guards.
Greenwood, a veteran who plans to start a native plant nursery on her land, said she worried about getting Valley Fever from all the dust the man camp was generating — a lung infection caused by a soil fungus present throughout the Southwest.
She noticed the site lacked public postings about its permits, leading her to file formal complaints with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the agency tasked with protecting public health and managing the state’s natural resources.
The man camp’s intended residents would work for Southwest Valley Constructors, a New Mexico firm awarded a $1.7 billion no-bid contract to build border barriers and patrol roads within Big Bend National Park. In total, the Trump administration is planning five separate border barrier projects across the region — the least trafficked along the entire southwest border — for over $7 billion.
For residents and tourists, the area man camps have become a constant reminder of the wildly unpopular project that many fear will amount to the destruction of some of the state’s most pristine public and private lands.
Construction on border walls and other infrastructure across the Big Bend region has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge, who also blocked the Trump administration’s use of federal regulatory waivers allowing the Department of Homeland Security to bypass dozens of environmental, cultural resource protection and public health laws to speed up the project. The Trump administration has asked the judge overseeing the case to allow construction to continue as the legal fight plays out, and indicated it may ultimately try to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The regulatory waivers are crucial to President Trump’s broader push to wall off the entire U.S.-Mexico border, an effort funded by $46.5 billion from Congress. Trump administration lawyers have staunchly defended the border plans for the Big Bend region in court, arguing in one recent filing that Congress gave the head of DHS the “specific authority to waive any legal requirement necessary to ensure expeditious construction.”
In the Big Bend, as border wall contractors rushed to set up shop, citizen complaints and subsequent TCEQ investigations reviewed by Marfa Public Radio show the state agency was unable to enforce its own public health and safety rules under the federal government’s directives.
As man camps appeared, locals filed complaints with the state
Jennifer Simon and Micah Voicers are anti-wall advocates based in Terlingua that have been closely tracking border wall plans in the Big Bend region. The couple has filed several TCEQ complaints on area man camps.
Simon said it’s unfair that companies with massive government contracts can start construction immediately, unlike in a city, where something as simple as a person wanting to add a room to their home can require stringent permitting procedures.
“This is a much more detrimental project to the environment, to the water, to our access, and they've not had to have any of these things,” Simon said.
The man camp near Terlingua is one of several large-scale, border barrier-related developments that have cropped up in the Big Bend this year — a region defined by its rugged landscape and low population density, where even basic necessities like water and emergency medical services are scarce.
Advocates say the locations of the man camps and equipment staging sites prove that the environmental impacts of the border projects will reach far beyond the border itself — spreading through area communities.
Jaxon Welchman, an Austin-based attorney with the No Big Bend Wall organization, said the risks of skirting TCEQ regulations don't go away because of a supposed “emergency” necessitating immediate border barrier construction.
“ These regulations are not in place to stop the border wall,” Welchman said. “ The regulations are in place to ensure that it's built properly and doesn't harm people and the environment around it.”
One of the largest man camps, which contractors have said could house up to 500 workers, is located in the Lobo Valley in Culberson County. Barnard Construction, a Montana-based firm awarded nearly $2 billion for border wall building in the region, is in charge of the site.
“They suddenly went from this free-range cattle, middle of nowhere, no one's bothering them to a large amount of machinery, a large amount of noise,” Simon said.
Lynne Richardson lives in the Lobo area and witnessed the man camp development from her house nearby this past May.
“ I could sit on my porch and see these billows of brown dust going up in the air when they had those big dirt scrapers running back and forth across the soil over and over again,” she said. “It was just a mess.”
Richardson said she has a condition called reactive airway disease, which made it hard for her to breathe when she came in contact with the dust. She limited her time outdoors, kept air filters going and filed a TCEQ complaint against the contractor for not mitigating the dust. But by then, it was clear to her that Barnard Construction wasn’t operating in good faith, she said.
“ It's a health hazard and they don't care,” Richardson said. “They're just in it for the money.”
Meanwhile, the camps are burdening local services in ways people might not expect. Kayse Muratori, a regional 911 address coordinator, said addressing the man camps is putting a strain on her office, because every new RV needs a unique emergency address.
Muratori told Marfa Public Radio she’s aware of 1,000 border construction workers planned for Brewster County alone. That amounts to a roughly 11% increase in population for the county. One of the man camps is planned to be located in the Rio Grande Village Campground in Big Bend National Park, she said.
A CBP spokesperson declined to comment on the flurry of environmental complaints from locals, but broadly defended the agency’s border wall plans in a statement.
“We stand by our assessment and remain confident in our legal authorities to secure the border while preserving the unique landscape of the Big Bend region,” the spokesperson said. “We are working with the Department of Justice on next steps.”
Barnard Construction and Fisher Sand & Gravel – other federal contractors working on the border plans across the region – did not respond to requests for comment for this story. A representative for Kiewitt, the parent company of Southwest Valley Constructors, referred Marfa Public Radio to CBP.
Man camps remain largely unpermitted
TCEQ records obtained by Marfa Public Radio show that there were at least 20 individual complaints about Big Bend area border barrier-related man camps and other developments this year.
The complaints allege a wide variety of unauthorized activity at the sites, including unpermitted land clearing, excessive amounts of dust, water supply and wastewater concerns, inadequate fuel storage and more.
Marfa Public Radio was only able to locate three TCEQ permits associated with the Big Bend area border projects. All are stormwater construction general permits, which are designed to protect bodies of water from construction site runoff and are required when disturbing a site over five acres. A TCEQ spokesperson said there were no pending permits for any area contractors as of last month.
Barnard Construction holds two stormwater permits for man camps it operates in Hudspeth County, near a truck stop along Interstate 10 known as the “Tiger Truck Stop,” and in Culberson County, in the Lobo Valley. In at least one case, in Lobo, the permit was issued in August, months after ground disturbing activities had begun — a violation of TCEQ’s rules.
Southwest Valley Constructors holds one stormwater permit, but not for its Terlingua area man camp. According to the permit, obtained by Marfa Public Radio via an open records request, the site location listed covers a massive swath “approximately 200 miles along the Rio Grande River on the U.S.-Mexico border within and adjacent to Big Bend Ranch State Park and Big Bend National Park.” The permit was applied for and issued the same day — on August 3 — the day before heavy equipment arrived in Big Bend National Park. A TCEQ spokesperson said it is typical for stormwater permits to be granted the same day an application is submitted.
While man camps in the region have yet to fill up with workers, experts that spoke with Marfa Public Radio said most permits the TCEQ issues are supposed to be obtained before construction can begin and facilities are in use.
“ That's the trend with all of these projects,” Voiers said. “There are no permits or any oversight. They just start working.”
Obtaining the right permits can be a drawn-out process, and even after they’re issued, ongoing sampling and monitoring may be required, said Elsa Hull, a retired TCEQ investigator fighting the expansion of the border wall in South Texas.
“These places need all kinds of permits normally,” Hull said. “ A lot of times there's back and forth, and so these things can take months to a year, maybe even longer.”
CBP originally said it aimed to have Big Bend border barrier construction finished by early 2028, suggesting it would be extremely challenging, if not impossible, for man camps to be in compliance with all TCEQ permitting requirements and meet project deadlines.
RV parks, which the man camps are classified as per the TCEQ, typically need public water supply permits — required for facilities providing water to a minimum of 25 people or 15 connections at least 60 days out of the year. Wastewater permits are also required for facilities exceeding 5,000 gallons a day or more. And even in cases where water is being hauled to the site, it has to be from a TCEQ approved water hauler.
“ All of those are safeguards to keep people from being harmed by the water that you supply to them,” said Kathryn Guerra.
Guerra works for the advocacy group Public Citizen as the TCEQ Campaign Director, and leads an initiative that helps citizens engage with the state agency. She said it is typical for the TCEQ to be relatively lax in these types of situations.
“They have this relationship — consider it more of a friendship — where the TCEQ really ineffectively regulates especially new industry,” Guerra said.
Complaints go beyond man camp activity and have been filed alleging other activities like illegal mining and water extraction from the Rio Grande. One such complaint the TCEQ received on September 10 was from Shafter resident David Long, who said he was concerned about what appears to be a concrete batch plant being operated by border wall contractor Fisher Sand & Gravel in the small Big Bend town of Redford.
“Large water retention ponds have been established,” Long wrote. “My question is, are these ponds using water from the Rio Grande and do they have the correct permits to extract water from the Rio Grande?”
According to Texas Department of Motor Vehicle records obtained by Marfa Public Radio, Fisher Sand & Gravel received “overweight” permits in late June for transporting heavy equipment commonly used in aggregate processing and mining to a property in Redford where the alleged activity is taking place.
TCEQ told Long it is investigating his complaint.
Simon and Voiers are holding out hope that the TCEQ will enforce the regulations it’s supposed to. The office of Democratic state Sen. César Blanco, whose district includes the Big Bend, is actively working on the issue due to their advocacy.
The couple said they realized early on that getting involved at the local level was one of the only ways to effectively protest — and potentially delay — the project, which was otherwise barreling ahead due to the waiving of dozens of legal requirements by the DHS.
“ This was one way that we could be involved with our community, make sure that people were thoroughly aware of what was going on and advocate for good stewardship of those communities,” Simon said.
Simon, who has a nursing background, said TCEQ should “step up to the plate” and do their job to protect the citizens of Texas.
Sen. Blanco told Marfa Public Radio his office is working with the TCEQ to understand what its investigations into border wall related developments are finding and “where the agency has authority to act.”
“Where state environmental requirements apply, I expect them to be enforced,” he said in a statement. “And if the state lacks the authority to address a particular concern, we need to understand why and what we can do about it.”
Border wall contractors claim they don’t have to follow state laws
Public records show the TCEQ questioned its own authority to enforce state environmental laws due to the federal regulatory waivers.
Investigation reports available on TCEQ’s website show that on June 3, a TCEQ investigator and David Ramirez — the agency’s Border and Permian Basin Area Director — visited both the I-10 truck stop man camp, also called the Esperanza Yard Site, and the Lobo man camp to go over received complaints with Barnard Construction representatives.
Barnard was facing allegations of illegal septic tank installation and land grading without a permit at the Tiger Truck Stop man camp, according to an investigation report.
A project manager with Barnard, Bryce Armknecht, claimed construction on the site had not yet begun but would soon, the report said. He and a TCEQ investigator went back and forth for a short time about the company’s water plans for the site, the specifications of the three septic tanks they had installed and the need to publicly post copies of the site’s stormwater permit, stormwater pollution prevention plan and more.
According to the report, Armknecht told the investigator a couple weeks later that Barnard would no longer be TCEQ’s point of contact and referred all communications to CBP.
TCEQ then dropped the investigation without issuing any violations.
“As a result of the complaint investigation and due to no activity occurring during the onsite visit at Esperanza Yard Site and TCEQ communication having to go through CBP, no letter will be sent,” the investigation report states.
As the Lobo man camp was being developed, state regulators received 12 complaints alleging that an agricultural water well was being used for industrial purposes and that large amounts of dust was being generated from construction activities, according to an investigation report.
At the June 3 site visit, TCEQ representatives informed Barnard of all of the various permit requirements, public postings and infrastructure like fencing that the site was supposed to have — requirements that were either in progress or entirely lacking, in some cases.
According to the report, TCEQ investigators did see crews at the man camp applying water to control dust. The investigators also noted a water truck on site, but wrote that the site wasn’t connected to a well. The investigators advised Barnard that it needed to obtain all water and wastewater authorizations moving forward.
Barnard representatives told the TCEQ that they were “under a federal waiver” and it was their understanding that they were not required to obtain “any of the state environmental permits or registration.”
Those statements stand in stark contrast to claims Luke LaLibery, an engineer with Cushing Terrell — a subcontractor for Barnard developing the Lobo mancamp — made in May to Culberson County officials when he assured them the site would “meet or exceed” local and state environmental requirements.
“We're not anticipating, or not trying to, get around any of those requirements,” LaLibery said at the time.
Again, the TCEQ chose to issue no violations, but the agency did appear to escalate the matter with CBP.
“Due to the federal waiver provided by the Barnard representatives, TCEQ shall conduct further investigation and conduct a meeting with CBP to ensure Barnard, TCEQ and CBP are following both federal and state regulations,” the investigation report said.
The agency came to the opposite conclusion during a border-wall related investigationthat took place during a similar time period this summer in San Ygnacio, in South Texas. TCEQ investigators looked into alleged improper fuel storage at a yard operated by Southwest Valley Constructors but concluded that “the activities alleged by this complaint fall under the federal waiver of rules and regulations to facilitate the construction of the border wall.”
In another instance, the agency declined to investigate a border wall-related complaint they received in San Ygnacio about strom water runoff, stating that the complaint didn’t meet investigation criteria due to the activities being covered by the federal waivers.
Welchman, the Austin attorney, previously worked in the Environmental Protection Division at the Texas Attorney General’s office and is familiar with the TCEQ. He said while the federal regulatory waivers do cover certain state environmental laws, they lack specifics about geographic boundaries, which might be leading to TCEQ’s varied response on the issue.
“ The waivers are producing inconsistencies and it's resulted in the state agency that knows this better than anyone, that has done this for decades, that can't even begin to follow their process,” Welchman said.
State environmental laws “deriving from, or related to the subject of” federal laws including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act and more have been waived by the DHS Secretary for the Big Bend border wall project, according to the waivers.
While “creating and using staging areas” and “supporting elements” are listed as construction-related activities covered by the waivers, legal guidance on the project’s exact boundaries is vague. The waivers list GPS coordinates running east and west along the border but do not list how far south or north the project area stretches, if at all.
The ambiguity has led some to wonder: Do waivers apply to construction activities only along the border itself? Or to construction activities everywhere, even if miles and miles away from the border?
Without a map, Welchman said, TCEQ is essentially trying to enforce its rules around an area lacking defined boundaries. He said it's a further reminder that the border wall project — which has been marked by shifting plans — lacks clarity.
“Texas wasn't consulted in this, and there's no process for the state or TCEQ, local officials, landowners or anybody to get an answer,” Welchman said. “The core issue to me is basically the federal government turned off state law along the river, and they didn't say where the off switch ends.”
Could that be why a man camp in Lobo, away from the border, is being treated differently by TCEQ than the San Ygnacio site, which was right along the border? Or, could it be because the Big Bend region has received far more attention over the wall and there’s more political pressure on the TCEQ to act?
Those are questions Elsa Hull, the retired TCEQ investigator living in South Texas, is thinking about. Hull joked that the situation is as “clear as the Rio Grande mud.”
“ Why were my complaints dismissed but yet the ones out in Big Bend are not? I don't know,” she said.
TCEQ does have a history of being lenient on border security-related developments, Hull said. She has investigated similar temporary facilities like National Guard bases and immigrant processing centers that have popped up in South Texas in the past.
She said the sites often failed to meet TCEQ’s standards and, in one instance, she found evidence of sewage in potable water. But the state agency effectively created a loophole for these types of facilities due to their temporary nature, she said.
“ They're making us go out and do these investigations and telling us to look the other way. ‘Oh, there's no disinfectant? Well, you can't cite that violation.’ I just couldn't do it anymore,” Hull said. “I'm afraid that's what they're gonna try to do with these other border wall man camps and other facilities.”
TCEQ didn’t respond to a request for comment on Hull’s claims. The agency declined to answer questions about citizens’ complaints or its communication with CBP, beyond clarifying certain permitting and procedural processes.
According to one of the border project contracts in the Big Bend region, which surfaced in a lawsuit, CBP does provide some guidance to contractors on environmental standards for temporary facilities.
Contractors are instructed to “remove [sewer] effluent lawfully,” “install both potable and nonpotable water,” and prepare stormwater pollution prevention plans “per local, state or federal requirements, whichever governs.”
A section called “sanitary facilities” further instructs contractors on toilets, showers and eye wash stations and states they must “comply with requirements of authorities having jurisdiction for type, number, location, operation of maintenance and fixtures of facilities.”
A CBP spokesperson declined to comment on the contractors’ lack of permits and which agency ultimately has jurisdiction over the matter.
Critics say TCEQ’s inaction raises concerns about states’ rights
After learning about TCEQ’s response to the complaints, Simon said she is feeling both encouraged that locals’ persistence resulted in any investigations at all, and let down by the agency’s reply.
“ That's disappointing for an organization whose sole purpose is to protect us and the environment, that there's very little that they can actually do,” she said. “Is it just because of the waivers? Or is that the full bite of the organization?”
Simon said she would like to know more about what TCEQ’s conversations with CBP regarding public health have been like, but, like the entire border wall project, the process lacks transparency.
Greenwood, for her part, expressed concerns about TCEQ’s response time. Complaints about the Highway 118 man camp near her — mostly filed in August, according to public records obtained by Marfa Public Radio — were still awaiting a response from the TCEQ as of Friday morning. She said contractors did eventually install a drainage abatement fence, and made other fixes, meaning TCEQ may be too late to see the full scope of the issue.
“ I'm hoping they'll be our last defense,” Greenwood said. “But, they're still weak and I'm, so far, unimpressed.”
Guerra said TCEQ doesn’t have a great track record of holding polluters accountable. By her count, only 6% of TCEQ complaints in 2025 led to formal enforcement actions like penalties. She said it generally takes an incredible amount of local involvement for TCEQ to move on any issues.
“ The weight of policing these facilities is on the community, even though we have a state regulator to do exactly that,” Guerra said. “Reporting those complaints, following up on those complaints, pushing the TCEQ to take additional action on those complaints, that's all gonna have to come from external pressure.”
Welchman said he is concerned about what the whole situation means for states’ rights. At the state level, Gov. Greg Abbott has previously expressed his support for deploying technology along the Big Bend area border, but he hasn’t criticized how the Trump administration is carrying out its plans for actual physical barriers. Meanwhile, the state of New Mexico is actively suing DHS for drilling unpermitted groundwater wells, which DHS is claiming was lawful under the federal waivers.
For the TCEQ — the second largest environmental agency in the country next to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — to have its powers sidelined by the border projects is significant, Welchman said, and in contrast to beliefs state leaders have long espoused.
“ The day that the federal government starts telling Texas what Texas can do on Texas-owned land, well, that's the day that state sovereignty is gone,” Welchman said. “And all these politicians — Ken Paxton and Greg Abbott, and all of these long-term incumbent Texas politicians have built their careers on state sovereignty.”
This reporting was made possible by generous donations from supporters like you. Please consider making a donation to Marfa Public Radio to fund the journalism you rely on.
