HB 111 Explained: The Border Wall Bill That Could Decide Bentsen's FutureTexas Bill Would Block State Deals for Border Walls in State Parks.
In 1944, the Bentsen family deeded 586.9 acres along the Rio Grande to the state for one dollar. The deed came with a condition: the land must be used "solely for public park purposes."
That land is now Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park in Mission. It is the headquarters of the World Birding Center. And for the past nine months, it has been on a federal border wall map.
On Monday, the first day of bill filing for the 90th Texas Legislature, a border lawmaker filed a bill that goes straight at that problem. It does it with a narrow tool.
State Rep. Eddie Morales Jr., D-Eagle Pass, filed House Bill 111. It would bar state and local governments in Texas from signing a lease or any other agreement to build border barriers on state park property.
It does not ban the federal government from building anything. That distinction is the whole story.
WHAT HB 111 SAYS
The bill is a page and a half long. It adds a new Section 22.001 to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code.
It defines "border security infrastructure" as a wall, fence, or other physical barrier designed or adapted to impede the movement of people or objects crossing the Texas-Mexico border.
It defines "governmental entity" broadly. That means any state department, commission, board, office, authority, or administrative unit, plus any political subdivision of the state. That covers the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, which owns and runs Bentsen.
The core of the bill is one sentence. Notwithstanding any other law, a governmental entity "may not enter into a lease or other agreement" for the installation or construction of border security infrastructure on state park property.
If it passes with a two-thirds vote in both chambers, it takes effect immediately. If not, it takes effect September 1, 2027.
WHAT HB 111 DOES NOT DO
Some early coverage framed the bill as barring the feds from building on state park land. The text is narrower than that. Here is what it leaves out.
It does not directly prohibit federal construction. It restricts what Texas agencies and local governments can sign.
It does not cover national parks or federal wildlife refuges. Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge in Alamo is federal land. This bill does not reach it.
It does not cover roads, cameras, sensors, lighting, or surveillance towers. The definition is limited to physical barriers. That matters because the federal "Smart Wall" plan pairs steel with technology.
It does not define "state park property." The bill does not say whether wildlife management areas or state natural areas count. In Hidalgo County, that question is not academic. Border Patrol has sought a parcel in the Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area, which is a WMA, not a state park.
It does not say what happens to agreements already signed before it takes effect.
And it cannot stop federal condemnation. More on that below.
WHY THIS LANDS IN THE VALLEY: BENTSEN
During President Trump's first term, Congress wrote protections into federal spending bills. Those carveouts barred federal money from being used to build wall at Bentsen, Santa Ana, and La Lomita Chapel.
The One Big Beautiful Bill, signed in July 2025, put $46.5 billion toward border wall construction. According to Inside Climate News, it did not carry those Rio Grande Valley protections forward.
By early 2026, the CBP "Smart Wall" map showed a planned alignment that would cut off part of Bentsen and parts of Santa Ana from public access. It showed La Lomita Chapel sitting between the planned wall and the river.
Then came the paperwork. Records obtained by Inside Climate News show:
Feb. 13, 2026: Border Patrol wrote to TPWD requesting access to two Hidalgo County parcels. One is in Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park. The other is in the Las Palomas WMA.
Feb. 23, 2026: TPWD Executive Director David Yoskowitz replied asking for more information. He wrote that the agency would execute a "Right of Entry Agreement" to speed access for surveys, site assessments, or appraisals.
Records also show Border Patrol offered to buy a parcel in the Las Palomas WMA from the state.
March 6, 2026: A top Border Patrol official told TPWD leaders that wall construction at state parks and Big Bend National Park was "on hold." Border Patrol's infrastructure portfolio director later wrote that construction on TPWD land was not a priority. He did not rule it out.
What the public record does not show is whether TPWD ever granted access to the Bentsen parcel or signed a right of entry for it. TPWD has referred border wall questions to CBP.
Here is why the mechanism matters. In those 2026 letters, Border Patrol framed the state parcels as a starting point for discussing easement rights, leasing, or purchasing the property. One letter reported by the Big Bend Sentinel offered the state $5,000 for a "right of entry for construction," or a negotiated purchase or easement.
Leases, easements, sales, rights of entry for construction. Those are agreements. That is the lane HB 111 is built to close.
THE BENTSEN DEED
There is a second reason Bentsen is different. In an October 2017 memo to Border Patrol, TPWD warned that a wall through the park "would certainly call into question" whether the agency could keep operating it safely as a state park. The memo said that could cause the land to revert to the original grantors' heirs.
In plain terms: the 1944 deed requires park use. If the park stops functioning as a park, the state could lose it.
That warning was written about the first-term wall plan. It has not been tested.
THE CATCH: CONDEMNATION
Analysis: HB 111 controls what Texas is willing to sign. It does not control what the federal government is able to take.
Under long-standing federal law, the United States can use eminent domain to condemn land for federal purposes, including land owned by a state. CBP's own filings this fall describe referring cases to the Justice Department for possible condemnation when it cannot get access or easements by agreement. Those filings concerned private land in Presidio County, but the tool is the same.
So the realistic effect of HB 111 is this. It would take the easy path off the table. A $5,000 right of entry or a negotiated easement would no longer be an option for a Texas agency. The federal government would have to go to court, in public, with a judge, a record, and a price tag. For a park like Bentsen, a condemnation case could also put the 1944 deed restriction in front of a court.
That is slower. It is more visible. It is not a ban.
THE POLITICS JUST CHANGED
A year ago, a Democratic bill limiting border infrastructure would have had little path in Austin. That math is different now.
According to The Texas Tribune, Democrats will control the Texas House in the 90th session. Speaker Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, will be replaced on day one, and Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, has said she has the votes for the gavel. Democrat Gina Hinojosa is governor-elect. Republicans keep control of the Senate.
The session opens January 12, 2027. Bill filing runs through March 12.
Morales is not an obvious messenger for an anti-security bill. In 2021, he was the only House Democrat to vote for a $1.8 billion border security bill, according to the Houston Chronicle. He has publicly backed a mix of manpower, technology, and physical barriers. In August 2026, he led a bipartisan letter of House members urging Gov. Greg Abbott to ask DHS to halt wall construction in Big Bend National Park.
His district, House District 74, includes Big Bend National Park and Big Bend Ranch State Park, the largest park in the state system.
The timing is also sharp. On the same day HB 111 was filed, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 8-1 to lift a federal judge's order that had paused wall and related construction in the Big Bend Sector. The court pointed to a 2005 law that lets the Homeland Security secretary waive legal requirements to speed construction. The ruling is not a final decision on the merits.
The Valley has been here before. In 2018 and 2019, local pushback and congressional carveouts kept steel out of Bentsen. Those carveouts are gone. HB 111 is the first attempt to rebuild a piece of that protection at the state level. Whether it holds depends on Austin, and on how far Washington is willing to go to get around it.
------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES
------------------------------------------------------------
HB 111 bill text, 90th Legislature (draft 90R1196 BEE-D), as supplied.
The Texas Tribune, "Data center limits, minimum wage hike and Medicaid expansion open bill filing for a divided Texas Legislature," Nov. 9, 2026.
Politico via Yahoo News, "Supreme Court allows Trump's Big Bend construction to continue," Nov. 9, 2026.
CBS News, "Supreme Court allows Trump administration to resume border wall construction in Big Bend region," Nov. 2026.
Inside Climate News, "Feds Seek Access to Three Texas State Parks for Border Wall," April 2, 2026.
Inside Climate News, "Rio Grande Valley Advocates Urge Congress to Restore Protections for Public Lands in Path of Border Wall," Feb. 4, 2026.
Big Bend Sentinel, "Feds seek access to state parks for border wall," April 8, 2026.
Newsweek, "Big Bend Border Construction To Resume, Texas Conservationists Vow To Fight" (CBP Sept. 29 court filings on condemnation referrals).
The Wildlife Society / Texas Tribune, on the October 2017 TPWD memo about Bentsen closure and reversion.
The Monitor (MyRGV), on the 1944 Bentsen deed language.
Houston Chronicle via PressReader, "$1.8 billion border security bill advances," Aug. 28, 2021.
State Rep. Eddie Morales Jr. on X, Aug. 13, 2026 (bipartisan letter to Gov. Abbott on Big Bend).
Comments