Landowners, ranchers, and business proprietors in the Big Bend region of Texas, together with a nonprofit organization committed to safeguarding the region’s landscape and heritage, are pursuing litigation to halt the Trump administration’s plans to construct a wall and other border infrastructure through the remote section of the state.

The lawsuit, filed by Conserve Big Bend and six landowners and backed by dozens more people along the border, comes as the administration is ramping up a $46 billion effort to line the roughly 2,000-mile southern border with a collection of 30-foot (9-meter) steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers, and technology intended to keep out smugglers and migrants.

In Texas, the endeavor has encountered a multitude of legal challenges and bipartisan resistance from sheriffs, elected officials, tour guides, environmental organizations, and landowners.

David Keller, an archaeologist and historian who specialises in the Big Bend and lives in the region, said that officials backing the wall “were woefully unprepared for the hornet’s nest they stirred up because they had no idea how much we love this place”.

“For us, the Big Bend is not merely a vacant expanse on the map,” he remarked at a press conference convened to announce the suit.

“It is our home.”

As part of its wall-building efforts, the administration has waived numerous regulations and statutes designed to protect the environment, archaeology or wildlife, arguing that there is an urgent need to protect the border in what Homeland Security has called areas of “high illegal entry.”

However, in the lawsuit filed on Monday, the plaintiffs contend that this characterization does not hold true for the Big Bend region.

They have invoked historical statistics published by Customs and Border Protection demonstrating how few individuals cross the border in Big Bend relative to other sections of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Big Bend encompasses approximately 500 miles of border — roughly one quarter of the total length of the border with Mexico stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.

Yet, according to the statistics cited in the lawsuit, the region accounted for only about 1% of arrests.

This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service are applicable.

Laura Allen, whose family's ranch would be bisected by the border wall under the proposed plans, noted that illegal border arrests have plunged even further since Trump returned to office.

"Thank you, President Trump.

You've secured the border," Allen, a two-time Trump voter and former county judge, said at the press conference.

"But now let it go.

It's time."

The plaintiffs contend that the Department of Homeland Security is abusing congressional powers that grant the secretary broad authority to waive regulations in order to build border walls or other infrastructure in areas where large numbers of people are attempting to cross into the country illegally.

"That determination is legally and factually unsound and unsupported," the plaintiffs wrote.

The lawsuit filed on Monday is merely the latest in a series of efforts to slow or stop the administration's plans in Texas and elsewhere.

The strongest backlash has come in response to Customs and Border Protection's plans for Big Bend National Park, which lies in a remote southwestern corner of Texas, where the Rio Grande marks the border between the United States and Mexico.

The park’s remote and rugged location, its steep limestone canyon walls and crystal clear starry night views draw visitors from around the world.

The government has stated in court hearings that no final plans have been determined regarding what will be constructed in the park, yet plans disclosed thus far have encompassed building a new road, installing detection technology and barriers to prevent vehicles from crossing the border.

When bulldozers were observed razing terrain within the park in August, indignation swept across the state.

CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott temporarily halted construction-related operations in the park, yet numerous activists and local inhabitants are advocating for still more sweeping revisions to the administration's proposals throughout the broader Big Bend region.

Native American groups have argued that the construction could inhibit their ability to practice their faith and is damaging important religious sites, while environmentalists worry the wall will cause flooding or keep animals from migrating.

Landowners who have resided and worked along the Rio Grande for years have questioned how they will feed livestock or irrigate their crops should they be unable to access the river.

Tim Sullivan, an Associated Press reporter stationed in Minneapolis, was likewise a contributor to this story.