Brittany Kelley
SAN MARCOS — Following two tabled votes, the Hays County Commissioners Court voted to move forward with establishing a temporary emergency water protection review period through the end of year at its June 23 meeting.
This item stems back to Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra’s announcement of his intent to instill a moratorium on future developments that requested more than 25,000 gallons of water per day, in an effort to allow the county to evaluate impacts and ensure long-term water security for residents and agriculture in February.
It was then followed by two tabled votes, one in February and another in June, citing legal concerns, but Becerra noted that the legal department has reviewed the proposal and updated verbiage “to make everyone more comfortable.”
The resolution was read aloud at the meeting and detailed that alongside the emergency water protection review, the Hays County Water Development Demand Review Board — composed of representatives appointed by the commissioners court — would be established with the following goals:
- Evaluate proposed industrial high water demand developments and potential impacts
- Review water availability studies, utility commitment letters, drought contingency plans, conservation measures and more submitted by applicants
- Provide written findings and recommendations to the commissioners court
- Recommend policies and development review standards
- Review and make recommendations to the Hays County High Water Development Review checklist, which will be published on the county’s website
It also stated that this was brought forth due to: historic drops in aquifer levels; drought declaration; declining surface and ground water supplies; onsite sewage limits; runoff risks; emergency response burden; and infrastructure impacts; as well as the fact that “industrial high water-use projects present a significant risk to public feather and groundwater quality, due to potential soil, sustainability limitations, system capacity overloads and increased stormwater runoff risks.”
With this resolution, the court will defer consideration of discretionary approvals associated with industrial water use projects for 180 days. The industrial water use projects are described as any industrial development or operation meeting that: “requests anticipated water demand of more than 25,000 gallons of water per day for industrial use or the project includes data processing, server hosting, cloud computing or comparable facilities designed for an electrical load of five megawatts or greater; or the project includes industrial cooling, operations requiring more than 10,000 gallons of water per day of ongoing water for the thermal management; or the project includes one or more onsite sewage facility subject to review under [Texas Commission on Environmental Quality] rules, due to system size, site condition or surface water or ground water concerns.”
Prior to the vote, several community members voiced their support for the project, including resident Liz Sumter Gajdos, who shared that there are many ways the court can “stamp down” artificial intelligence data centers and this is one of them: “The 180-day pause isn’t going to hurt anybody. If you’re going to sit here and wait for the perfect document, you will continue to put people at risk … I urge you today to vote, ‘Yes’ for this and let’s start protecting the citizens and listening to them.”
Resident Bobby Levinski praised the language used, stating that it is “firm and recognizes the urgency of the situation and explores what we can do as a community together.”
Requesting reassurance from legal counsel was commissioner Michelle Cohen. In response, Assistant District Attorney Chase Young noted that the vast majority of the resolution is fine, but there is a “small exposure” in the exercise of discretionary acts; however, “while that might risk a suit, that’s something that we would have good standing to have defense against.”
Cohen stated that with this information, she was in full support, but that she was concerned with the logistics of creating the board, due to the 180 days beginning immediately.
Concerns have also been addressed for commissioner Walt Smith, who shared that he now feels comfortable supporting the resolution. He also was in agreement with Becerra’s comment of extending the pause until Dec. 31 and letting the future court determine how to move forward with the board.
“Data centers are not compatible with us or Hays County,” said commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe, discussing adding that the court should remove tax incentives. “We’ve had discussions about it; we’re not willing to get incentives to data centers and I think we need to continue to hold firm with that. I know we can’t tie the hands of the future courts, but I think this court is dedicated to not doing that and so, I’m in full support, judge, of this resolution.”
Commissioner Morgan Hammer echoed similar thoughts, emphasizing that it expresses the court’s stance against data centers, so she is in favor of the resolution, as well.
Another suggestion was provided by Smith in an effort to match state definition, which was to specify 25,000 gallons per day in the onsite sewage section, as well as the anticipated water demand usage.
He also noted that he’d like to require full disclosure of any political contributions any member of the court may have received from representatives of data centers, following research done on a previous lawsuit, where court members were named: “We can’t mandate what these centers are doing in certain areas, [but] what we can do is mandate what we as members of the court do.”
The final suggestions to be made to the resolution include:
- Stating that there will be no 381 tax incentives
- The board will be required to two appointed Hays County residents from each court member to in the next two weeks to accelerate the first meeting
- Changing the verbiage of “industrial high water use” to “industrial significant water use”
- The extension will continue until Dec. 31
- To be consistent with 25,000 gallons throughout
- Add a voluntary disclosure of whether key contributor to a industrial significant water use project has made a political contribution to a court member
Smith prompted the idea of having two commissioners on the board, as some of the residents may not be knowledgeable on what can and cannot be recommended. He motioned to have commissioners Ingalsbe and Hammer serve on the board, which passed unanimously.
The resolution, with the aforementioned amendments, passed 6-0.
To listen to the discussion, visit bit.ly/4vul4RR.
The Hays County Commissioners Court will meet next July 7.
