Responsible Growth, Water, and Data Center Accountability

Texas should welcome investment that strengthens our communities, but growth should not come at the expense of the people who already live here.

Large data centers and other intensive developments can place major demands on water, electricity, roads, emergency services, and neighboring property owners. Communities deserve the information and authority to decide whether a project fits, what protections are required, and who pays the costs it creates.

Give Communities a Voice Before the Deal Is Done

Residents should know about major projects before agreements are signed and construction begins.

• Early public notice.

• Open public hearings.

• Meaningful opportunities for affected residents to comment.

• Clear disclosure of proposed water, power, traffic, and infrastructure demands.

• Prohibiting nondisclosure agreements that prevent public officials from telling residents about proposed large-scale developments.

Government should not make decisions of this size behind closed doors.

Require Independent Impact Studies

Before a covered major project moves forward, the developer should pay for an independent impact assessment examining issues such as:

• Water use and groundwater effects.

• Electricity demand.

• Traffic and road impacts.

• Noise and heat.

• Fire and emergency-response capacity.

• Other infrastructure and public-service demands.

The developer should pay for the study, but should not control its findings.

The purpose is to know the real costs before a community is asked to accept them.

Give Counties Real Authority

Counties should have meaningful authority over major developments in unincorporated areas.

• Impose reasonable project conditions.

• Require mitigation.

• Temporarily pause projects when necessary to complete studies or address unresolved impacts.

• Limit or reject projects when documented harms cannot reasonably be addressed.

• Enforce permit and mitigation requirements after construction.

Local officials should not be forced to approve a project simply because state law leaves them without enough tools to protect residents.

Keep Intensive Development Away From Sensitive Areas

Large, intensive data-center facilities should be encouraged toward industrial parks and appropriately designated industrial areas, rather than being placed next to homes and other sensitive uses.

I support a statewide minimum 500-foot setback for covered intensive facilities from:

• Homes and residential developments.

• Schools and childcare facilities.

• Hospitals and healthcare facilities.

• Nursing homes and assisted-living facilities.

• Churches and other houses of worship.

Local governments could require a larger setback when local conditions justify it, but they could not weaken the statewide minimum.

Noise standards should remain locally determined so communities can set limits appropriate to their surroundings rather than relying on one statewide decibel rule.

Let the People Most Affected Have a Say

For covered major projects in unincorporated areas, I support using county election precincts to define the affected community.

The election precinct where the project would be located would vote automatically.

Additional precincts would be included when an independent impact assessment documents substantial direct effects on those areas. The precinct boundaries in place when the initial application is filed would be used so the voting area cannot later be manipulated.

If a precinct-based vote could not legally or practically be implemented, a countywide vote would be the fallback.

The purpose is simple: the people living closest to the consequences should not have their voices diluted by people who will never experience them.

Protect Our Water

Water is not an unlimited resource.

Covered major projects should be required to disclose and report their water use, identify their water source, meter major withdrawals, and maintain drought-contingency plans.

Groundwater Conservation Districts, or an equivalent local groundwater authority where one does not currently exist, should have meaningful authority to monitor and protect aquifers and respond when major industrial pumping threatens local water supplies.

During shortages, residential and community water needs must be considered before allowing unlimited industrial withdrawal.

Make the Developer Pay the Costs It Creates

A developer should not receive the benefit while residents inherit the bill.

When an independent assessment identifies infrastructure or public-service costs caused by a project, the developer should pay the documented, proportionate costs attributable to that development.

That can include necessary upgrades to roads, utilities, fire and EMS capacity, specialized training or equipment, monitoring, and mitigation.

Developers should fund required upgrades before construction where appropriate, and financial security should be available when necessary to ensure commitments are actually completed.

No Secret Deals and No Blank-Check Tax Breaks

I oppose tax abatements for covered data-center projects that shift costs to residents while reducing the public revenue available to meet those costs.

Any public incentive should be transparent and tied to measurable, enforceable public benefits.

I also oppose nondisclosure agreements that hide major development proposals from the public.

Taxpayers deserve to know what they are giving up, what they are getting in return, and whether the promises made to obtain public support were actually kept.

Plan for the End Before Construction Begins

Data centers can become obsolete, expand, change ownership, or close.

Covered facilities should have an enforceable decommissioning plan and sufficient financial assurance to pay for closure, removal of covered equipment, site restoration, and other obligations without leaving taxpayers with the bill.

Grandfather Existing Facilities, Not Unlimited Expansion

Existing lawful data centers would remain grandfathered for their current footprint and operations.

Routine maintenance, repairs, and like-for-like replacement could continue.

But grandfathering would not become a permanent loophole for expansion.

New buildings, substantial expansions, added covered operational equipment, or material increases in capacity after the law takes effect would have to comply with the new requirements for the new or expanded portion, including the 500-foot setback.

Accountability After Approval

Approval should not be the end of oversight.

Residents need a clear complaint process, inspections when warranted, enforcement of mitigation agreements, and meaningful consequences when a developer violates the conditions attached to its project.

Bottom line: Give residents notice and a real voice. Protect water and neighboring communities. Establish a 500-foot statewide minimum setback. Give counties authority to condition, pause, limit, or reject harmful projects. Make developers pay the costs they create. Prohibit secret NDAs. Require decommissioning protections and ongoing enforcement.