Wilson County Commissioners Court on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025, voted to adopt a resolution opposing an application by Springs Hill Special Utility District for a permit from the Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District that would allow groundwater to be exported from the district, including a well proposed in northern Wilson County.

Commissioner Aiken, Precinct 4, introduced the item and told the court that Wilson County received only one day’s notice about a public meeting held by Springs Hill on Oct. 15. "We were given 1 day notification about this meeting taking place," he said. Aiken said he helped draft the resolution with the county attorney’s office and asked the court to go on record against the permit application.

The meeting included public comments from residents who urged the court to oppose the permit. Cody Little said exporting groundwater would risk local water supplies as the county grows: "Town. Right now, there's other companies out there buying the water leases... It's gonna affect our citizens. Wilson County right now, we're on an annual growth of 1.5 to 2% ... With that, it's gonna make it very difficult for our local water companies to provide our people with sufficient water." Another commenter said the proposed well appeared larger than what would serve nearby residents and urged the district to "rethink their process."

The resolution text read in court cites the county’s agricultural history, the importance of local groundwater for drinking, industrial, agricultural, domestic and livestock needs, and the Carrizo‑Wilcox Aquifer as the targeted source for the requested permit. The resolution also quotes the Evergreen district’s guiding principles about local groundwater being vital to the area’s health, economy and environment. The court unanimously approved the resolution after a motion and second; the judge called for the vote and "Aye" was recorded.

The resolution places the county formally on record opposing the Springs Hill permit application to the Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District. The resolution was presented on the agenda as a proclamation but the court read and adopted it as a resolution. The court did not specify subsequent legal or administrative steps in the transcript.

Proponents at the podium emphasized potential local supply impacts and limited notice; the transcript contains the court’s vote but does not record any additional formal actions directed to outside agencies or next procedural steps.