Freestone residents press county over AI data center and large solar projects, citing noise, water use and property-value risks

Residents filled the public-comment portion of the Freestone County Commissioners Court meeting on Jan. 7 to press local officials on a proposed AI data center and several large solar projects they say threaten rural life and property values.

"They're discovering that they are quite noxious in terms of noise, light, energy consumption, and of course, water utilization," resident Larry Walter told the court, summarizing the concerns that several speakers raised about a data center under consideration. Other commenters described similar worries about a planned 3,000-acre solar installation.

Why it matters: Residents said the projects could change neighborhood character, reduce home values and strain local services. Darlene Hall, who presented a petition she said was signed by more than 250 neighbors, told commissioners the solar arrays would convert farmland "into an industrial power plant" and asked who would compensate families for lost property value.

County response and technical assurances: Court staff and some commenters said company representatives had provided written assurances on key points. A staff member recounted that developers had assured the court of average noise levels near 55 decibels and water use of "no more than 1,150 gallons a day," and that some data-center proposals use a closed-loop cooling system. Fairfield City Council member Angela Olsen, who attended an earlier public hearing, said the AI company at that hearing "were very transparent and very open" about cooling plans.

Limits of local authority: Commissioners and staff cautioned that the county's power is limited. Presiding officials said some enforcement (for noise and wastewater) would fall to state or federal agencies such as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) or the Environmental Protection Agency, and that bonds for cleanup obligations may be held at the state level. Staff also noted state law changes that affect local regulation of certain fees and permits.

Specific community concerns raised: Residents reported concrete effects and risks: Amanda Brubaker said she "lost the sale of my house" after solar activity near her property and that her home's market value had fallen; others worried volunteer fire departments lack training for battery fires at energy-storage sites; several described audible humming or constant noise at other installations.

Ownership and compliance questions: Speakers raised questions about reported partnerships and ownership changes. Residents showed press releases naming firms including Total Energies and a foreign partner, Cinepak, and asked whether such affiliations would violate state restrictions. Staff cited recent state legislation limiting foreign ownership of certain real property interests and said the county asks companies directly about ownership as projects move forward.

What happened at the meeting: Commissioners heard the comments without taking a new vote on the projects during the Jan. 7 session. Staff encouraged residents to document impacts and noted company representatives had offered to return or appear virtually to answer questions. The court indicated the issue will remain under review and discussed it further under agenda item 15.

What’s next: Commissioners did not approve or deny the projects at this meeting; residents were advised to bring documentation to the appraisal district and to request follow-up information from developers and relevant state agencies. The court encouraged continued public engagement and said staff would continue to request company answers and technical details.