Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Commissioners deny Pacifico’s Fort Spunky concept plan, citing insufficient water; 3–2 vote
Loading...
Summary
After extended public testimony and legal argument, the Hood County Commissioners Court denied Pacifico Energy’s Fort Spunky concept plan by a 3–2 vote on March 10, saying the applicant had not demonstrated a non‑speculative, centralized water source as required by county rules and the AMUD declined to serve the site.
The Hood County Commissioners Court voted 3–2 on March 10 to deny Pacifico Energy’s concept plan for the Fort Spunky project, concluding the application failed to demonstrate a sufficient centralized water source under the county’s development regulations.
Pacifico’s counsel, Michael Bass of Husch Blackwell, told the court the denial motion was premature and argued that the company could pursue alternative compliance paths—onsite wells, a class‑D public water utility or other measures—and that the conditions tied to its earlier conditional approval were to be satisfied later in the process. "I represent Pacifico Energy, and I'm here to formally object to agenda item 11, and ask this court to withdraw it," Bass said during the hearing.
Why the court denied: Commissioners cited the project’s reliance in its concept plan on the Acton Municipal Utility District (AMUD) as Pacifico’s primary water source and noted AMUD’s board had voted not to provide service for the proposed industrial site. Commissioner Samuelson told the court the concept plan did not conform with the county’s water‑quality district standards requiring centralized water and wastewater service (or a demonstrable demonstration that wastewater needs can be handled on the minimum tract); he moved to deny. "Your concept plan should have been denied on its face because it didn't conform with this requirement," Samuelson said on the record.
Public testimony and technical input: Dozens of residents, environmental planners and engineers testified before the vote. Speakers raised concerns about cumulative impacts, groundwater allocation, noise, wildlife (including an active bald‑eagle nest near the site), roadway strain and the adequacy of proposed mitigation. Doug Shaw, general manager of the Opportunity Groundwater Conservation District, testified that the district had not received water‑well permit applications from the data‑center projects and that there was currently no authorization to pump water from the aquifer for those uses. "Right now, there is no authorization to pump a single drop of water," Shaw told the court.
Company response: Kevin Pratt, Pacifico’s chief of operations, said the company had reviewed Hood County’s regulations and believed they could comply—either with on‑site wells or by registering as a class D public water utility through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)—and urged the court to allow the iterative approvals process to continue. Pacifico’s counsel said denial at this stage was "premature, frankly unlawful," and the company requested retraction of the agenda item and a reissuance of conditional terms consistent with what the court had actually voted previously.
Outcome and implications: The court’s denial was recorded 3–2 after an executive‑session consultation with counsel (no action taken in closed session). Judge announced the vote and acknowledged the likelihood of litigation: "It's 3 to 2," the court stated in open session; counsel for Pacifico had earlier warned the item put the county "on the brink of immediate litigation." The denial removes conditional concept‑plan approval for Fort Spunky and requires Pacifico to either revise and resubmit a concept plan that meets the county’s stated water requirements or pursue alternative remedies.
