Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents ask Callahan County for meeting over proposed worker housing, citing water and septic worries
Summary
A group of neighbors asked Callahan County commissioners for a meeting about a proposed temporary worker housing ("man camp") across from their homes, raising concerns about water supply, septic capacity and neighborhood density.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Joe Clark, a resident at 3493 County Road 120, asked Callahan County commissioners on Jan. 12 for a meeting with elected officials and law‑enforcement leaders about a proposed temporary worker housing development across from his property.
"We've learned about it the last couple of weeks," Clark said during the public‑comment period, asking to meet "with some of the elected commissioners, county judge, sheriff" to discuss neighbors' concerns and county policy for this type of development.
Another nearby resident, who did not give a name, told commissioners she lives next door and said the project manager had described plans that could place about 120 workers plus family members near their homes. She said her household relies on a shallow well and a 3,000‑gallon holding tank that is filling at roughly six gallons per hour, and asked how additional nearby residents would be supplied with water.
"We don't have enough water now," the resident said. She also said septic lines were being installed at the site and that neighbors worry about the ability of on‑site septic systems to handle the load and the long‑term outcome if the temporary housing is later repurposed or sold.
The resident described concerns about short‑term transience and longer‑term neighborhood impacts if the site were repurposed by subsequent contractors: "So then does it go to the above ground utilities? Does it go to framers? ... And then 5 years down the road, what's gonna happen to us?"
The presiding officer said the court does not discuss these matters during public comment but asked Clark to call the county office to arrange follow‑up. No formal action or vote on the proposed development was taken during the meeting.
Next steps: commissioners did not schedule a public meeting during the session but the Chair asked the resident to contact the county office to arrange staff follow‑up or a future meeting with elected officials.
