Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meta Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge county to void Chapter 381 amendment tied to Meta data center
Summary
Speakers at the March 19 El Paso County Commissioners Court public comment period urged commissioners to void a proposed Chapter 381 amendment covering a Worldwide/Meta data center, citing water scarcity, utility‑rate risks, secrecy from NDAs and a pending power‑plant application before the PUCT.
Public commentators told the El Paso County Commissioners Court on March 19 that the county should void a planned Chapter 381 amendment tied to a Worldwide/Meta data center project.
“At the end of the day Meta will not contribute in a positive way to the people of El Paso,” said Sol Gonzalez, an organizer with Sanosansa, during the court’s public‑comment period. Gonzalez asked the court to consider voiding the 381 agreement and urged more transparency about why the item was moved from the regular agenda into an executive session.
Veronica Carvajal of the San Pansa Coalition expanded the public’s concerns, telling commissioners the group has tracked such projects nationally and opposed them for three primary reasons: water consumption, energy use and impacts on utility rates. Carvajal said Meta’s non‑disclosure agreements had impeded public understanding of the deal’s effects and noted an application before the Public Utility Commission of Texas to build a power plant to serve the facility. “They promised to not use water, yet we are committing to giving them hundreds of millions of gallons of water every year,” she said.
Diana Martinez and other speakers raised related worries about surveillance technologies, facial‑recognition risks for marginalized communities and the county’s ability to absorb long‑term utility costs if the facility’s needs drive future infrastructure decisions.
Several speakers asked for a public meeting involving Meta, El Paso Electric and El Paso Water so residents could examine projected water and power demands, and several urged commissioners not to authorize incentives or to void the existing 381 agreement.
County staff later requested, and the court approved, an executive session to discuss contract negotiations with Worldwide LLC related to the 381 agreement. No final public action on the contract was recorded at the March 19 meeting; the court recessed into closed session for that discussion.
Next steps: Commissioners did not take a public vote on the 381 amendment during the open session. The court’s direction from the closed session and any future public votes or staff proposals will determine whether the contract amendment proceeds or is withdrawn.
