Hood County court allows Comanche Circle developer to proceed to site-development stage amid heavy public opposition

The Hood County Commissioners Court voted 3–1 on June 9 to allow the Comanche Circle concept plan to move forward to the site-development stage despite several hours of public comment urging denial.

The vote came after residents, water district members and local activists criticized the developer’s submittals, saying hydrology, wastewater and traffic analyses were incomplete or missing and that essential permits from the Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District, the Brazos River Authority and TCEQ had not been secured. During the public-comment period speakers repeatedly said documents dated January were not provided to county officials until June 4.

The court’s motion — made by Commissioner Andrews and seconded by Commissioner Wilson — stated, “Sailfish has satisfactorily responded to the county’s conditional approval letter and may proceed to the site development stage plans.” The motion passed with three votes in favor and one opposition. County Judge (name not stated in the record) presided over the session and noted the court faces legal limits set by state law and potential exposure to lawsuits, citing a recent $100 million threat in Hill County as a caution.

Why it mattered: Commenters pressed two lines of concern: technical sufficiency and legal authority. Speakers including Laura Crawford, who identified herself as a board member and treasurer for Protect the Plexy Valley, told the court the developer had not obtained an approved water source and had been denied a million‑gallon‑a‑day request from a county water district. Andy Walford, who earlier presented technical material to the court, said he had asked the developer for engineering ‘‘heat balance’’ documentation and had not received substantive engineering proof to back water‑use claims.

Supporters of the motion and county counsel emphasized process constraints. The county attorney and outside counsel told the court that many of the technical and regulatory requirements in the county’s regulations are applied at the site‑development stage rather than at the concept‑plan stage, and that the court cannot lawfully impose certain timelines or conditions beyond the limits set by Chapter 231, Subchapter K of the Texas Local Government Code.

Opponents’ concerns: Residents cited cumulative regional water planning figures and questioned whether the Brazos Valley water supply could sustain several clustered data‑center projects. Multiple speakers raised traffic and emergency‑response worries, including how tens of thousands of construction workers and thousands of daily trips could affect rural roadways and evacuation routes. Several public speakers urged the court to require independent peer reviews of the developer’s technical studies; others urged denial or rescission of conditional approval and asked the county to pursue stronger legislative remedies at the state level.

What happened next: The court’s approval allows the developer to submit site‑development plans, where county staff and regulators say more detailed engineering, permitting and compliance items are required. Several residents and speakers said they would pursue legal remedies and keep monitoring the county’s decision points. County staff said they would continue to review incoming materials and that certain state approvals remain necessary before construction could proceed.

The court did not rescind the January conditional approval; instead it approved advancement to the next formal plan stage and recorded the vote as 3 in favor, 1 opposed. The commission also continued routine business and approved multiple replats and administrative items later in the session.