San Angelo residents press council to slow hyperscale data-center approvals; council directs formation of advisory committee

San Angelo

Residents filled the public-comment period at a San Angelo City Council meeting to press elected officials to slow or bar hyperscale data-center projects until the city can assess impacts on groundwater, housing and public services. Dozens of speakers over multiple hours asked for more transparency, legal due diligence and technical studies before final approvals.

Why it matters: Citizens and some council members said hyperscale facilities use far more water and power than existing enterprise or colocation centers, and that construction-worker housing could strain local housing markets and services. Several speakers also urged the council to require compliance with the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act (LSIPA) to screen foreign ownership or equipment risks.

What happened: During the public-comment period, residents described a range of concerns. Gil Biennes urged a moratorium and a hydrogeological study to quantify how three proposed data centers would affect the local aquifer. Multiple speakers cautioned that large facilities can use tens to hundreds of millions of gallons of water per year and called for water-usage limits and public disclosure of studies and vendor lists. Other commenters—business owners and neighborhood residents—warned of short-term rental spikes during construction, higher rents that could imperil Goodfellow Air Force Base'related housing affordability, and the risk of properties becoming blighted after construction ends.

Council response and next step: Assistant City Manager Shane Kelton presented a staff proposal to create a community-impact review committee to evaluate likely housing, infrastructure, public-safety and workforce effects if large data centers locate in or near San Angelo. Council members discussed committee size, membership balance and advisory scope; they emphasized that the group should be advisory (not quasi-legislative), include neutral technical expertise (water specialists, legal counsel), and avoid overrepresentation from any single district or industry. Council members directed staff to develop the advisory committee concept and suggested triggers and metrics the group should monitor, such as short-term-rental enforcement, road- and utility-impact thresholds, and emergency-services readiness.

Notable requests from speakers: Antonio Martinez urged that any data-center applicant submit a sworn affidavit detailing ownership, investors and equipment sourcing for LSIPA review; Spencer Matthews asked for independent financial scrutiny and flagged potential conflicts of interest involving state-level actors; Jamal Shimpert raised long-standing stormwater enforcement problems with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and urged stronger oversight.

What the advisory committee will do: Councilmembers described the proposed committee as a multi-stakeholder advisory body that would research best practices, advise on ordinance amendments, and prepare recommendations for council action on zoning, conditional uses and development agreements. Several councilmembers suggested including city staff (planning, utilities, police and fire), one or two council liaisons, stakeholder representatives (realtors, apartment association, HBA), and technical experts (water managers, utility providers).

Background and context: Council members and staff noted the city has already adopted zoning and water-related provisions intended to regulate data-center impacts, but speakers said hyperscale centers differ from smaller enterprise or colocation facilities and demand separate rules. Multiple commenters referenced other Texas cities'experiences and state developments; council member Mary McKilley noted recent state-level guidance about infrastructure-cost allocation and said she would not support immediate construction without additional review.

Next procedural steps: Staff will return with a proposed committee structure, membership process, objective and proposed timelines; council indicated it wants a clear scope and measurable triggers tied to planning, ordinance updates and enforcement capability.

The council did not adopt a moratorium at this meeting but moved to develop the committee and pursue the due-diligence items discussed.