Atascosa County holds public meeting on proposed data centers as residents press water, fire‑safety and transparency concerns

Atascosa County officials and a panel of state and local experts told a packed public meeting that the county has limited authority over private data‑center development and that many regulatory controls rest with state agencies and utility structures, even as residents urged stronger local protections.

County leaders opened the meeting by saying they intended to share factual information, explain county regulatory limits and answer questions. County officials repeatedly told attendees that counties in Texas lack broad zoning authority and cannot legally impose moratoriums on development, citing past litigation over moratoriums and urging residents to raise statutory changes with state lawmakers. “Counties do not have the authority to issue moratoriums,” the county judge said, adding that certain tools—subdivision review, building and fire‑code enforcement, negotiated development agreements and conditional provisions in contracts—are available to the county.

Residents focused most of their comments on water use, emergency response and transparency. Multiple speakers argued officials had met with data‑center representatives and called for public access to technical details about cooling systems, anticipated water draws and emergency‑response plans. Jacqueline Forrest, a resident who identified herself at the microphone, said residents needed access to environmental, fire‑safety and TCEQ documents before any agreements moved forward. “We demand the county update and raise the requirements to meet state requirements for a fire marshal,” she said, pressing officials about qualifications and preparedness.

Technical panelists provided context but also underscored limits. Dr. Erin Teague of the regional groundwater district (Evergreen) said district rules apply to all wells and that the district can pursue fines or civil penalties for violations; she cited fines as high as $25,000 per day in enforcement cases and encouraged residents to participate in the district’s public comment period on desired future conditions. Mike Ponzo, the county emergency‑management coordinator, described the county’s ability to push emergency notifications to residents’ phones while acknowledging gaps in outdoor siren coverage in some municipalities.

Representatives of electric utilities said grid impacts are reviewed through ERCOT and Public Utility Commission processes and noted that Senate Bill 6 (2025) created a regulatory framework for very large electricity loads. Dale Fowler of AEP Texas said large users that bring their own generation and that participate in planning can sometimes improve local system robustness, while other speakers warned that project‑level details matter for grid and water impacts.

Lytle and Medina County officials described lessons from a nearby hyperscale project called Project Cinco: a closed‑loop cooling approach with a large initial fill but limited continuous water use, landscape berms and developer commitments to roadwork, volunteer fire‑department funding and STEM support for local schools. David Embry, Lytle’s mayor pro tem, said that when developers negotiate with local governments, communities can ask for mitigations and often receive infrastructure or training commitments.

Several speakers urged state action. Cecilia Castellano and others asked the state legislature to pause incentives and require local impact studies; state lawmakers at the meeting said data‑center issues are on the interim agenda for the upcoming session and signaled plans to pursue changes to tax incentives and to pursue bills to give local governments more tools.

The meeting closed without any formal votes, moratoriums or contract approvals. County leaders said they will continue gathering facts, update the county fire code and post agendas for future commissioners’‑court meetings where any formal agreements would be considered. In closing remarks, officials reiterated an open‑door stance but said many regulatory questions (water permits, chemical storage, air permits) remain within the jurisdiction of state agencies such as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and district groundwater rules.

Next steps: the county encouraged affected residents to follow the groundwater district comment period, watch for public notices on any formal agreements at commissioners’‑court meetings, and to contact state legislators about statutory changes they would like to see.