Atascosa County’s Data-Center Meeting Put Groundwater Questions Ahead of the Project

What happened in Jourdanton

The Atascosa County courtroom was full for a nearly three-hour public information meeting at the Justice Center in Jourdanton on July 7. Pleasanton Express reported that 23 residents spoke in person and 11 questions were submitted online. Residents asked about water use, groundwater protection, pollution, cooling, fire protection, property values, private-property rights, and the county’s legal authority.

The most important fact was also the easiest one to lose in a crowded room: county officials said there was no confirmed Atascosa County data-center project. They reported no development agreement, approved or requested tax incentive, contract, or binding agreement. Several companies had reportedly contacted the county or looked at areas, but an inquiry or private land conversation is not an approved development.

Officials also separated that speculation from the Energy Ranch project in Frio County. The reporting says county representatives described Energy Ranch as a separate project, not evidence that an Atascosa County data center had been confirmed.

Why the county cannot simply stop a private deal

Residents asked the county to consider a moratorium. County Attorney Molly Solis said Texas law does not give counties statutory authority to impose a development moratorium of that kind, while cities have different powers. County Judge Weldon Cude also described preliminary site conversations as private exchanges between landowners and prospective buyers when no incentives or county agreement are being requested.

That is not the same as saying a future project would face no rules. Fire codes, utility requirements, environmental permits, groundwater-district rules, road agreements, and other approvals may apply depending on the site and design. It means the county cannot manufacture land-use authority it has not been granted simply because a potential buyer is controversial.

That property-rights limit is part of the story, not a loophole to be hand-waved away. Texas can welcome high-value technology investment while still requiring developers to put real water and infrastructure facts on the table when a project becomes concrete.

What Evergreen GCD can regulate

Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District covers Atascosa, Frio, Karnes, and Wilson counties. Its stated mission includes conserving, protecting, recharging, and preventing waste of local groundwater while balancing private landowner rights with long-term management.

At the meeting, Evergreen General Manager Dr. Aarin Teague said district rules apply to all permitted wells and that violations can draw penalties authorized by Texas law of up to $25,000 per day. Evergreen’s current public permit page says a well requires a permit when it is capable of producing more than 17.5 gallons per minute or more than 25,000 gallons per day. A lower-capacity well may be exempt from permitting, but the district says it still requires registration and recommends confirming status directly with Evergreen.

For a future data center that proposed high-capacity groundwater production, those thresholds and rules would be central. The useful documents would be the drilling and production applications, requested annual volume, hydrogeologic study, well locations, aquifer or formation, spacing, operating conditions, metering and reporting requirements, and any hearing notice.

What Evergreen cannot answer by itself

A groundwater conservation district manages groundwater within its statutory lane. It does not regulate every part of a data center, and its well rules do not automatically apply to water delivered by a municipal or special utility district. Nor can Evergreen evaluate a pumping proposal that has not actually been filed.

The source matters. A project supplied by an existing utility raises different capacity and drought questions than one drilling new high-capacity wells. A dry-cooled or closed-loop facility differs from one using evaporative cooling. A project may also use water indirectly through power generation even when on-site consumption is low. “Data center” is not a water-use number.

That is the limit residents should keep in view: Evergreen has meaningful enforcement power over permitted groundwater wells, but it is not a substitute zoning board, fire marshal, electric utility, or project engineer. Until a real proposal identifies a site and water source, nobody has enough facts to calculate local well effects.

What nearby property owners should check

• Project status: Look for a named applicant, tract, filed agreement, utility request, permit application, or hearing notice—not social-media repetition.
• Water source: Ask whether the proposal relies on Evergreen-regulated groundwater, a public water supplier, recycled water, hauled water, or a mix.
• Pumping request: If wells are proposed, compare requested gallons per minute and annual acre-feet with the district threshold and permit documents.
• Cooling design: Ask whether cooling is evaporative, closed-loop liquid, hybrid, or dry, and whether stated water use covers normal operations and peak summer conditions.
• Nearby well evidence: Review reported depths, completion dates, aquifer clues, yields, plugged wells, and the distance between domestic wells and any proposed production wells.
• District record: Check Evergreen’s permit page, agendas, minutes, notices, and public map rather than assuming either approval or denial.
• Property condition: Document the current well, pump setting, production, water quality, and maintenance history before a nearby land-use fight makes cause and timing harder to establish.

A pro-growth answer still requires a water plan

Data centers can bring tax base, construction, infrastructure, and the computing capacity Texas businesses increasingly use. The sensible position is not to reject an unnamed project before one exists. It is to insist that any real developer disclose enough information for regulators, utilities, and landowners to distinguish a water-lean design from a major new groundwater demand.

The July 7 meeting was useful precisely because it exposed the division of authority early. The county has limited land-use power. Evergreen has defined groundwater authority. Private owners have real property rights. Fire and utility officials have their own lanes. A credible project should be able to work within all of them without asking residents to rely on rumor or reassurance.