Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Proposed Development Near the Antioch Community in Delta County
Purpose of this Document
This FAQ is intended to provide accurate, factual information about a proposed development being proposed in western Delta County. It explains what is currently known, what remains unknown, and what authority Delta County does, and does not, have under Texas law. This document is intended to be a depository and provide ease of access for citizens to refer to frequently asked questions (FAQ’s) and responses. This document is updated periodically as new information or questions are posed with the updated date listed in the footer of the document. If you have a question that is not listed in the FAQ list below or if you have feedback, please submit your questions and feedback to info [at] deltacountytx.com (info[at]deltacountytx[dot]com).
What is being proposed?
A private developer is evaluating the possibility of constructing a large-scale data center, including battery-energy storage systems (BESS), supported by an on-site natural gas power generation facility on privately owned land near the Antioch community.
Where is the property that is proposed for this development?
The property is situated on FM 64 at the FM 1532 intersection in the northeast corner of the intersection. The parcel is a 1,600 acre undivided tract currently used for agricultural farming. This property is located in Delta County Precinct 3.
Who is the developer?
LS Power, who is a New York based company founded in 1990 with focus in the power and energy sector.
Website: https://www.lspower.com/
Is this project approved?
No.
No permits have been submitted by the developer to Delta County, no approvals have been granted by Delta County, and no incentives have been offered by Delta County or requested by the developer.
Has the developer purchased the land?
To the best of the County’s knowledge, the developer has not purchased the property and remains within an option period for a 5-year term.
Does the land contain any deed restrictions or restricted covenants that would prevent this type of development?
To date, no deed restrictions or restricted covenants for this tract of land have been identified or located that would affect the proposed development.
Did Delta County recruit or solicit this project?
No.
Delta County, including its officials, and its local entities did not recruit, solicit, or market this development or this developer.
Is this project related to the Serengeti Solar Farm project?
According to a representative of Serengeti, no.
When provided this information that it possibly could be owned, operated, or funded by the developer of the natural gas power generation plant and data center, County Judge Tanner Crutcher emailed Marina Saez, listed as the Project Developer for permitting in the USA Market for ABEI energy Monday, February 9th. The email stated:
"I have received some second-hand information that indicates that the Serengeti development is related, either directly or indirectly, to a proposed large-scale natural gas powered generation plant with a co-located data center complex. Can you confirm or respond to this?"
Marina Saez with ABEI responded on Wednesday, February 11th stating the following:
"I can confirm that the Serengeti project has no association with data center development or with any natural gas powered generation facilities. Serengeti is being advanced strictly as a renewable energy project, and there are no plans or discussions linking it to natural-gas infrastructure. For transparency, a separate division within ABEI Energy is exploring potential opportunities in the data-center sector; however, this work is completely independent of the Serengeti project and has no overlap in scope, transmission use, or development activity. We are not aware of, involved in, or responsible for any third-party activities that may independently occur on the broader transmission system. As this appears to be information circulating through secondary channels, any clarification you can provide regarding its origin would be greatly appreciated, as it will allow me to address the matter appropriately."
No information could be located on the ERCOT or Texas Comptroller's database that would indicate any relation between the two.
COUNTY AUTHORITY & LEGAL LIMITATIONS
Does the County have the authority to simply approve or reject this project?
No.
Under Texas law, counties do not have the authority to approve or deny large-scale industrial developments in unincorporated areas.
Where does a County get their authority to act?
Article IX, Section 1, Texas Constitution, Creation of Counties, "The Legislature shall have the power to create counties for the convenience of the people..."
Article V, Section 18, Texas Constitution, Division of Counties into Precincts; Justices of the Peace and Constables; County Commissioners and County Commissioners Court, provides that the Commissioners Court "shall exercise such powers and jurisdiction over all county business, as is conferred by this Constitution and the laws of the State, or as may be hereafter prescribed."
Article XI, Section 2, Jails, Courthouse, Bridges, and Roads, provides that the construction of bridges and repairing of county roads shall be provided for by general laws.
Counties, as political subdivisions of the state, are created by the Legislature, and as such have only those powers which have been expressly granted by the Constitution of the statutes and those reasonably implied therefrom.
As the supreme court stated in Canales v. Laughlin, 214 S.W. 2d 451 (Tex. 1948):
"The Constitution does not confer on the commissioners courts "general authority over the county business" and such courts can exercise only such powers as the Constitution itself or the statutes have "specifically conferred on them". See Mills County v. Lampasas County, 90 Tex. 603, 606, 40 S.W. 403, 404; Anderson v. Wood, 137 Tex. 201, 203, 152 S.W.2d 1084, 1085. While the commissioners courts have a broad discretion in exercising powers expressly conferred on them, nevertheless the legal basis for any action by any such court must be ultimately found in the Constitution or the statutes."
See also Texas Attorney General Opinion MW-274.
Does the County have zoning authority?
No.
Counties in Texas generally do not have zoning or land-use authority outside very limited, legislatively defined circumstances, such as developments near lakes or reservoirs, military bases, and airports, none of which apply to this project. This is outlined in Texas Local Government Code Chapter 231. The only county in the State of Texas with broad general land-use regulation and zoning authority is Hood County, which was authorized by the legislature in 1999.
Doesn’t the County have subdivision and plating rules that would apply to this development?
No.
While Delta County does have an adopted, up-to-date set of Subdivision Rules and Regulations, the developer has not expressed or demonstrated any intent to subdivide or replat any portion of the subject tract of land that is currently under the option purchase contract. If such intent or request was ever requested by the developer, the Subdivision Rules and Regulations would be triggered and the Commissioners’ Court would have some discretionary oversight on that particular element. A county’s authority with regards to the regulation of subdivisions is found in Chapter 232 of the Texas Local Government Code.
Can the County impose a moratorium or halt development?
No.
Counties do not have authority to enact development moratoria.
In fact, Franklin County recently sought to declare a moratorium on the siting, construction, installation, operation, permitting, and licensing of any Commercial, Utility Scale Solar Energy Facility within Franklin County in 2023. The Texas Attorney General ruled in AG Opinion AC-0003 that “to the extent a moratorium proposed by a county in relation to a commercial utility-scale solar energy facility is adopted pursuant to §121.003 but does not seek to enforce a specific, preexisting public health law, a court would likely find it invalid and unenforceable.”
Furthermore, in a letter addressed February 10, 2026 to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton with the title subject of "Proposed Illegal County Moratorium on Development", State Senator Paul Bettencourt, who serves as the Chair of the Senate Committee on Local Government, referred to an attempt by commissioners court to impose a moratoria on certain types of development to the Attorney General's Office for investigation. In the letter, Senator Bettencourt informs the Attorney General of a consideration by a commissioners court to impose the moratorium on large-scale developments, which he later references in a social media post a recent consideration of by the Hood County Commissioners' Court to impose a data center moratorium. Senator Bettencourt highlights House Bill 2559, authored by Representative Jared Patterson, that regulates municipalities with respect to imposing moratoria. Senator Bettencourt goes on to state that counties were not included in this legislation because they lack the legal authority to directly or indirectly impose development moratoria in the first place. He further indicates that as counties are political subdivisions of the State of Texas, created exclusively by the Texas Constitution with statutorily prescribed, limited powers. Senator Bettencourt concludes that county commissioners courts cannot claim any powers unless it expressly conferred by the Constitution or statute, and that no such authority exists with respect imposing moratoria on a particular that would fully encompass a particular industrial development.
This letter was co-signed by State Representative Jared Patterson, who serves as the Chair of the House Committee on Local and Consent Calendars. A copy of the letter can be found here: https://www.deltacountytx.com/media/6376
Delta County has requested an Attorney General Opinion regarding the ability for counties to adopt moratoria under certain circumstances. A copy of the opinion request can be found here: https://www.deltacountytx.com/media/6496
Has the County sought an Attorney General Opinion on counties ability to adopt moratoria?
Yes.
Delta County has requested an Attorney General Opinion regarding counties authority to impose moratoria on certain energy and data facilities. A copy of the opinion request can be found here: https://www.deltacountytx.com/media/6496
Furthermore, citizens can follow the request by visiting https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/pending-requests-opinions. Hood County, Texas has also requested a similar opinion, but their request is related to a special provision of the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 231, Subchapter K, which provides broader land-use authority to Hood County that was legislatively authorized in 1999.
Who issues permits for this development?
The only permits issued by Delta County are on-site sewage facilities, driveway and culvert permits related to the installation of driveway or culverts on county road right-of-ways, not on state-maintained roads such as FM roads or state highway, road bore/road cut permits for boring or cutting a county road or right-of-way to install utilities, and 911 addressing which is outsourced through the ArkTex Council of Governments (ATCOG)
Primary permitting and regulatory authority for developments of this nature rests with state and federal agencies, not county government.
Those permitting agencies may, depending upon the scope of the project, include the following state and federal agencies:
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Air Emissions and Wastewater Discharge)
United States Army Corp of Engineers (Environmental Assessment and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA))
Electric Reliability Council of Texas
Has the County contacted or engaged with any of the regulatory agencies and offices?
Yes.
To date, the County has contacted, communicated and collaborated with, and engaged the following agencies, entities, and officials:
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
United States Army Corp of Engineers
State Representative Shelley Luther
Texas Department of Agriculture, Commissioner Sid Miller
Texas Water Development Board - Region D
Delta County Soil & Water Conservation District
Delta County Sub-Regional Planning Commission
County Historical Commission of Delta County, Texas
West Delta Water Supply Corporation
City of Pecan Gap, Texas
Where can I express my concerns or comments to regulatory and permitting agencies?
Below are the email addresses for the regulatory agencies that could, depending upon the defined scope of the project, have regulatory oversight on this proposed development:
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ):
Public Participation in Permitting: pep [at] tceq.texas.gov (pep[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Wastewater Permitting: wqap [at] tceq.texas.gov (wqap[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Air Permitting: airperm [at] tceq.texas.gov (airperm[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Water Supplies: watsup [at] tceq.texas.gov (watsup[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Water Rights Permitting: wras [at] tceq.texas.gov (wras[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Surface Water Rights and Availability:wrap [at] tceq.texas.gov (wrap[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov)
General Information: info [at] tceq.texas.gov (info[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov)
You can either submit hearing requests online, or mail to:
Chief Clerk, MC-105
TCEQ
PO Box 13087
Austin TX 78711-3087
Public Utilities Commission (PUC): consumer [at] puc.texas.gov (consumer[at]puc[dot]texas[dot]gov) or water [at] puc.texas.gov (water[at]puc[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT): https://www.publicportal.ercot.com/csp?id=sc_cat_item&sys_id=c8cb73901be86d10a55a10ad9c4bcbba&sysparm_category=9aa10a2ac3112200b12d9f2974d3aefd&catalog_id=0f910a2ac3112200b12d9f2974d3ae3c
US Army Corp of Engineers: CESWF-Permits [at] usace.army.mil (CESWF-Permits[at]usace[dot]army[dot]mil)
Railroad Commission of Texas: https://txrrc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ekCY0tDZjcKiZue
Other interested agencies:
Texas Water Development Board: regionalwaterplanning [at] twdb.texas.gov (regionalwaterplanning[at]twdb[dot]texas[dot]gov) or customer_service [at] twdb.texas.gov (customer_service[at]twdb[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Texas Water Development Board - Region D: WRPdatarequests [at] twdb.texas.gov (WRPdatarequests[at]twdb[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Texas Department of Agriculture: PubInfo [at] TexasAgriculture.gov (PubInfo[at]TexasAgriculture[dot]gov) or Customer.Relations [at] TexasAgriculture.gov (Customer[dot]Relations[at]TexasAgriculture[dot]gov)
Will there be an environmental impact study completed?
Yes.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) study by the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) will likely be required depending upon the scope of work and the design of the proposed development. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is often triggered by the need for federal permits regarding wetlands or waterways under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
How long does the environmental impact study take to complete?
The length of time to complete the environmental impact study depends on several factors, including the scope of the project and the design of the proposed development. However, recent legislation included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed in July 2025, allows project sponsors to pay for an expedited NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) to be completed within 180 days. This requires a fee of 125% of the estimated preparation costs, with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) providing a fee estimate within 15 days of project submission.
Where can I get a copy of a NEPA Environmental Impact Study?
To obtain a copy of a NEPA environmental impact study, visit https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-environmental-policy-act-review-proces
Are there any laws or regulations that are subject to review by the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD)?
Depending upon the specific design and scope of the project, TPWD could be involved in an environmental review, along with the federal review requirements. More information can be found at https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/habitat_assessment/laws.phtml
Are there any federal executive orders that are applicable to this project or the environmental review of the project?
Depending upon the specific scope of the project, certain federal executive orders may be applicable, such as the Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure Executive Order issued on July 23, 2025. A copy of the Executive Order can be found here: July 23, 2025 Executive Order: Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure
Where can I find more information about federal permits?
To learn more about federal permits that pertain to data center facilities, visit https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48762/R48762.1.pdf
What about air emissions and wastewater discharge permits?
Both air emissions permitting and wastewater discharge permitting is a function and under the regulatory authority of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). For more information on the TCEQ air emissions permitting process, visit https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/air/air_permits.html. For more information on the TCEQ wastewater discharge permitting process, visit https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/wastewater
The public can access and search TCEQ air permitting records online by visiting the TCEQ Central File Room online database at https://records.tceq.texas.gov/cs/idcplg?IdcService=TCEQ_SEARCH
Also, the public can check the status TCEQ wastewater permitting records online by visiting: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/data/lookup-data/status-stormwater-wastewater.html
How can the public participate in the TCEQ permitting process?
For more information on how the public can participate in the TCEQ permitting processes for pending applications, visit https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/decisions/participation/permitting-participation/pending-permits-participating-in-the-process
Where can I find information on TCEQ records and data?
To access environmental data and records available from the TCEQ online, visit https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/data
Can the County regulate the noise level that is often associated with data centers?
Many Texas cities have adopted ordinances to regulate noise, including engine-braking ordinances. Cities’ authority to regulate noise is found in Texas Local Government Code Chapter 51, specifically 51.001, which grants them general police power. As the Texas Supreme Court has observed, cities “look to the Legislature not for grants of power, but only for limitations on their power.” (See: Dallas Merchants v City of Dallas)
In contrast, counties lack general police power and may exercise only those powers expressly conferred upon them by the Constitution and by the Legislature (See Canales v. Laughlin). To date, the Legislature has not conferred upon counties the authority to regulate noise in their unincorporated areas. Since at least 2009, various bills have been presented in legislative session that would have empowered counties to pass noise ordinances, but none of the bills made it out of session. Until the Texas Legislature grants the state’s counties authority to adopt noise ordinances, counties remain unable to administratively regulate noise, outside of existing statutes under the Penal Code.
When neighbors in unincorporated areas of the county disagree on appropriate times and volumes for noise, county residents’ may have legal recourse by contacting their local constable or sheriff’s office if the noise is so loud that it violates the state’s criminal statute. Under Section 42.01(5) of the Texas Penal Code, a person commits an offense if he/she "makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;” Section 42.01(c)(2) of the Texas Penal Code states that a noise is presumed unreasonable if the decibel level exceeds 85. Specifically, the statute says "For purposes of this section: (1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and (2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance. (d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor."
More information and resources on nuisance matters, including noise, can be found at the following link: Noise & Nuisances - Neighbor Law - Guides at Texas State Law Library
Where can I find information on data center projects in Texas?
The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts maintains lists of all registered Qualifying Data Centers and Qualifying Large Data Center Projects in Texas. The lists can be found at the following link: https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/data-centers/data-center-lists.php
Where can I find information on Commissioners' Court agendas and minutes to see if this project has been discussed?
The agendas and minutes of the Commissioners' Court, including upcoming and past meetings, are found at the following link: https://www.deltacountytx.com/meetings
Does Delta County issue building permits or certificates of occupancy?
No.
The limited authority for certain counties in the State of Texas to issue building permits is found in Texas Local Government Code §233.063, located within Subchapter C of Chapter 233, and only applies to counties that have adopted a local fire code as authorized by Texas Local Government Code §233.061. In the State of Texas, only counties with a population over 250,000 or counties that are adjacent to a county with a population over 250,000 can adopt its own local fire code for the unincorporated areas of the county, in accordance with Texas Local Government Code §233.061. Since Delta County does not meet either of these criteria, a local fire code cannot be adopted. Since Delta County does not qualify to adopt a local fire code, Delta County also does not qualify to issue building permits or certificates of compliance as authorized in §233.063 of the Local Government Code.
Also see Texas Attorney General Opinion MW-171: https://www.deltacountytx.com/media/6441
Does Delta County have or participate in a Chapter 391 Regional Sub-Regional Planning Commission?
Yes.
The Delta County Sub-Regional Planning Commission was formally created (by Resolution of the Commissioners’ Court on for the County’s participation on August 26, 2025) pursuant to Texas Government Code Chapter 791 (Interlocal Cooperation Act) and Texas Local Government Code Chapter 391 (Regional and Sub-Regional Planning Commissions) through an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement executed by Delta County, the City of Cooper, the City of Pecan Gap, and, post-formation to the Delta County Soil and Water Conservation District based upon the critical roles that the Soil and Water Conservation District has regarding land and water resource conservation, environmental stewardship, and coordinated planning, all of which are a focus of the Commission.
Chapter 391 commissions are generally subject to regional boundaries as delineated by the Governor of the State of Texas. At this time, no specific gubernatorial boundary designation has been issued establishing a sub-regional planning area encompassing Delta County for this purpose. Accordingly, upon the advice of legal counsel, the participating entities utilized the authority provided under Texas Government Code Chapter 791 (Interlocal Cooperation Act) to execute an interlocal agreement formally creating and defining the operational structure of the Sub-Regional Planning Commission within Delta County. This approach ensures statutory compliance while providing a lawful framework for collaborative planning among the participating political subdivisions.
The Sub-Regional Planning Commission was established to facilitate cooperative, coordinated, and advisory planning among participating local governments in matters affecting:
- Strategic planning and growth management
- Land and water resource conservation
- Infrastructure and utility planning
- Environmental preservation and hazard mitigation
- Emergency response coordination
- Economic development
- Intergovernmental coordination and grant opportunities
Importantly, the Commission is advisory only and possesses no regulatory, permitting, enforcement, taxing, or land-use authority. It cannot adopt ordinances, issue permits, restrict lawful land use, or impair vested property rights. Its role is to provide structured collaboration and informed recommendations while preserving local control.
WATER SUPPLY & INFRASTRUCTURE
Why is water a major concern?
Water is a long-term public-interest resource that affects residents, agriculture, emergency services, and future growth. Any large, water-intensive development must be evaluated against existing and future demand, drought conditions, and long-term sustainability.
What type of technology is the developer using for their cooling system?
The developer has not yet provided any definitive information or design details, including specifications and drawings, of their proposed technology, including the cooling systems, for both the natural gas power generation, the battery-energy storage systems, or the data center components.
Certainly, those will be required in order to conduct several of the review and studies of the project, including the fire protection review and the water consumption analysis by the water suppliers.
Does the County control water sales or allocation?
No.
Water sales, allocation, and delivery are not county functions. Those decisions are made by water supply entities and regulated by state agencies.
Can the County deny water service to the project?
No.
Counties do not have authority to approve, deny, or condition raw water sales or usage levels. The delivery and sale of water, for either municipal or industrial consumption and use, is not a function of the county government. Instead, water service is strictly a function of the various water suppliers (Ben Franklin WSC, Delta County MUD, and West Delta WSC).
Can the water supplier deny water service to the project?
A water supplier is obligated to provide "continuous and adequate" service to its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) certificated area (see PUC's Rules and Guidance for Water and Sewer Utilities). However, denial of service can occur if the applicant does not comply with regulations, such as if the developer or landowner fails to comply with state, municipal, or supplier specific regulations, the request violates the supplier’s existing rules, regulations, or tariffs on file with the Public Utility Commission (PUC), the applicant is indebted to the utility for similar services.
More specifically, Texas Water Code §13.250(a) requires a retail public utility that possesses (or is required to possess) a CCN to serve every consumer within its certified area and provide continuous and adequate service. Texas Water Code §13.2501 says the CCN holder shall refuse service to a customer within its certified area if providing service is prohibited by Texas Local Government Code §212.012 (municipal subdivision / platting utility-connection restrictions).
For water suppliers regulated by PUC, 16 TAC §24.157 lists grounds where a utility may decline to serve a service applicant, including:
- Applicant is not in compliance with state or municipal regulations applicable to the service requested
- Applicant is not in compliance with the utility’s rules in its approved tariff
- Applicant is indebted to a utility for the same type of service (with dispute/deposit caveats)
- The primary point of use is outside the certificated area
- Standby fees (if authorized) haven’t been paid for that property/lot
- Utility is prohibited from providing service under the platting utility-connection restrictions (the same concept as above).
If the utility refuses under these rules, it must inform the applicant in writing of the basis and advise they can file a complaint with the PUC.
Aside from a new water service connection, Texas Water Code §13.250 and PUC rule 16 TAC §24.167 address when a provider can disconnect or discontinue service, most commonly for nonpayment after notice has been given and certain other defined reasons
What happens if the water supplier denies water service to the project?
If a water supplier denies service, it must follow a specific legal process, including responding to the applicant in writing as the basis for its refusal. The applicant has the right to file a complaint with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC). If a water supplier fails to provide service, landowners may petition the PUC to remove their property from the supplier’s CCN under Texas Water Code §13.254, allowing them to seek service elsewhere. Furthermore, the applicant can seek a legal remedy for breach of duty, as the CCN holder is considered a monopoly obligated to serve that area. The TCEQ or PUC may intervene if the water supplier is not fulfilling its duty to provide adequate service.
Where can I find information about the supply of water within Delta County?
The Region D - Texas Water Development Board, which encompasses and serves Delta County, has published the 2026 Region D Water Plan that is publicly available. This publication identifies the water supply contracted amounts, water management strategies, projected shortages, and various other data sets and analysis related to water management and supply within the Region D area.
2026 Region D Water Plan - Volume 1
2026 Region D Water Plan - Volume 2
What water supplier’s CCN is the property located?
The majority of the parcel is covered by the Delta County MUD’s CCN. There is a small portion of the property along FM 64 that is located within the West Delta WSC’s CCN.
Where does Delta County MUD get their water?
Delta County MUD receives their treated water supply from the City of Cooper. The City of Cooper's current water supply source is from the Big Creek Lake Reservoir. Both Delta County MUD and the City of Cooper retain surface water rights to Jim Chapman Lake, despite their currently not being any intake infrastructure to deliver and distribute the water from Jim Chapman Lake in the City of Cooper's water distribution system. These water rights are held under the sponsorship of the Sulphur River Municipal Water District.
Does the City of Cooper or Delta County MUD intake any water from Jim Chapman Lake?
No.
There is currently no intake structure to deliver and distribute water from Jim Chapman Lake into the City of Cooper or Delta County MUD's distribution system, despite retaining surface rights to 1,072 acre-feet per year, which equates to approximately 349,312,272 gallons per year, of raw water from the lake, contract by the Sulphur River Municipal Water District. If any supply of water, in any amount, was ever requested or required to be provided to a particular development from this source, the developer would be required to incur the burden of any and all costs associated with constructing the intake, as well as delivering and distributing the raw water into the distribution system.
What is the County doing to evaluate water impacts?
The County is:
- Conducting fact-finding, due-diligence, and exhaustive research related to the surface water rights, water supply contracts, water supply obligations, water supply projections and forecasts, and standard industry consumption rates and assumptions.
- Coordinating with local water supply entities
- Engaging state and regional partners
- Supporting the efforts of our water suppliers in seeking and conducting independent engineering expertise to evaluate long-term water availability and infrastructure impacts
- Supporting the development of a comprehensive, unbiased analysis of Delta County MUD's water supply capacity, independent of any influence from the developer, that considers worst-case scenarios
- At the March 10, 2026 Commissioners' Court meeting, the Commissioners' Court passed a resolution formally stating it's opposition to the establishment or expansion of additional data centers and similar water-intensive developments until which time definitive, enforceable long-term water supply strategies have been identified and implemented. The resolution also urges the Governor and the Texas Legislature to convene a special session to address these concerns regarding long-term water sustainability, industrial water demand, protecting our finite resources, and other related concerns. A copy of the resolution can be found at the following link: Resolution 2026-03-10-01
Does the water supplier have an engineering firm capable of performing a water study of this scope and complexity?
Yes.
Delta County MUD has contracted with and retained Dunaway as their engineer of record to perform all related water and infrastructure studies and analyses.
When will a water and infrastructure study commence?
Delta County MUD’s engineer of record, Dunaway, is prepared to commence the study immediately once technical specifications, design, and the project scope and details are formalized and provided by the developer. The commencement of that study is dependent upon the receipt of all required documents, data, technology and design details, and drawings/plans from the developer with regards to their proposed project.
Where can I find information on active and inactive water rights and water use data?
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) maintains a database of all active and inactive surface water rights permits and water supply contracts. The files include the water right holder, basin, amount of water authorized, and more.
This information can be found at the following link: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/water_rights/wr-permitting/wrwud
What happens to the land if the development is constructed, placed in service, and then shuts down?
Certain parts of the proposed development, specifically the battery-energy storage systems (BESS) are subject to decommissioning laws that regulate the restoration of the land used to construct BESS facilities.
Effective September 1, 2025, House Bill 3809 (codified as Chapter 303 of the Utilities Code) requires non-utility Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) leases to include mandatory decommissioning, land restoration, and financial assurance provisions. Specifically, operators must remove all battery units, transformers, substations, overhead lines, and buried cables. Foundations must be removed at least three feet below the surface, and holes filled with similar soil. Upon request, developers must remove roads, return land to a tillable state, and reseed with native vegetation. A bond, letter of credit, or parent company guarantee is required by the 15th anniversary of commercial operations to cover removal costs. Components must be reused or recycled whenever possible, ensuring safe disposal. These rules apply to BESS lease agreements entered into on or after September 1, 2025.
Other decommissioning laws also exist with regards to solar farm developments, which, at this time, the developer has not indicated any intent of constructing solar generation facilities. Solar farm land decommissioning in Texas is primarily covered by Texas Utilities Code Chapter 302, which was signed into law by the passing of SB 760 in 2021. This was later amended with updated, stricter requirements under HB 3228 that went into effect September 1, 2025. This law ensures that agreements must require the grantee (solar company) to remove all solar devices, transformers, substations, and overhead lines. Foundations must be removed to a depth of at least 3 feet below the surface. The site must be cleared, and holes filled with similar soil. The law mandates that the agreement includes provisions for the developer to provide financial security (such as bonds or letters of credit) to cover the cost of decommissioning. The decommissioning obligation remains with the developer even if the project is sold. The HB 3228 expansion includes provisions so that the lease agreements must require the lessee to collect and recycle, reuse, or properly dispose of all facility components at the end of their life, handling hazardous and non-hazardous materials appropriately as well as requiring that the financial assurance provided to landowners must now explicitly include the estimated costs of recycling components and restoring the property, beyond just the cost of physical removal. The amended version now requires that updated cost and salvage value estimates for recycling/disposal must be provided at least once every five years. The HB 3228 expanded requirements applies only to contracts entered into on or after September 1, 2025.
PUBLIC SAFETY & QUALITY OF LIFE
What public safety and infrastructure concerns are being evaluated?
Local officials are examining emergency response capacity, fire protection requirements, infrastructure limitations, noise and quality-of-life impacts, the lack of existing infrastructure in a rural, unincorporated area to utilize during emergencies, including fire-flow rated water supply systems.
Does the County have a Fire Marshal?
Yes.
Delta County created the Delta County Fire Marshal’s Office on January 10, 2023, by Resolution, in accordance with Chapter 352 of the Texas Local Government Code. Fire Marshal Duane Sprague was appointed as the County Fire Marshal on February 14, 2023. The County Fire Marshal is appointed for two-year terms by the Commissioners’ Court. Furthermore, the Delta County Fire Marshal’s Office is a law-enforcement agency registered with the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE).
Who is the Fire Marshal and is he/she qualified?
The County Fire Marshal is Duane Sprague.
Yes, Fire Marshal Sprague is qualified.
Fire Marshal Sprague has been in fire service for over 29 years. Fire Marshal Sprague is certified by the Texas Commission on Fire Protection as a Advanced Structure Firefighter, Instructor I, Fire Officer I, Driver Operator-Pumper, Hazardous Materials Technician, Advanced Fire Inspector, Basic Wildland Firefighter, Advanced Fire Investigator, Plan Examiner 1, Advanced Arson Investigator, Field Examiner, and a Basic Fire Marshal. In addition, Fire Marshal Sprague is a licensed and commissioned Texas peace officer through TCOLE. Fire Marshal Sprague far exceeds the qualifications necessary to serve as the County Fire Marshal.
Does Delta County have a fire code?
In the State of Texas, only counties with a population over 250,000 or counties that are adjacent to a county with a population over 250,000 can adopt its own local fire code for the unincorporated areas of the county, in accordance with Texas Local Government Code §233.061. Since Delta County does not meet either of these criterion, a local fire code cannot be adopted. Delta County can only enforce fire codes adopted by the State of Texas.
What fire code has the State of Texas adopted?
According to the State Fire Marshal’s Office website, “the State Fire Marshal's Office uses the 2021 Editions of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101 Life Safety Code and NFPA 1 Fire Code as its standards of inspection with an effective date of September 1, 2023. The National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code® (NFPA 101) is the adopted inspection standard of the State Fire Marshal's Office. The Life Safety Code® determines the design, construction, and operation of occupied buildings. When other codes are utilized for building design elements, the standards of the Life Safety Code® prevail. Any deviation from his standard must be approved by the State Fire Marshal as the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). Otherwise, the deviation will be considered a deficiency. The State Fire Marshal uses additional NFPA fire codes and standards for guidance in assessing and directing the remediation of fire hazards in other than occupied buildings. This action is taken under the authority of the Texas Government Code, §417.008 and §417.0081, and the Texas Administrative Code, 28 TAC § 34.301 ff. NFPA 1 is used by the State Fire Marshal’s Office staff when conducting inspections within their authority.”
This includes all key standards referenced within NFPA 1, including NFPA 13, NFPA 72®, NFPA 10, NFPA 70®, NFPA 30, NFPA 25, NFPA 54, NFPA 58, NFPA 96, NFPA 68, NFPA 69, and NFPA 855.
Additionally, an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) and Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) will be required.
What rules apply to the Battery-Energy Storage Systems (BESS)?
Delta County will be enforcing NFPA 1, including NFPA 68, NFPA 69, and NFPA 855 standards, as well as UL9540A with respect to any installed or designed battery-energy storage systems (BESS).
Additionally, Chapter 187 of the Texas Utilities Code (adopted and codified into law in the most recent 89th Legislative Session effective September 1, 2025) will be enforced. Chapter 187 establishes mandatory fire safety standards for BESS operations with a capacity of 1 MWh or greater, operating on or after Jan 1, 2027. The law requires operators to comply with national standards, maintain safety data, and provide training to first responders. A key provision allows municipalities or counties to request, at the developer’s expense, a third-party evaluation of the facility’s design and installation from a fire protection engineer licensed in the State of Texas. This evaluation must confirm compliance with UL9540A and NFPA 855 standards and provide a written report, including any deficiencies and recommended corrective actions. This law further requires that the developer conduct the same third-party review at least once every five years throughout the operation of the BESS system.
Chapter 187 of the Texas Utilities Code also requires BESS operators to furnish key documents such as site layouts, fire protection plans, and emergency operations plans to local authorities upon request, as well as provide to local first responders, at no cost to the first responders, education and annual training regarding responding to an equipment failure incident at the battery energy storage facility site, including training on specific characteristics of battery energy storage technology, training on protecting first responders during incident response, training on hazards commonly associated with incident response, training on incident response protocols, including an overview of the site-specific emergency operations plan developed under the requirements of this law, and an on-site review of the perimeter, major equipment, and ingress and egress to the site.
Delta County will require all provisions of the Chapter 187 statute to be met and for the developer to demonstrate full compliance.
See further guidance from the Texas State Fire Marshal’s Office on BESS System FAQ’s.
Does the Lone Star Infrastructure Act apply to this development?
Yes.
The Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act, authorized by Senate Bill 2116 in the 87th Legislature and signed into law in 2021, was enacted SB 2116, the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act, amends the Business & Commerce Code and Government Code to prohibit a business entity or a governmental entity from entering into an agreement relating to a communication infrastructure system, cybersecurity system, electric grid, hazardous waste treatment system, or water treatment facility in Texas with a company that grants the company direct or remote access to or control of such critical infrastructure except for product warranty and support purposes if the company is headquartered in or owned or controlled by citizens of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or another country that is designated by the governor as a threat to critical infrastructure or is owned or controlled by a company or other entity that is owned or controlled by citizens of or the government of any such country. Because of this broad definition, it can be highly relevant to solar farms, battery energy storage systems (BESS), and other renewable energy projects, particularly where those projects interconnect with the ERCOT grid, utilize remote monitoring platforms, or involve SCADA, inverter controls, battery management systems, or other components capable of remote access. While counties do not have general authority to regulate private supply chains, they can enforce the Act when they are a party to an agreement, such as within road use agreements, utility crossings, Chapter 312 agreements, or other development-related contracts, by requiring certifications that no prohibited company will have direct or remote access to critical infrastructure and by including contractual compliance provisions. The Texas Attorney General has authority to investigate potential violations, which may include reviewing corporate ownership structures, contractual terms, cybersecurity pathways, and remote access capabilities of components, including foreign-manufactured battery systems such as those produced by CATL if access and control concerns are identified. If a violation is identified, enforcement can involve injunctive relief to block or unwind prohibited agreements and other legal remedies available under state law, making compliance review particularly important for renewable energy projects that integrate advanced grid-connected technologies.
TAXES, INCENTIVES & ECONOMIC IMPACT
Has a tax abatement or incentive been offered?
No.
Tax abatements and/or financial incentives have not been offered by Delta County. In fact, the Commissioners' Court passed a resolution at the March 10, 2026 Commissioners' Court meeting stating their opposition to executing Chapter 312 tax abatement agreements to data centers or other similarly high-water consumptive industrial projects within Delta County. A copy of the resolution can be found here: Resolution 2026-03-10-02
Has the developer requested a tax abatement?
No.
No applications for incentives or abatements have been submitted.
If the County denies a tax abatement agreement, does that stop the project?
No, not necessarily.
Again, while no applications for incentives or abatements have been submitted or requested by the developer, if the county opted to not execute or offer any abatements or tax incentives, the developer could still proceed with the development of their project. This would largely be dependent upon their own internal analysis of the financial feasibility of the project in the absence of a local tax abatement agreement.
What is Chapter 312?
Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code allows counties to consider tax-abatement agreements under specific circumstances. At this time, no such request, application, or offer exists for this project.
Why has the County given Chapter 312 agreements to solar farms in the past?
At times, Chapter 312 agreement may, in some respects, be the only primary mechanism through which the County could exercise any meaningful influence over a particular development. While often viewed as only a tax incentive to the developer, Chapter 312 agreements often can incorporate performance measures and safeguards to address and mitigate issues that are often raised as sincere public concerns, such as fire protection systems, noise and light pollution, local workforce outreach plans, first responder training, emergency response plans, site decommissioning and land reclamation assurances and financial securities, buffer zones, public safety related contributions, and mitigation of transportation infrastructure impacts.
Effective September 1, 2025, Chapter 187 of the Texas Utilities Code now addresses fire protection system design, testing, and third-party inspections, first responder training, and emergency response plans. Furthermore, HB 3809, also effective September 1, 2025, created Chapter 303 of the Texas Utilities Code, which mandates strict decommissioning, removal, and recycling requirements for battery energy storage systems (BESS). It requires operators to remove all equipment, including foundations and cables, and restore land to a tillable state. Furthermore, HB 3228, which also went into effect September 1, 2025, expanded Chapter 302 of the Utilities Code to include mandatory, enforceable plans for recycling components like turbine blades and solar panels. It strengthens landowner rights by mandating that financial assurance for decommissioning must cover the full costs of recycling and disposal, not just removal.
Prior to September 1, 2025, none of these items were codified into law, but it could, however, have been included into a Chapter 312 agreement as a special provision of the agreement to address these concerns, that, at the time, were not enforceable in the absence of a Chapter 312 agreement.
Furthermore, under current Texas law, solar farms and other renewable energy developments are subject to a statutorily prescribed depreciation schedule that results in the property retaining only approximately 20 percent of its original taxable value after 10 years, equating to an 80 percent loss in appraised value over that period. This mandatory depreciation schedule is found in Texas Tax Code §23.26, governing the appraisal of renewable energy projects. More information can also be located at the following link: https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/docs/96-1569.pdf
While this depreciation framework is often characterized as merely a valuation methodology rather than a “tax incentive,” in practice it functions as a structural tax benefit that materially reduces the long-term contribution of solar facilities to the tax roll, regardless of whether a formal abatement or Chapter 312 agreement is in place. This statutory depreciation schedule and laws are not under the control of the County, the appraisal district, or any other taxing entities.
In effect, if the depreciating taxable values of the solar farms or other renewable energy projects are not offset by new taxable value added each year (meaning new homes, buildings, etc.), the result is downward pressure on the tax base. Under Texas’ truth-in-taxation framework, this erosion can force an increase in the No-New-Revenue (NNR) tax rate (the calculated tax rate that provides a taxing unit, such as the county, with approximately the same amount of property tax revenue as the previous year, based on the same properties) simply to maintain the same level of governmental operations. At that point, the governing body is placed in a near untenable position to either adopt a tax rate below the NNR rate, thereby accepting fewer total tax dollars than the prior year, which could potentially necessitate a reduction of services, dependent upon financial and budgetary conditions, or adopt a rate at or above NNR, which shifts the financial burden onto other taxpayers, typically homeowners, farmers, and small businesses, whose property values have remained flat or, more commonly, increased.
Chapter 312 agreements have been used by tax entities to help insulate this effect from other taxpayers, specifically if forecasts of potential new taxable value to be added to the tax roll doesn’t appear to be sufficient enough to offset the depreciating taxable value from the solar projects. In this scenario, the Chapter 312 agreement establishes a series of fixed payments (PILOT) to the County that equal a targeted amount of tax revenue while eliminating the solar farm’s ability to render low values, accelerate deprecation, and benefit from falling tax rates. These agreements allow tax entities to keep the solar farm project off the tax roll for a period of up to 10 years, at which time the project is considered 80% depreciated, which is the maximum statutory prescribed depreciation per the Tax Code’s depreciation schedule, to prevent the aforementioned scenario from occurring. A Senate Bill, SB 419, that was entered in the 89th Legislative Session proposed to expand the depreciation scheduled from 10 years to 35 years, which would level out the depreciating value escalation, taking it 3.5 times longer to fully depreciate down to 20% of the original taxable value, which would help offset the burden on the tax roll. However, this bill did not pass and was not signed into law.
Are there any tax incentives offered by the State of Texas for developments such as these, outside of local discretion?
Yes.
The legislature of the State of Texas adopted a temporary sales and use tax exemption specifically for data center components beginning in 2013 under House Bill 1223. Under this legislation, a “qualifying data center” must generally be at least 100,000 square feet, be used primarily to house servers and related infrastructure, have robust power, security, and fire-suppression systems, create a minimum number of jobs, defined as creating at least 20 qualifying jobs in the county in which the data center is located, and makes or agrees to make a capital investment of at least $150 million in that particular data center over a five-year period beginning on the date the data center is certified by the comptroller as a qualifying data center in order to be eligible. The bill defines "qualifying job" to mean a full-time, permanent job that pays at least 120 percent of the county average weekly wage in the county in which the job is based and as an employment position that will exist for at least five years after the date the job is created. Once certified by the Texas Comptroller’s office, the exemption allows qualifying owners, operators, or occupants to purchase tangible personal property and services necessary and essential to the operation of the data center, including electricity, electrical and cooling systems, generators, servers, storage and network equipment, software, and related infrastructure, without paying the 6.25% state sales and use tax, although local sales tax still applies for the standard data center exemption. The bill sets the exemption to begin on the date the data center is certified by the comptroller as a qualifying data center and to expire on the 10th anniversary or 15th anniversary of that date, depending on the amount of the capital investment made by the qualifying occupant, owner, or operator.
What is the projected taxable value of the project?
The developer has not yet provided the estimated taxable value of the project.
Could this project impact local taxes?
Any potential tax impacts, positive or negative, would depend on many factors and cannot be determined at this early stage. No estimated taxable values have been provided for the proposed development.
Could this project lower my taxes?
Any potential tax impacts, positive or negative, would depend on many factors and cannot be determined at this early stage. No estimated taxable values have been provided for the proposed development to conduct any such forecasts.
Will the County get more tax money?
This project, if developed, would certainly likely result in a large increase in the taxable value for Delta County, which could result in a large tax levy windfall. However, any potential tax impacts or estimates, positive or negative, would depend on many factors and cannot be determined at this early stage in the absence of an estimated taxable value being provided and validated. No estimated taxable values have been provided for the proposed development.
What school district is this project located within?
The entire parcel of land where the development is proposed is located within Fannindel Independent School District’s boundaries.
How many jobs will this development create?
No definitive, concrete job creation numbers have been provided by the developer. The developer initially represented that upwards of 3,000 construction jobs could be created throughout the construction of the project, if the project was fully developed. The developer represented that approximately 150-300 jobs would be post-construction permanent jobs. These estimates have not been vetted or validated.
The developer did not provide concrete numbers as to how many of those estimated jobs would be jobs created for the local workforce.
UTILITY AND GRID IMPACTS
Will my electric bill or utility rates go up because of this development?
Lamar Electric Cooperative’s Board of Directors recently unanimously approved a new policy on Large Load Interconnections that states the developer of any large load over 10MW, whether new or expanding current service, will be responsible for all costs associated with the project. This includes all engineering, feasibility, system impact studies, ERCOT applications, modeling, distribution upgrades, transmission upgrades, substations, metering, protection, communications, construction, legal, and administrative costs.
With significant growth of large loads, particularly data centers, in Texas and beyond, there is significant attention being paid to the assignment of costs specifically to those loads causing those costs to be incurred. This means that costs required to study and interconnect these loads to the grid are paid entirely up front by the interconnecting load, power costs and other grid fees are directly assigned to those loads (and often settled on an accelerated timeline), and transmission and other ongoing infrastructure costs are assigned to the load. Senate Bill 6 (SB6), passed in the 89th Legislative Session in 2025, made significant strides to bolster these efforts from an electric market and regulatory perspective. Specifically, SB 6 requires the Public Utility Commission to adopt rules ensuring that a “large load customer is responsible for all costs necessary to interconnect the customer to the transmission and distribution system,” including system impact studies, facilities, and upgrades. The statute further authorizes an electric utility or electric cooperative to require advance payment, deposits, or other financial security for the estimated cost of facilities needed to serve the large load. In addition, SB 6 provides that costs associated with facilities constructed or upgraded to serve a large load are to be directly assigned to that load and not allocated to other customers except as authorized by Commission rule. These provisions collectively reinforce the legislative directive that infrastructure, study, and interconnection costs associated with new large loads—including data centers—be borne by the interconnecting load rather than existing ratepayers or cooperative members.
Further information regarding this legislation can be found in Chapter 39 of the Texas Utilities Code.
Who is the electric service provider for this development?
Both Farmers Electric Cooperative (FEC) and Lamar Electric Cooperative (LEC) have service areas on the subject tract of land. The location of this development falls approximately 70% in Lamar Electric Cooperative's Single-Serve Territory and approximately 30% in Farmers Electric Cooperative's Single-Serve Territory. The Texas Utility Code states that Utilities must provide service to any requesting customer in our service territory and that service cannot be unreasonably refused or discriminatory.
PROCESS, TRANSPARENCY & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Why hasn’t there been a public meeting yet?
A meaningful public forum requires verified information. During the earlier stages, many key details were still unknown. The County believes it is more responsible to engage the public when accurate, substantive information is available. A public informational town hall meeting was scheduled and held on March 2, 2026.
Will there be a public informational meeting?
Yes.
A town hall meeting was held on Monday, March 2, 2026 at the Cooper ISD High School Cafeteria/Auditorium located at 823 FM 1528, Cooper, Texas, 75432
The focus of the meeting was informational in nature. The meeting intended to present the following information:
- Present factual information regarding the proposed industrial development project as described by the developer;
- Explain the statutory authority and legal framework governing such developments in unincorporated areas of Texas counties;
- Clarify the current statutory role, jurisdiction, authority, and limitations of Delta County government with respect to permitting, regulation, and oversight of projects of this scope and any nature;
- Provide an overview of the applicable state agencies and regulatory entities involved in environmental review, water rights, utility service, and other permitting processes;
- Present information concerning water supply processes, drought contingency considerations, permitting procedures, and regulatory oversight as they relate to large-scale industrial development;
- Address community concerns expressed by citizens, elected officials, and stakeholders regarding long-term water sustainability, infrastructure capacity, regulatory oversight, public safety considerations, and related matters.
The intent of this Town Hall Meeting was to promote transparency, provide accurate and consistent information, and ensure that members of the public have access to verified statutory and regulatory information concerning the project and the County’s role.
Notice of the meeting was posted pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, because a quorum of the Commissioners Court may be present, even though no formal action was taken by the Commissioners Court at this gathering.
The following agencies, officials, and entities were either present or represented for informational purposes:
- County Judge and Commissioners’ Court, including the County Attorney’s office
- State Senator Bryan Hughes
- State Representative Shelley Luther
- City of Cooper
- City of Pecan Gap
- Delta County Municipal Utility District (MUD)
- Delta County Soil and Water Conservation District
- Delta County Chapter 391 Sub-Regional Planning Commission
- Delta County Fire Marshal’s Office
- Delta County Development Coordinator
- Delta County Office of Emergency Management
- Lamar Electric Cooperative (LEC)
- West Delta Water Supply Corporation
- Fannindel ISD
- The proposed developer, LS Power
A copy of the presentation materials from the meeting can be viewed at the following link: Town Hall PowerPoint Presentation
Can I get a copy of the PowerPoint presentation from the Town Hall meeting?
Yes.
The PowerPoint presentation can be viewed at the following link: Town Hall PowerPoint Presentation
Have any county officials or staff signed a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement with the developer?
No.
It should also be noted that this has not, at any time, been requested by the developer.
How is the County ensuring transparency?
The County is:
- Sharing factual information as it becomes available
- Coordinating openly with partner agencies
- Providing written materials to clarify roles, authority, and concerns
- Committing to direct and open public engagement when facts, not speculation, are available
- Remaining available to answer constituents inquiries.
- Providing FAQ fact-sheets that are publicly available online and updated regularly.
- Refusing to engage in confidentiality agreements or non-disclosure clauses. It should be noted, this has not been requested by the developer.
What are the next steps?
- Continue fact-finding and inter-agency coordination
- Working in tandem with Delta County stakeholders, including the water suppliers, Soil and Water Conservation District, Sub-regional Planning Commission, cities of Cooper and Pecan Gap, to perform an independent analysis of water and infrastructure impacts related to the project, completely blind to the developer until completed to ensure that the evaluation remains free of any influence from the developer. The developer has indicated they will also conduct their own independent evaluation using their retained engineer of record.
- Ongoing communication with the public
- Continue to identify effective long-term decision-making that protects the public interest and well-being, and is mindful of all taxpayers
- Advocacy for stronger tools for rural counties with our state legislators
What is the County’s role?
The County’s role is to:
- Exercise due diligence, fact-finding, and exhaustive research to make informed decisions, provide accurate information, and pursue all reasonable and available resources to mitigate concerns and/or impacts
- Support and maintain open-communication with local entities to ensure a unified and collaborative response
- Protect the public interest
- Protect our water supply interests
- Make effective decisions that considers long-term effects and identifies possible outcomes, including unintended consequences.
- Be honest about legal limitations
- Ensure transparency throughout the process
Delta County’s commitment:
Residents deserve diligence, transparency, and honesty. Delta County will continue to pursue every lawful safeguard available and keep the public informed as this process evolves.
Where can I get contact information of State of Texas agencies to submit my concerns and comments?
Greg Abbott
Governor of Texas
(web form: https://gov.texas.gov/contact — no published email)
Robert Black
Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor
(no published email; reach via Governor's contact form)
Adriana Cruz
Executive Director, Texas Economic Development & Tourism Office (within Governor's Office)
(no published email; web form at https://gov.texas.gov/business)
Dan Patrick
Lieutenant Governor of Texas
dan.patrick [at] ltgov.texas.gov (dan[dot]patrick[at]ltgov[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Darrell Davila
Chief of Staff, Office of the Lt. Governor
darrell.davila [at] ltgov.texas.gov (darrell[dot]davila[at]ltgov[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Marian Wallace
Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Lt. Governor
marian.wallace [at] ltgov.texas.gov (marian[dot]wallace[at]ltgov[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Lt. Governor's general inquiries
(web form: https://www.ltgov.texas.gov/contact/)
Bryan Hughes
State Senator, District 1 (which includes Delta County)
Bryan.Hughes [at] senate.texas.gov (Bryan[dot]Hughes[at]senate[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Shelley Luther
State Representative, District 62 (which includes Delta County)
shelley.luther [at] house.texas.gov (shelley[dot]luther[at]house[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Thomas J. Gleeson
Chairman, Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT)
thomas.gleeson [at] puc.texas.gov (thomas[dot]gleeson[at]puc[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Kathleen Jackson
Commissioner, PUCT
kathleen.jackson [at] puc.texas.gov (kathleen[dot]jackson[at]puc[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Courtney K. Hjaltman
Commissioner, PUCT
courtney.hjaltman [at] puc.texas.gov (courtney[dot]hjaltman[at]puc[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Patrick Rhode
Commissioner, PUCT (sworn in April 2026)
patrick.rhode [at] puc.texas.gov (patrick[dot]rhode[at]puc[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Connie Corona
Executive Director, PUCT
connie.corona [at] puc.texas.gov (connie[dot]corona[at]puc[dot]texas[dot]gov)
PUCT central records / general filings
centralrecords [at] puc.texas.gov (centralrecords[at]puc[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Pablo Vegas
President & CEO, Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
(no public direct email; reach via media [at] ercot.com (media[at]ercot[dot]com) or ERCOT public portal)
Bill Flores
Chair, ERCOT Board of Directors
(no public direct email; reach via media [at] ercot.com (media[at]ercot[dot]com))
—
ERCOT media/communications inbox
media [at] ercot.com (media[at]ercot[dot]com)
—
ERCOT client/general
ClientServices [at] ercot.com (ClientServices[at]ercot[dot]com)
Brooke T. Paup
Chairwoman, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
(no published direct; use commissr [at] tceq.texas.gov (commissr[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov))
Catarina R. Gonzales
Commissioner, TCEQ
(use commissr [at] tceq.texas.gov (commissr[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov))
Tonya R. Miller
Commissioner, TCEQ
(use commissr [at] tceq.texas.gov (commissr[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov))
Kelly Keel
Executive Director, TCEQ
(use execdir [at] tceq.texas.gov (execdir[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov))
TCEQ Commissioners' Office
commissr [at] tceq.texas.gov (commissr[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov)
TCEQ Executive Director's Office
execdir [at] tceq.texas.gov (execdir[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov)
TCEQ general information
info [at] tceq.texas.gov (info[at]tceq[dot]texas[dot]gov)
L'Oreal Stepney, P.E.
Chairwoman, Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)
loreal.stepney [at] twdb.texas.gov (loreal[dot]stepney[at]twdb[dot]texas[dot]gov)
W. Brady Franks
Board Member, TWDB
brady.franks [at] twdb.texas.gov (brady[dot]franks[at]twdb[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Ashley Morgan
Board Member, TWDB
ashley.morgan [at] twdb.texas.gov (ashley[dot]morgan[at]twdb[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Bryan McMath
Executive Administrator, TWDB
bryan.mcmath [at] twdb.texas.gov (bryan[dot]mcmath[at]twdb[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Kathleen Ligon
Assistant Executive Administrator, TWDB
kathleen.ligon [at] twdb.texas.gov (kathleen[dot]ligon[at]twdb[dot]texas[dot]gov)
TWDB media/general inquiries
MediaRelations [at] twdb.texas.gov (MediaRelations[at]twdb[dot]texas[dot]gov)
W. Alvin New
Acting Chair, Texas Transportation Commission (TxDOT)
(commission inbox: Amanda.Martinez [at] txdot.gov (Amanda[dot]Martinez[at]txdot[dot]gov))
Robert C. Vaughn
Commissioner, Texas Transportation Commission
(use commission inbox)
Alejandro "Alex" G. Meade III
Commissioner, Texas Transportation Commission
(use commission inbox)
Steven D. Alvis
Commissioner, Texas Transportation Commission
(use commission inbox)
Pat Gordon
Commissioner, Texas Transportation Commission
(use commission inbox)
Texas Transportation Commission (general)
Amanda.Martinez [at] txdot.gov (Amanda[dot]Martinez[at]txdot[dot]gov)
Marc D. Williams
Executive Director, TxDOT
(no published direct; use MediaRelations [at] txdot.gov (MediaRelations[at]txdot[dot]gov) or commission inbox)
Mary Anne Griss
Chief of Staff, TxDOT
maryanne.griss [at] txdot.gov (maryanne[dot]griss[at]txdot[dot]gov)
—
TxDOT media relations / general public-policy correspondence
MediaRelations [at] txdot.gov (MediaRelations[at]txdot[dot]gov)
Kelly Hancock
Acting Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
(no published direct; use tax.help [at] cpa.texas.gov (tax[dot]help[at]cpa[dot]texas[dot]gov) or open.records [at] cpa.texas.gov (open[dot]records[at]cpa[dot]texas[dot]gov) for written correspondence)
Texas Comptroller general/tax help
tax.help [at] cpa.texas.gov (tax[dot]help[at]cpa[dot]texas[dot]gov)
—
Texas Comptroller open records
open.records [at] cpa.texas.gov (open[dot]records[at]cpa[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Adriana Cruz
Executive Director, Texas Economic Development & Tourism Office
(no published direct; web form at https://gov.texas.gov/business)
W. Nim Kidd
Chief, Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM)
nim.kidd [at] tdem.texas.gov (nim[dot]kidd[at]tdem[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Country Weidler
Deputy Chief, Field Response, TDEM
country.weidler [at] tdem.texas.gov (country[dot]weidler[at]tdem[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Blair Walsh
Assistant Director / Chief of External Affairs, TDEM
blair.walsh [at] tdem.texas.gov (blair[dot]walsh[at]tdem[dot]texas[dot]gov)
TDEM general
info [at] tdem.texas.gov (info[at]tdem[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Texas State Fire Marshal's Office (within Texas Department of Insurance)
Fire.Marshal [at] tdi.texas.gov (Fire[dot]Marshal[at]tdi[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Texas Department of Insurance media/policy
MediaRelations [at] tdi.texas.gov (MediaRelations[at]tdi[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Ken King
Chair, House Committee on State Affairs (also TX House District 88)
ken.king [at] house.texas.gov (ken[dot]king[at]house[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Ana Hernandez
Vice Chair, House Committee on State Affairs (TX House District 143)
ana.hernandez [at] house.texas.gov (ana[dot]hernandez[at]house[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Megan Quijano
Clerk, House Committee on State Affairs
megan.quijano [at] house.texas.gov (megan[dot]quijano[at]house[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Charles Schwertner
Chair, Senate Committee on Business & Commerce (TX Senate District 5)
charles.schwertner [at] senate.texas.gov (charles[dot]schwertner[at]senate[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Phil King
Vice Chair, Senate Committee on Business & Commerce (TX Senate District 10)
phil.king [at] senate.texas.gov (phil[dot]king[at]senate[dot]texas[dot]gov)
Annika Vandayar
Clerk, Senate Committee on Business & Commerce
annika.vandayar [at] senate.texas.gov (annika[dot]vandayar[at]senate[dot]texas[dot]gov)