Commissioner's Court July 20, 2026

Open with transcript & summary →Search this meeting's transcript →

The Commissioner's Court met on July 20, 2026, to review Hood County's comprehensive plan update and proposed development regulations addressing rapid regional growth and infrastructure challenges. Discussion focused on protecting water quality and quantity, managing flood risk, and regulating intensive land uses such as data centers through objective performance metrics and enhanced disclosure requirements. Commissioners and staff examined the strategic growth framework organized by geographic districts—flood plains, road corridors, and rural/farmland areas—and explored implementation mechanisms including infrastructure impact assessments and wastewater management standards. The court received testimony from industry experts and residents and directed staff to incorporate feedback into revised development regulations for future consideration.

• Hood County Comprehensive Plan Structure OverviewThe presentation outlined the components of a comprehensive plan update covering county profile, policies, growth framework, and appendices.
• Population Growth TrendsHood County has experienced significant growth, particularly from the 1970s–80s onward, now ranking among the fastest-growing counties in north central Texas.
• Development Regulations and Subchapter K AuthorityPolicies were developed to address documented public comments and establish pathway for updating development regulations under state-enabled Subchapter K authority.
• Water Quality and Quantity PolicyHood County committed to protecting water supply quality and availability through coordination with regional initiatives and development assessment for best management practices.
• Drainage and Flood Resiliency PolicyCounty committed to ensuring new development is safe from flood hazards while mitigating flood risk and nonpoint source pollution affecting regional waterways.
• Wastewater Management PolicyCounty committed to protecting health and water quality by promoting centralized wastewater systems parallel to centralized water supply systems.
• Transportation Access and Strategic Plan IntegrationThorough Fair Plan for county adopted recently; development regulations will incorporate road corridor districts informed by the transportation plan.
• Intensive Land Use ConsiderationsData centers and similar intensive uses have significant impacts across the country; regulations needed to address these critical facilities moving forward.
• Water Quality Assessment for Intensive Land UsesPlan identifies attributes to regulate for intensive uses including centralized water systems, water quality protection, and environmentally sensitive recharge areas.
• Growth Management Framework and Development DistrictsMap-based framework informs development regulations through three primary control areas: flood plains/tributaries, major thoroughfares/corridors, and rural areas/prime farmland.
• Development Districts MatrixThree key geographic areas (water quality, road corridor, rural) form basis for development regulations map, with identified overlap and policy considerations.
• Geographic Legend and Map ColorsMap uses color coding—solid and dotted blue for flood plains and buffers, red for road corridors, green for rural and prime farmland areas.
• Map Application and Framework DetailsMap shows roadway network, flood planes (solid and dotted blue), corridor buffers, and rural/farmland designations with half-mile buffers along roadways.
• Plan Implementation and MonitoringStrategic plan requires ongoing monitoring and updates as state regulations change and new information becomes available, with five-year review cycles.
• Policy-to-Goal Alignment TableImplementation table links all plan policies to development goals derived from public input, showing correlation to public input and ongoing implementation practices.
• Development Permit Regulations Overview and PurposePresentation shifted to preliminary recommendations for updating Hood County Development Permit regulations recently updated in March 2026, translating policy into enforceable law.
• High-Intensity Use DefinitionRecommendation creates centralized definition of high-intensity use combining data centers, battery storage, and crypto mining under common factors including high water usage and large footprints.
• High-Intensity Use Definition MetricsProposed metrics include water usage over 100,000 gallons daily average, power usage, and thresholds exceeding utility capacity or ten-year water district projections.
• Development Definition RefinementRecommendation divides development into minor and major categories with different thresholds; minor development defined as land disturbance under 2 acres with no public facilities.
• Use Disclosure Affidavit RequirementRecommendation requires affidavit signed for major development disclosing use type without requiring confidential company information or identity disclosure.
• Infrastructure Impact Assessment RefinementRecommendation expands March 2026 infrastructure impact assessment requirement from residential focus to include high-impact uses with specific demand and discharge metrics.
• Waiver Application and Affidavit RestrictionRecommendation permits waiver application only with affidavit restricting use to single-family residential served entirely by on-site well, preventing abuse of waiver mechanism.
• Objective Measures for Facility AssessmentRecommendation establishes objective metrics—water use effectiveness and power use effectiveness—to distinguish well-designed from poorly-designed facilities without prohibiting uses.
• Water Use Effectiveness BenchmarkingUS average water use effectiveness approximately 0.5; ideal is zero; county could target 0.25 as middle ground; alternatives include on-site water recapture or on-site power generation.
• Objective Measures ImplementationUpdated DPR sections 4.2 and 4.4 would reflect objective measures and metrics determining targets for balancing water and electrical grid loads with permitted locations.
• Purpose Statements and District Boundaries UpdateRecommendation updates purpose statements and district boundaries to align with strategic plan, explicitly addressing water quality, quantity, drainage, flood resilience, wastewater, and transportation.
• Dimensional Standards and Site Development RestrictionsRecommendation updates dimensional standards and site development restrictions by district—maximum lot coverage, population density, building size—regulating development character rather than use.
• Residential Proximity and Slope RequirementsRecommendation introduces residential proximity slope requirement to buffer taller buildings from neighboring district uses, maintaining transitions between districts.
• Glossary and Acronym RecommendationCommissioner recommended adding glossary to strategic plan document to clarify acronyms unfamiliar to public and county commissioners.
• Road network mapping and data center definitionsStaff addressed inconsistencies in road network mapping and clarified definitions of data center sizes being used in planning documents.
• Development regulations and regulatory authorityCommissioners discussed the legal basis for regulating data center water and electrical usage, emphasizing the need for ministerial rather than subjective approval standards.
• Rainwater harvesting and water conservation incentivesDiscussion explored whether rainwater harvesting requirements and conservation incentives could be incorporated into development regulations for data centers.
• Data center water usage calculations and scaleCommissioners and staff debated the scale and water consumption metrics for proposed data centers relative to the Fort Worth Meta facility example.
• Power plant infrastructure and water requirementsIndustry speaker provided technical details on how data center developers select and size power plants, and emphasized that water and chemical specifications should be provided upfront.
• Information transparency and developer accountabilityDiscussion centered on requiring developers to provide detailed facility specifications and the history of incomplete disclosure in prior project reviews.
• Groundwater data and unreported well usageAnalysis revealed that Fort Worth Meta facility has two on-site wells, likely making groundwater extraction invisible in city utility reports.
• Groundwater management authority and PIGMA regulationsStaff briefed commissioners on Texas Water Code Chapter 35 authority available to counties in priority groundwater management areas, offering potential regulatory tools.
• Large commercial facility application from Hood CountyOne application received for a large commercial facility; administrative review still incomplete due to permit issues.
• Water wells and data center site inquiryCommissioner raised questions about two wells on the large data center site based on state database records.
• Expert testimony on data center technology and cooling systemsIndustry professional provided background on modern data center design trends and cooling technologies.
• Regulatory framework and deliverables for data center applicationsSpeaker recommended establishing specific deliverable requirements in regulations to clarify expectations.
• Speaker background in data center infrastructureSpeaker outlined professional experience with major engineering firms and data center technology providers.
• Best-in-class requirements and cost considerationsSpeaker discussed potential cost objections to best-in-class upgrades given project scale.
• County commissioner's local expertise and commitmentCommissioner acknowledged speaker's expertise and offered cooperation on solution development.
• Water treatment and disposal clarification for data center operationsSpeaker provided technical clarification on water types and treatment processes specific to data center cooling systems.
• Heat material balance documentation requirementResident explained engineering deliverable critical for determining actual water consumption.
• Wastewater treatment facility sizing requirementsCommissioner posed question about feasibility of requiring on-site wastewater treatment based on facility square footage.
• Development process and information requirements standardsCounty development professional advocated for establishing clear information and deliverable requirements in regulations.
• Regulatory framework establishment and strategic planningCounty professional outlined need to embed information requirements in development regulations and strategic plan.
• Fair approval process and information burdensCounty professional emphasized importance of fair and transparent approval standards.
• County staff capacity and third-party review modelProfessional explained staff limitations and recommended fee-based third-party review approach.
• Strategic plan and development management philosophyProfessional clarified that strategic plan is designed to enable growth in appropriate locations with proper infrastructure, not prohibit development.
• County development authority and regulatory approachProfessional recommended taking proactive regulatory stance even if challenged.
• Development standards and approval applicationCounty staff proposed tracking and implementing recommended changes to regulations.
• Water quality and conservation discussionStaff presented plan incorporating water conservation and reuse tactics; discussed approach to incentivizing conservation.
• Prime farmland preservation and density considerationsDiscussion of how to preserve prime farmland in county development while balancing property rights and development options.
• Density options and municipal water accessPresentation showed density options increasing along major roads and where municipal services available.
• Residential development and on-site systemsStaff explained residential development approach using on-site septic systems in areas without public water.
• Prime farmland data source and natural resources referenceStaff identified source document for prime farmland mapping.
• Tributary buffers and floodplain protection discussionDiscussion of floodplain and tributary buffer requirements and their application to cities.
• Highway 231 statute and municipal exemptionsStaff clarified statutory requirements and municipal exemptions.
• Water quality district expansion discussionStaff discussed expansion of water quality district mapping from current tributaries to broader floodplain areas.
• Next steps for plan and development regulationsStaff outlined post-meeting process for incorporating feedback and updating documents.
• Solar facilities and impervious surface requirementsDiscussion of how solar farms fit into floodplain impervious surface standards.
• Regional water planning and mega-city water demandsCommissioner raised question about regional implications of Dallas-Fort Worth area growth projections.
• District mapping as development direction toolStaff clarified purpose of district mapping in context of county's zoning limitations.
• Facebook facility specifications and building design standardsSpeaker discussed building characteristics and design
• Local Government Code zoning and land use authorityCounty staff reviewed the scope of Texas Local Government Code provisions granting zoning and land use regulatory powers to certain counties in narrowly defined areas.
• Development regulations review and next stepsCommission reviewed development regulations presented earlier and determined no formal approval was being sought at this time, only consideration of proposals for future amendments.
• Objective standards approach and technology durabilityStaff explained the rationale for using objective performance standards rather than prescriptive technology lists to ensure regulations remain durable over time.
• Minor development definition and OSSF inclusionA commissioner requested expansion of minor development standards to include on-site septic systems (OSSF) in addition to centralized sewer service.
• Concept plan versus site development plan clarificationA citizen speaker (Kirk Tesy) identified lack of clarity regarding which planning document type large projects should start with.
• Data center decommissioning concernsA citizen speaker (Chris Paulson) raised concerns about potential abandonment of large-scale data center facilities and requested decommissioning requirements.
• Water Code Chapter 35 and platted development requirementsCounty staff (Commissioner Eagle/Polo) provided information on Texas Water Code Chapter 35 provisions applicable to subdivisions and platted developments.
• Meeting closure and consultant next stepsThe chair thanked attendees for input and indicated the consulting firm would return to revise the development regulations based on comments received.