County tables flawed data-center resolution after strong community input
Bastrop County Commissioners Court tabled Item E.4 on August 10 after strong public testimony and written community input challenged language that could understate tools the County already has. Lost Pines Watch agrees with that criticism and has corrected its earlier guidance: residents were right to oppose adoption of the draft as written. The next ask is not a vague declaration of powerlessness; it is a legally reviewed, targeted use of existing fire-safety, BESS, public-health, infrastructure, records, and incentive authority while preserving the case for stronger state legislation. New source material includes Nick Lealos's working draft, LIV's written comments, Austin County's signed BESS and data-center order, KVUE's meeting report, KXAN's interview with Earth Native founder Dave Scott, a GIS-confirmed shared property line, and Dave's August 11 view across that boundary.
Residents were right to oppose Item E.4 as written.
Lost Pines Watch's August 10 guidance told residents to support the resolution while asking the County to use its existing tools. That did not go far enough. Nick Lealos and LIV identified the more fundamental problem: the draft itself could have reinforced an unnecessarily narrow account of county authority. We agree with the call to table it, and we have corrected the current Action Center and added notices to the earlier updates.
The motion was tabled after strong community input.
Bastrop County Commissioners Court did not adopt Item E.4. The tabling followed substantial resident testimony and written submissions that challenged both the rush and the substance of the proposal. Strong community participation helped put the central issue in the open: asking the Legislature for more authority should not require the County to minimize tools it may already possess.
This is a procedural pause, not a Pacifico denial, moratorium, permit decision, or tax-abatement vote. Any revised proposal should return only after public notice, careful legal review, and enough time for residents to examine the actual text.
Two submissions explain why tabling was the responsible vote.
Nick Lealos's safety-and-compliance proposal
Nick's alternative working draft proposes a pause for safety and compliance review, Fire Marshal evaluation, public disclosures, a resident advisory committee, and independent review of qualifying battery storage. It points toward affirmative action, but it remains unfinished and contains drafting errors. It is a proposal for legal review—not a final statement of law.
LIV's request to table and reassess existing authority
LIV's comments urged the Court not to lock itself into language suggesting that incentives are its only meaningful leverage. The document was submitted by attorney Michele G. Gangnes for LIV; the supplied PDF is associated with Linda Curtis. It calls for a slower, legally grounded review of fire safety, BESS, public health, wastewater, floodplain, road, access, and incentive tools.
Read LIV's August 10 commentsUse existing tools now, preserve every option, and still seek stronger state law.
Texas counties do not have city-style general zoning authority, but that is not the same as having no responsibility or leverage. County counsel should publicly evaluate each relevant statute and defend a targeted, project-specific safety and compliance process instead of beginning with a broad concession of powerlessness.
- Use fire-safety review. Local Government Code §352.016 authorizes county Fire Marshal inspections and, in specified circumstances, plan review for fire or life-safety hazards.
- Trigger BESS safeguards where they apply. Utilities Code Chapter 187 gives a county a defined route to request an operator-funded independent evaluation for a qualifying facility in an unincorporated area.
- Review every other existing tool. County counsel should analyze public-health, OSSF, floodplain, drainage, road, access, emergency-management, records, and enforcement authority on the actual project facts.
- Withhold discretionary subsidies. No Pacifico tax abatement or Chapter 381 agreement should advance without a complete public record, independent review, and enforceable protections.
- Keep asking Austin for stronger authority. Expanded county powers remain necessary, but the request should complement—not erase—authority already available.
Austin County chose an affirmative approach—but its order is precedent, not a blank check.
On July 27, Austin County adopted and signed a BESS and data-center moratorium that calls for equipment review, Fire Marshal involvement, an independent BESS evaluation, public-health review, and an energy development-zone study. That separate county's action is important evidence that “counties can do nothing” is not the only position Texas officials are taking.
The filed copy also contains obvious placeholders and drafting defects, and no court ruling establishes that every asserted provision is valid. Bastrop County should study the order, obtain its own legal analysis, and draft with much greater care.
Pacifico's May concept plan labels battery storage, but the public record does not disclose final capacity, chemistry, operator, product, or placement. Chapter 187 applies only if the installation meets its statutory definition and thresholds—including at least 1 MWh and the applicable 2027-or-later commercial-operation timing. A data center is not automatically a BESS; the actual storage equipment controls.
Earth Native and the Wallace Ranch share a property line.
KXAN's report lets viewers hear directly from Dave Scott, founder of Earth Native Wilderness School, about what is at stake beside the proposed development. Earth Native describes its Bastrop campus as 80 wooded acres used for outdoor education, camps, and Wild Life Forest Preschool.
Our first parcel plot was incomplete. It showed parcels held by Earth Native Inc. but omitted the 24.885-acre parcel at 137 Woodview Lane, held of record by founder Shannon David Scott. That piece connects the north and south campus parcels and matches the complete contiguous tract Dave identified in Earth Native's own map.
Bastrop CAD identifies four parcels in that contiguous campus tract: 37223, 46431, 22796, and 28022. They total 78.885CAD legal acres—consistent with Earth Native's 80-acre description—and meet the 1,451.61-acre Wallace/J0049 parcel 24484 along approximately 2,160 feet, or 0.41 mile, of common boundary.
Standing at Earth Native, looking across the shared boundary
Dave Scott recorded this view Tuesday morning from Earth Native's property, looking across the property line toward the proposed Pacifico site.
Do not bring Item E.4 back unchanged.
At upcoming meetings, keep the message specific: use existing lawful tools, fund the expertise needed to use them, publish the project record, disclose all batteries and hazardous materials, and do not subsidize Pacifico while the full-buildout impacts remain unresolved.
“Please do not return Item E.4 unchanged. Direct county counsel and the Fire Marshal to identify every existing project-specific tool, publish that analysis, require full battery and hazardous-material disclosures, and withhold discretionary incentives while the record is incomplete.”Open the corrected meeting guide
Source and attribution notes
The meeting outcome is reported by KVUE. Nick's file metadata identifies Nick Lealos as creator. LIV's PDF text identifies Michele G. Gangnes as the submitting attorney; the supplied file is associated with Linda Curtis. Austin County's PDF is a signed order from a different county and is not presented as controlling law in Bastrop County. The shared-boundary graphic uses Earth Native's owner-supplied complete-tract map plus Bastrop CAD ParcelARI geometry for campus parcels 37223, 46431, 22796, and 28022 and Wallace/J0049 parcel 24484. Parcel 22796 is held of record by Shannon David Scott and carries Earth Native's published 137 Woodview entrance. The acreage and common-boundary length are rounded GIS calculations, not survey measurements. Dave Scott supplied and described the August 11 video; Lost Pines Watch did not independently geolocate the camera within the tract.