Lost Pines GCD adopts sweeping data-center groundwater resolution—strengthening the case for no Pacifico subsidy
The adopted resolution calls for sustainable-supply proof, cumulative review, transparent metering, non-potable alternatives and full accounting of water associated with electricity generation. It strengthens the case for Bastrop County to withhold Pacifico tax abatements while the complete water plan remains unresolved.
The bottom line
The Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District Board adopted Resolution No. 20260819-1 on August 19, establishing its strongest formal position yet on data centers, concentrated industrial demand and groundwater protection in Bastrop and Lee Counties.
The resolution formally opposes concentrated production of high-volume potable groundwater for data centers unless a developer proves a sustainable supply and implements robust monitoring, conservation, mitigation and financial-assurance safeguards. It also calls for cumulative-impact review, transparent metering, non-potable water and accounting for water associated with generating a data center's electricity.
It does not name Pacifico, cancel the Cedar Creek project or legally require Bastrop County to reject Pacifico's requested tax abatements. It does materially strengthen the case against a discretionary public subsidy while the complete water plan remains unresolved.
What did the groundwater district just say?
Imagine the aquifer as one enormous underground water tank shared by the entire neighborhood. Before a giant industrial user puts a new straw into it, the groundwater referee says the developer should show the entire water plan, prove enough water will remain for existing users, count onsite and electricity-generation water together, use non-drinking water when feasible, report withdrawals publicly, prepare for drought and fund repairs if surrounding wells are harmed.
Pacifico's current Aqua request is like showing the public one relatively small pipe. A separate well, fire-water system, turbine-wash supply or cooling source would be another pipe. The resolution says officials need to count the whole system—not one filing at a time.
What the adopted resolution calls for
The District says its monitoring and technical analyses identify substantial water-level pressures and declines in portions of the Carrizo-Wilcox system. It also says proposed Bastrop County data-center water use is not currently included in the Region K State Water Plan.
- Restrict or deny demand groundwater cannot sustainably support.
- Require cumulative-impact assessments, mitigation fees and financial assurance.
- Require real-time metering and regular public reporting.
- Prioritize reclaimed, recycled, non-potable or brackish water where feasible.
- Allow temporary moratoria or interim limits when science indicates serious harm.
- Evaluate direct onsite water and indirect electricity-generation water together.
- Independently evaluate lower-water cooling, reuse and other alternatives.
- Coordinate mitigation when pumping in one district may harm users in another.
The adopted text directs copies to Bastrop County Commissioners Court and takes effect immediately.
Why this strengthens the case for a County no vote
The local groundwater authority is no longer merely asking questions
LPGCD is the political subdivision charged with managing groundwater in Bastrop and Lee Counties. Its position is not a project-specific Pacifico denial, but it is strong evidence that the water issue is neither speculative nor settled.
A Chapter 312 abatement is discretionary
Bastrop County does not owe Pacifico a tax abatement. A no vote would not ban Pacifico. It would say: redesign, relocate the generating facility or continue without a taxpayer-funded discount—but the public will not help entrench this version while major water, air, fire and siting questions remain open.
Limited authority makes financial leverage more important
The County may lack city-style general zoning, but it controls abatements, reinvestment-zone treatment, infrastructure assistance and other public benefits. If state law leaves counties with inadequate tools, the answer is to preserve this leverage until the Legislature acts and the complete project record is available.
Item 8: Is “declaring statutory limitations” a bad thing?
Commissioners Court meets at 9:00 a.m. in the Commissioners Courtroom, second floor, 804 Pecan Street in Bastrop. The agenda includes Citizen Comments and Item 8, an action item addressing statutory limits on county development authority and a request for expanded authority from the Texas Legislature.
Not necessarily. It can mean acknowledging that Texas limits county regulation in unincorporated areas and asking the Legislature for stronger authority. The phrase itself does not erase county powers; the wording that follows matters.
The prior August 10 draft went further, saying the County had no authority to stop developments and that its leverage was effectively limited to post-permitting incentive negotiations. Residents and attorneys challenged that overbroad framing, and the Court tabled it.
The August 24 agenda posts Item 8's title but not the operative resolution text. Residents should demand the full text before action. A responsible version should acknowledge limits while preserving specific county tools involving fire safety, batteries, public health, wastewater, floodplain, drainage, roads, access, emergency management, records and discretionary incentives.
The correct request: publish the full proposed text, preserve every existing tool, seek stronger authority from Austin and do not use regulatory gaps as a reason to subsidize Pacifico.
The local groundwater authority has formally warned that Bastrop County data-center demand is missing from regional planning and that complete, cumulative water accounting and enforceable safeguards are necessary. Please publish Item 8's full proposed text, preserve every existing county tool, and provide no Pacifico abatement or other discretionary benefit while the complete water, air, fire and infrastructure record remains unresolved.
Pacifico's complete water plan
Pacifico's Aqua feasibility package models 23 living-unit equivalents, 9 gallons per minute on a maximum day, 14 gallons per minute at peak hour and no Aqua fire-flow request. That may describe a potable-service connection, but it is not a verified all-source water budget for a multi-building data center and 710-megawatt power campus.
A community member reports that LPGCD General Manager Elvis Hernandez confirmed the current landowner contacted the District about the process for an onsite fire-suppression well. The contact may have been made on Pacifico's behalf, but Lost Pines Watch has not independently confirmed that relationship or obtained a permit application, pumping rate, annual volume, well location or written agency record confirming details. No circulating volume should be treated as confirmed.
“No fire-flow request” describes the current Aqua package only. Aqua service, any onsite well, fire-water storage and replenishment, turbine washing, cooling and electricity-related water use should be disclosed and evaluated together.
LIV Pacifico Town Hall
4045 FM 535, Bastrop
Community organizers report that LPGCD General Manager Elvis Hernandez and Aqua WSC Communications Director Hollye Fain are expected; attendance can change, so questions should remain useful even if a particular speaker is unavailable.
Useful questions to bring
- Has Pacifico submitted written well, map, pumping-rate or pre-application information?
- Which uses are included in the 23-LUE Aqua request, and which are excluded?
- Does “Fire Flow Request: None” mean Aqua will supply no fire water?
- How would a fire-only well be separated and independently metered?
- When will the public receive one source-by-use water balance for the full buildout?
- Will officials support withholding incentives until that record is available?
What the LPGCD resolution does not do
- It does not reject Pacifico by name or cancel the project.
- It does not establish that Pacifico filed a groundwater permit application.
- It does not verify a rumored well volume or intended operational use.
- It does not cancel Aqua service, TCEQ authorizations, JETI proceedings or County reviews.
- It does not compel Commissioners Court to vote no or replace project-specific technical review.
Verification note: Lost Pines Watch received confirmation that Resolution No. 20260819-1 passed. Official minutes, the detailed tally and signed final posting were not available when this update was prepared. The vote should not be described as unanimous unless the official record confirms it.