Texas is growing at an extraordinary pace, and some of the newest development arriving in our communities looks very different from the traditional subdivisions, shopping centers and industrial projects counties have dealt with for decades.
Massive data centers, utility-scale solar projects, battery facilities and the power infrastructure necessary to support them can involve hundreds of acres, enormous electrical loads and significant demands on roads, water, emergency services and other local resources.
Yet Texas counties are frequently expected to deal with the consequences of that development while having relatively limited authority to control where or how it occurs.
That challenge was the focus of an excellent session I attended at the 2026 Texas Association of Counties Legislative Conference in Austin: “Power Without Authority: How Counties Can Shape Development.”
The discussion was moderated by Elizabeth Choate, Senior Legislative Consultant for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association at TAC, and featured State Representative Ken King, Medina County Judge Keith Lutz and Somervell County Attorney Trey Brown. The session examined data centers, solar development, private property rights and the tools counties currently have—or do not have—to respond responsibly to rapidly changing development patterns.
The title captured the dilemma perfectly.
Counties Have Responsibilities Without the Same Authority as Cities
Many residents understandably assume their county government possesses the same land-use powers available to a city.
Generally, it does not.
Texas municipalities can exercise zoning authority within their jurisdictions. Texas counties, by contrast, generally do not have broad zoning authority unless the Legislature has specifically granted it in particular circumstances or geographic areas.
That distinction becomes extremely important when a major development is proposed in an unincorporated area.
A county may be responsible for the roads serving the property. The sheriff may respond to emergencies there. Emergency service districts may provide fire protection. County officials may have to address drainage, flooding, traffic and other consequences.
But the county cannot necessarily look at a particular parcel and simply say, that type of development belongs somewhere else.
That creates the fundamental tension behind this session:
Counties often bear substantial responsibility for the consequences of development without possessing broad authority over the development itself.
Data Centers Are Changing the Conversation
Few issues demonstrate that challenge better than the explosive growth of data centers in Texas.
These facilities are essential to the digital economy. Artificial intelligence, cloud computing, financial transactions, communications, government systems and countless everyday technologies depend upon computing infrastructure somewhere.
There is unquestionably an economic-development opportunity associated with that investment.
But a hyperscale data center is also very different from a traditional commercial building.
Its electrical demand can be enormous. Depending upon its technology and cooling system, water requirements can also become a concern. Large projects can require substantial electrical transmission infrastructure, backup generation and road access, while raising questions involving noise, emergency response and neighboring property owners.
Texas lawmakers are already examining these issues closely.
Representative Ken King chairs the Texas House Committee on State Affairs, which has been conducting an interim study of data-center development. The committee’s official charge specifically calls for examining the industry’s economic and national-security importance while also evaluating regulations that would allow communities to “plan and manage growth responsibly.”
That phrase is important.
The question is not simply whether Texas should welcome technology investment.
The more difficult question is:
How do we welcome investment while making certain the costs and consequences of that investment are considered before—not after—a project is built?
Local Control Meets Private Property Rights
There is another equally important side of this discussion: private property rights.
Texas has a long tradition of protecting the right of property owners to determine how their land is used.
Providing counties with additional development authority therefore requires careful consideration. Giving government unlimited power to determine what a private landowner may do with his or her property would create its own serious problems.
Representative King recently raised precisely that concern during a House State Affairs Committee hearing on data centers. As legislators heard requests for greater local control, he emphasized the need to consider whether some proposals could infringe upon private property rights.
That is the balance Texas needs to find.
It should not have to be a choice between protecting private property rights and protecting communities from legitimate infrastructure impacts.
Good policy should attempt to do both.
A landowner should have meaningful rights in the use of private property.
At the same time, when a project creates significant demands on publicly funded roads, emergency services, water resources, drainage systems or other infrastructure, local taxpayers should not simply inherit those consequences without a voice in the process.
Counties Are Not Completely Powerless
Although counties generally lack zoning authority, they are not without tools.
Texas law gives counties authority in a number of specific areas. Depending on the circumstances, counties can establish requirements involving subdivision roads, drainage and stormwater management, among other matters. Chapter 232 of the Texas Local Government Code, for example, permits counties to establish certain road and drainage standards when land is subdivided.
Counties can also have authority concerning fire codes for certain commercial, public and multifamily buildings in unincorporated areas.
Other tools may involve floodplain administration, driveway and road access, septic systems, platting, development agreements, infrastructure coordination and participation in economic-development arrangements.
But these authorities are specific rather than comprehensive.
That means county officials must understand exactly where their authority begins and where it ends.
Trying to regulate beyond statutory authority can expose a county to litigation.
Failing to use the authority that actually exists, however, can leave residents and taxpayers unnecessarily vulnerable.
That is why county attorneys, judges, commissioners, engineers, emergency managers and financial officers increasingly need to work together as major projects are proposed.
Roads Are Often Where Development Becomes a County Problem
One of the most tangible examples is transportation.
A major industrial, data-center or energy project may be constructed on private property, but construction equipment does not magically arrive there.
It travels across roads.
Heavy trucks can dramatically affect pavement and bridges that were never designed for sustained industrial construction traffic. Once a project is operational, ongoing truck and employee traffic can create additional demands.
The road may belong to the taxpayers even when the development does not.
That makes early planning important.
Counties need to understand projected traffic, construction schedules, road conditions and any necessary improvements before major construction begins.
The principle should be straightforward:
Growth should contribute to solving the infrastructure demands it creates rather than simply transferring those costs to existing taxpayers.
Solar Development Raises Different Questions
Utility-scale solar development presents another variation of the same challenge.
Solar projects can provide landowners with new revenue opportunities and contribute additional generating capacity to Texas.
At the same time, large projects can significantly change the character and long-term use of rural land.
Questions can include road access, drainage, fencing, fire response, vegetation management, environmental impacts and what happens to the property decades later when equipment reaches the end of its useful life.
The last question is particularly important.
Government should think about the entire life cycle of major infrastructure—not simply the ribbon cutting.
Who is responsible for decommissioning? Who removes the equipment? What financial assurance exists to ensure that responsibility does not eventually fall on the landowner or taxpayer?
Those are reasonable questions regardless of whether the project involves solar panels, batteries, industrial facilities or another emerging technology.
Water May Become One of the Defining Development Issues
Water also runs through many of these debates.
Texas is simultaneously experiencing rapid population growth, industrial expansion and increasingly large infrastructure projects.
Those trends cannot be discussed independently from water availability.
A project that is perfectly reasonable in one location may create serious challenges somewhere else simply because the water supply, transmission infrastructure or other supporting resources are different.
That is another reason a one-size-fits-all approach from Austin can be difficult.
Texas has 254 counties with dramatically different circumstances.
A sparsely populated West Texas county, a Hill Country community dependent upon groundwater and a fast-growing suburban county such as Fort Bend do not necessarily face the same development challenges.
Local officials are often best positioned to identify those differences.
Development Decisions Have Financial Consequences
As County Treasurer, I also view these questions through the lens of long-term financial stewardship.
Economic development can expand the tax base, create employment and strengthen a community.
But revenue is only one side of the ledger.
Responsible financial analysis also asks what services and infrastructure will be required because of the development.
Will roads need improvement?
Will additional emergency-response capability be necessary?
Will drainage infrastructure have to be expanded?
Will new equipment or personnel eventually be required?
Will the project increase the tax base sufficiently to offset those costs?
And are there tax incentives that change that calculation?
Economic development should be evaluated by its net long-term value to taxpayers—not merely the headline dollar amount of an investment announcement.
What Comes Next at the Legislature
This issue is almost certain to receive significant attention when the 90th Texas Legislature convenes in January 2027.
Data-center development is already an active interim issue. The House State Affairs Committee has been studying both the extraordinary economic opportunity presented by these projects and questions involving grid reliability, local impacts and regulatory structure.
The debate will not be simple.
There will be advocates for stronger local authority.
There will be advocates for protecting property owners and preventing a patchwork of regulations.
There will be economic-development interests concerned about maintaining Texas’ competitiveness.
There will be residents concerned about water, roads, electricity and the character of their communities.
All of those perspectives deserve consideration.
The goal should not be to stop growth.
The goal should be responsible growth.
Fort Bend County Has a Major Stake in the Conversation
This discussion is especially relevant to Fort Bend County.
We are part of one of the largest metropolitan regions in America, with continued residential, commercial and industrial growth.
That growth is one of our greatest strengths.
But growth also requires planning.
The decisions we make about infrastructure today can affect taxpayers for decades. The more rapidly a county grows, the more important it becomes to anticipate development rather than continually react to it.
That does not mean government should dictate every land-use decision.
It means government should make sure that infrastructure, financial capacity and public services are part of the conversation.
Being at the Table Matters
As a member of the Texas Association of Counties Core Legislative Group and the County Treasurers’ Association of Texas Legislative Committee, sessions like this are particularly valuable because they help county officials identify issues before legislation is filed.
The best time to explain an unintended consequence to a legislator is before a bill becomes law.
County officials can provide a practical perspective because we see what happens when legislation reaches the courthouse.
We see how state policy affects taxpayers, budgets, infrastructure, employees and daily operations.
And on development policy, Texas faces an especially important challenge:
How do we preserve private property rights and encourage economic opportunity while giving communities reasonable tools to protect taxpayers and manage the effects of unprecedented growth?
There may not be a simple answer.
But there is a principle worth remembering:
Local government should not have unlimited power—but neither should it be given unlimited responsibility without the authority necessary to meet it.
That is why these conversations matter, and why Texas counties need to remain at the table as the Legislature considers what comes next.
