The Hill County Commissioners Court rejected a petition seeking creation of an agricultural development district in the county during a Tuesday, August 25 meeting.
The petition was submitted by a group of Hill County landowners who said that the district could help protect farmland from industrial development, including data centers.
The proposed district would have been created under Chapter 60 of the Texas Agriculture Code. The law, which has been on the books since 2001, is intended to promote agricultural development and facilities that generate employment and economic activity. No district has been created under Chapter 60 in the state to date.
During last week’s public hearing, Hill County farmers and ranchers expressed similar concerns about the threat industrial development poses to their operations, but they were divided on the agricultural development district proposal.
Supporters said that the district could provide a way to protect agricultural land and pushed back against what they called misinformation about the district’s powers.
Opponents questioned whether Chapter 60 was intended to be used to prevent data center development. They also raised concerns about private property rights, government expansion and the powers that could be given to a district board.
Charlotte Williams said that there were misconceptions about what it would mean to create an agricultural development district. “It does not say that every property in the county has to receive permission from the agricultural development district to be sold,” she said. “If it is inside the district, that does not by itself give the district a veto of a private real estate transaction.”
John Blaha told the court that false statements had been made in the courtroom about the district’s powers of eminent domain and warned that data centers are swallowing rural acreage.
Lydia Abney read the portion of Chapter 60 that grants districts eminent domain authority, saying that it contains several vague lines regarding that authority. “There should be a lot more detail if you’re bringing up eminent domain,” she said, adding that creation of the district will not achieve what the petitioners believe it will achieve.
Rodney Schronk, a fifth-generation Hill County farmer, said that he looked into the proposal and found that it would not prevent data centers. Schronk said that even though the developments are hurting agricultural operations, he was asking the court to vote no.
John Sawyer, a fourth-generation Hill County farmer, also asked commissioners to vote no. “Let us not vote for something that no other county has seen fit to do and infringe on private property rights,” he said.
James Hudson went a step further, calling the proposal the “first step to socialism.” Hudson said that he paid for his land and does not trust a board to tell him what to do with it. “It’s my land,” he said. “I don’t need people to tell me what to do. I don’t need a board making suggestions about what I need to do. I can decide that.”
Anna Miller told the court that her family has farmed in Hill County since the 1880s and has chosen not to sign with wind turbines or solar panel projects. “Even though I’m surrounded by blinking lights, it’s imperative to protect individual property rights and ensure every landowner can choose how to utilize their own land,” she said. “Creating this district has the potential of infringing on those rights.”
Miller said that she was concerned the district could threaten property rights, create bigger government, give power to a small group of people and would not achieve the goals the petitioners intended.
T.A. Smith, a McLennan County resident, warned of the loss of food, shelter and clothing as farmland decreases and said that the district could ensure that Hill County has farmers and ranchers to take care of its people.
Lowell Williams, one of the petitioners who said that he was slated to be president of the district, said that there were misconceptions about the proposal and a district’s eminent domain authority. “I didn’t write the law,” he said. “I’m sorry it’s in there.” He pointed out that even counties have eminent domain authority. “I have no interest in any of their land or what they do with it,” Williams said.
Williams called the district “a simple solution” to try and stop development in the absence of state or federal action. “We can’t even get the governor to call a special session when 82 percent of the population does not want data centers and solar farms,” he said.
Commissioners discussed information from the Texas Farm Bureau indicating that using an agricultural development district specifically to prevent data centers could go beyond the authority provided under Chapter 60.
McLennan County rejected a similar proposal August 4 as data center opponents in that county proposed an agricultural development district. Attorney Michael Dixon, who also provides economic development counsel to Hill County, told that court that such a district would not be an effective way to deal with data centers.
Commissioner Jim Holcomb and County Judge Shane Brassell also warned that creating the district could have unintended consequences, including potential legal liability.
Brassell noted that the county has already faced a lawsuit related to data center development, and he said that farmers participating in the district could potentially find themselves facing financial consequences or loss of property due to future litigation — the opposite of what supporters of the district are trying to accomplish.
Commissioners were also concerned about infringing on private property rights.
Brassell said that he kept coming back to a quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The court ultimately voted unanimously not to move forward with the petition. Had commissioners approved it, the proposed district would have proceeded to an election.
In other notable action at the meeting, commissioners approved a sublease agreement with Chisholm Trail Park Inc. for the management of Chisholm Trail Park in the Blum area. The Corps of Engineers no longer maintains the park, and a group of residents has formed a corporation to repair and manage the area so it can remain in use.
Budget discussions also continued, with commissioners revisiting the topic of increasing wages for their employees. Precinct 2 Commissioner Larry Crumpton said that he is losing employees and has to do something to get wages up for his road and bridge crew. He requested to fund another 3.5-percent pay increase in his budget.
Brassell said that because of the pay structures in place, that would mean finding additional money in the budget to give all employees, except for elected officials, an additional 3.5 percent on top of the previously approved cost-of-living adjustment.
Commissioners were in favor of trying to find a way to fund additional pay increases, and Brassell said that he would run some numbers and present them to the court Tuesday, September 1.
The judge reiterated that he wants to create a group of elected and appointed officials in November to start working on the budget for next year. The board will review numbers, hold informal hearings with department heads and hear requests.
The board could make recommendations to commissioners, which he said would solve a lot of problems caused by trying to get a budget together and holding hearings in a two-month span of time every year.
The court’s next meeting was set for Tuesday, September 1.
The Lakelander 