What does the #1836Project actually oppose?

The #1836Project has three main concerns:

• The rapid, uncontrolled expansion of hyperscale data centers in rural Texas.
• The loss of local control and self-governance that previous Legislatures stripped away.
• The infringement on neighboring private property rights through industrial noise, light, water drawdown, and diminished property values.

We are not opposed to data centers themselves. We are opposed to building them without meaningful local consent, accountability, or disregard for their impact on surrounding Texans.

Why can’t local officials just stop them?

Because the Legislature took away most of their tools. Texas counties have had no general zoning authority in unincorporated areas since 1969. HB 2127 — the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act — further restricted local regulation, and the Attorney General confirmed in 2023 that counties cannot impose moratoriums on large industrial projects.

Local commissioners may want to help — but current state law does not give them the authority. Only the Legislature can restore what the Legislature took away. Read: How Texas Got Here ↗

Why is voter ratification (1836-1) the most important bill?

Because unlimited capital can overcome almost every other form of opposition — except the will of an entire county’s voters. A county-wide popular vote, paid for by the developer, is the one protection that cannot be quietly negotiated away in back rooms or overridden by lobbying.

The other bills in the package are important, but without meaningful voter consent, the buildout will continue regardless of local objections.

Does passing these bills mean no data centers will be built in Texas?

No. These bills do not ban data centers.

• A county that votes yes gets the project.
• A developer who meets reasonable noise and light standards can operate cleanly.
• A developer who posts a bond and causes no measurable harm to neighboring property values pays nothing extra.

The bills simply require consent, accountability, and transparency — not prohibition.

Isn’t this an attack on private property rights?

It is the opposite. When a hyperscale data center’s operations cross property lines — through noise, constant lighting, groundwater drawdown, or reduced neighboring property values — it affects other Texans’ quiet enjoyment of their own land.

Conservative property rights tradition has always held that one person’s use of their property does not include the right to impose significant harm on their neighbors. The #1836Project seeks to protect all property rights, not just the developer’s.

Why are data centers different from other businesses?

Because they are not typical private businesses. They consume enormous amounts of public water and electricity, rely on public roads and infrastructure, and generate industrial-scale impacts that cross onto neighboring private property. When a private activity creates large public costs and externalities, Texas law has long allowed reasonable community accountability.

Will this hurt jobs and economic growth?

Data centers create far fewer permanent local jobs than their promotional announcements suggest. Most facilities are highly automated, with modest on-site staffing. While construction brings temporary jobs, the demands on water, electricity, and roads are permanent. [Source: Data Center Staffing Levels] [Source: Brookings Institution, May 2026]

Responsible development can still occur — it simply shouldn’t come at the expense of unwilling neighboring Texans and local taxpayers.

Doesn’t the free market handle this?

The free market works best when all affected parties can negotiate voluntarily. Neighboring landowners, utility customers, and water users are not at the table when a developer buys land and begins construction. They bear the costs without any real recourse. That is not a free-market outcome — it is an externality. The #1836Project restores reasonable accountability for those externalities.

Isn’t Texas supposed to be business-friendly?

Yes — and business-friendly should mean businesses earn community support, not that they can override local self-governance by default. Requiring basic consent and accountability is not excessive regulation. Texas already requires voter approval and public review for many major decisions that affect taxpayers and local communities.

What about America’s competition with China?

We want America to win the AI race. But building massive infrastructure without local consent is not the American way — it is closer to the Chinese model of top-down development. Our strength has always come from individual rights and voluntary consent, not centralized power overriding communities.

Requiring transparency and local approval actually strengthens our position by protecting against opaque foreign-linked ownership as well.

What counts as a “major” data center — where is the threshold?

The threshold definition is part of what the draft legislation will specify — and getting it right matters. The intent is to capture hyperscale and large-scale commercial data centers that impose significant demands on local water, grid, and infrastructure, while excluding small business server rooms and enterprise facilities. Common benchmarks used in other state legislation include power consumption thresholds (e.g., facilities drawing 100 MW or more) and total investment thresholds. We are researching the right statutory definition and welcome input from legal partners and policy experts.

Can’t harmed neighbors already sue under existing nuisance law?

Technically yes — but in practice, common-law nuisance claims against industrial operators are expensive, slow, and extremely difficult to win. A rural Texas landowner would need to fund years of litigation against a corporation with unlimited legal resources, prove causation for noise, light, or water impacts, and survive motions to dismiss before ever seeing a jury. Existing law offers almost no effective protection for most affected landowners. That is precisely why 1836-3 creates a private right of action with enforceable standards, and 1836-6 requires a developer-funded bond — to give individual Texans a realistic legal remedy, not just a theoretical one.

Won’t Texas lose data centers to other states if we require local approval?

Possibly some. But the question isn’t whether Texas can attract data centers — it clearly can. The question is whether Texas should attract them on any terms, at any cost, with no community consent. What Texas is currently trading away for that investment is rural water supplies, grid stability, neighboring property values, and the democratic sovereignty of county voters — with no compensation and no voice.

Virginia — the state with more data center experience than any other in the nation — has begun requiring noise assessments and giving localities stronger tools. Texas can lead on responsible development without surrendering all leverage to developers.

Who enforces the noise and light standards if a data center violates them?

Under 1836-3 as currently conceived, enforcement runs on two tracks. The primary track is a private right of action — neighboring landowners can sue the operator directly for documented violations and seek actual damages. This puts enforcement in the hands of the people most affected rather than depending on a state agency to act. TCEQ serves as a secondary regulatory backstop. The private right of action is the stronger mechanism — it creates a direct financial incentive for compliance without relying on agency resources or political will.