A filing, statute, agency record, map, or dataset published by the responsible public body.
Methods & corrections
A public position can still use disciplined evidence.
The Observatory is not neutral about Pacifico Cedar Creek at this location. It is rigorous about what the record proves, what remains an assertion, and what evidence could change a conclusion.
Two dimensions
Source type is not claim status
An applicant statement can appear inside an official government filing. The source is official; the underlying assertion is still the applicant’s.
A statement about what an official record contains. This does not independently prove every underlying applicant assertion.
A fact, forecast, description, or claim made by the applicant and represented accurately here without automatic adoption as fact.
A modeled outcome based on assumptions. It is not a guarantee of future jobs, taxes, earnings, or spending.
A calculation or comparison performed by the Observatory from cited source data.
A technically supported conclusion that remains subject to project-specific evidence and can be revised.
A question worth investigating, not a proven condition. It is paired with the evidence needed to test it.
Claim lifecycle
How a conclusion enters the public site
- 01
Acquire the source
Record publisher, date, version, URL, and project linkage.
- 02
Index exact support
Create page-level findings before turning a long filing into a public claim.
- 03
Classify the claim
Separate applicant assertion, record content, cross-check, inference, and hypothesis.
- 04
Name the next evidence
A conclusion is stronger when the public can see what would confirm, narrow, or overturn it.
- 05
Publish corrections visibly
Material changes are dated and explained rather than silently overwritten.
Corrections log
The record changed here
These entries reconcile the earlier public prototype, repository v4, Supplement 1, and the live primary record.
Five public meetings this week and an August 20 Cedar Creek forum
Residents have five public-comment opportunities this week, beginning with today's 9:00 a.m. Commissioners Court discussion of county authority and tonight's 7:00 p.m. ESD 1 meeting. On Thursday, August 13, the LEPC and a county budget session meet simultaneously at 9:00 a.m., followed by the BISD board at 5:30 p.m. None lists a Pacifico-specific decision, but each offers a distinct route to press for disclosure, technical review, emergency planning, and public safeguards. LIV will host a Cedar Creek Community Information & Action Forum on Thursday, August 20 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at Sacred Heart Catholic Church Parish Hall on FM 535.
TCEQ challenge docketed as August 10 county-authority vote approaches
TCEQ now indexes two amended motions under Pacifico's active construction-stormwater authorization asking the Commission to review and stay both Pacifico's TXR1565YW and Black Chamber's TXR1551YV. Neither authorization has been stayed or suspended, and the filings' assertions are not agency findings. The latest record sweep also confirms the signed county tax-abatement policy, tomorrow's Item E.4 county-authority vote, a new Pacifico-specific anti-abatement petition, posted ESD 1, LEPC and BISD agendas, an ERCOT Batch Zero delay, ESD 1 fire-code requirements, and two carefully separated FM 535 corridor developments.
Aqua tables Pacifico again after study reveals conditional water service
Aqua WSC confirmed that its board tabled Item 13 and did not approve proposed Resolution 26.08.02 on August 4. The open-record production shows that Garver reports existing supply and firm pumping below the capacity ratios cited in its revised study; even Pacifico's developer-supplied 14-gpm peak request depends on new Watterson wells and treatment, a pump station, storage and approximately 2.5 miles of approach main. It also contains materially different February and May layouts: the superseded concept shows two large data-center buildings and a compact power block, while the later plan shows four narrower buildings—two marked future—and a lengthened generation block. Neither provides a complete MW schedule, so 710 MW of generation and approximately 490 MW of IT load remain JETI full-buildout figures rather than capacities verified by the drawings.
Abbott data-center directive leaves an ERCOT-only gap
Governor Abbott's August 3 directive did not stop every Texas data center. Its operative language reaches projects advancing through ERCOT's interconnection process, while construction, onsite generation, air permits, water agreements, incentives, non-ERCOT Texas, and already operating or approved campuses are not halted by the letter itself. Lost Pines Watch's deliberately inclusive map tracks 54 mappable project groups plus four unlocated records with private, co-located, dedicated, inherited, hybrid, non-ERCOT, or size-threshold questions. Gray markers are context cases—not claims of exemption. Cedar Creek's exact ERCOT status remains publicly unresolved.
Aqua’s Pacifico study models only 23 LUEs and no fire flow
The 12-page packet for Resolution 26.08.02 says Aqua has sufficient capacity to serve a data center, but the attached engineering analysis tests a developer-supplied request of 9 gpm maximum-day demand, 14 gpm peak-hour demand, and no fire flow. Service is contingent on specified infrastructure. The packet does not establish total campus water demand, cooling design, fire-water supply, annual volume, final customer identity, or the enforceable terms of the future Non-Standard Service Agreement.
Texas retirement capital and the BlackChamber funding loop documented
Official TMRS records show a $50 million commitment to BlackChamber’s first real-estate opportunity fund in 2020 and a $100 million commitment to Fund II in 2025. Lost Pines Watch added a source-linked explainer showing how Texas public retirement capital, private data-center development, requested tax relief, and local utility decisions can form a circular public-private system. The record does not establish that TMRS money is specifically financing Cedar Creek, and the page labels that missing project-level link explicitly.
Aqua formally schedules a Pacifico water-service vote
Aqua WSC's official August 4 agenda now lists Item 13: discuss and take action on approving Large Volume Water Service to Pacifico Energy Development LLC through Resolution No. 26.08.02 in Zone 2. This replaces the earlier “reported discussion; agenda pending” status. The agenda does not attach the revised feasibility study or resolution, so residents should ask Aqua to publish the engineering basis, full demand and fire-flow figures, infrastructure requirements, and cost allocation before any final action.
CoreWeave officially identified as AUS02 occupant
The Texas Comptroller's qualifying-large-data-center register names AI cloud company CoreWeave as the occupant of EdgeConneX AU02, DFW33220N as owner, and DFW33220N Operations 1 as operator. Community Impact reports the $440 million building is expected to open in August. The same state register separately lists ECX AUS11-16 with EdgeConneX affiliates, but it does not identify an outside end customer for those buildings. Both registrations qualify for a program offering a 20-year sales-and-use-tax exemption on qualifying purchases, subject to statutory requirements.
Permit watch and Pacifico due diligence expanded
TCEQ's pending-air-application list was rechecked against its August 9 update; no publicly identifiable Cedar Creek entry was found under the known Pacifico, Black Chamber, B&W Ranch, CCK, Earl Callahan, or Cedar Creek project identifiers. This does not prove that no application or pre-application work exists. The JETI page still shows only the original application and Supplement 1. The dossier also separates two other Pacifico projects from Cedar Creek: GW Ranch's full TCEQ air record shows the level of turbine and emissions detail a mature application contains, while independent public-record reporting on Fort Spunky shows why a definitive water source and clear county authority matter before approval. Two official groundwater events were added to the public calendar.
August public-meeting watch added
The Resident Action Center now highlights Aqua WSC’s August 4 public board meeting, where Aqua staff reportedly said Pacifico will be discussed. Aqua’s official site confirms the date, time, and location; the August agenda was not yet posted when checked. The site also lists the next official meetings of Bastrop County Commissioners Court, ESD 1, the Local Emergency Planning Committee, Bastrop ISD, and ESD 3, while clearly distinguishing scheduled meetings from confirmed Pacifico agenda items.
Construction operators, water record, and project timeline added
The Observatory added TCEQ authorizations TXR1551YV and TXR1565YW, identifying Black Chamber Partners on a 304-acre data-center footprint and Pacifico CCK Energy 1 on a 173.54-acre power footprint. The update also adds Aqua’s tabled large-volume water request, newly registered project entities, the less-advanced Ohio record, the estimated power-side subsidy scale, pipeline screening, air-permit status, and a source-linked chronology. Stormwater coverage is explicitly distinguished from approval of the overall project.
Countywide tax-abatement guidelines adopted
Commissioners Court adopted the updated Chapter 312 guidelines after the public hearing. The county's signed 16-page record now confirms the July 27 adoption, a two-year term and Commissioner Mark Meuth's absence. This countywide policy made the County eligible to consider abatements; it did not approve Pacifico's individual reinvestment-zone or tax-abatement requests.
Gas-turbine siting record expanded
The Cedar Creek dossier now explains the air-pollution, low-frequency noise, fire and fuel-system, waste-heat, and operating-duration questions created by a 710 MW simple-cycle gas-turbine facility beside homes and schools. These are documented technology characteristics and required studies—not claims that unmodeled project-specific impacts have already been quantified. REQ-001, seeking the complete TCEQ air record, was submitted by email on July 26.
Location case and resident action center expanded
The site now states the evidence-based site-suitability conclusion directly, adds statewide air-permit precedent without attributing unproven conduct to Pacifico, reviews the July 27 county tax-abatement draft, summarizes the proposed Bastrop Bill of Rights, and publishes verified meeting, contact, records-request, TCEQ, legislative, and JETI action routes.
Amazon and EdgeConneX tract extents corrected
The GIS map replaced the earlier undersized ownership snapshots with CAD-derived site boundaries supplied from Bastrop CAD ParcelARI data fetched July 23, 2026. Amazon is now shown as an approximately 1,300-acre union of 24 former CTX/Creekside parcels. EdgeConneX-related mapping now separates AUS01, AUS02, the 179-acre Campus 2 tract, and the full 704-acre Campus 3 host parcel; Campus 3 is dashed because its approximately 400-acre project footprint has not been filed.
Drought and fixed fire-service facilities added
The GIS map added the live weekly U.S. Drought Monitor layer and seven Bastrop County ESD No. 1 station sites from Texas FireConnect. The project area is classified D2 Severe Drought on the map valid July 21, 2026. FireConnect lists seven sites across a 395-square-mile response area but does not verify staffing, apparatus, response time, water supply, or industrial-fire capability at each station; the map now makes that distinction explicit.
Community proximity layers added
The GIS map now shows 5,701 anonymized residential address points within three miles of Pacifico’s filed perimeter, schools and childcare, farms and agricultural sites, and public community places. All household names, street addresses, ownership fields, and resident-submitted locations were removed. Public-school campuses are cross-checked against Bastrop ISD; other public-facing facilities remain labeled as reference locations pending record-by-record verification.
Corridor parcels and fire controls corrected
The GIS map added current county parcels for EdgeConneX/DFW and Amazon Data Services, changed distance lines from center-point circles to offsets from Pacifico’s filed perimeter, and replaced fragile browser requests for the 2011 and 2015 fire layers with county-published geometry stored in the site.
Pacifico tract geometry corrected
The map now treats the eight property IDs listed on J0049 page 7 as the filed Pacifico project area and reconciles them to county GIS polygons. Supplement 1, Figures 2–3, depicts the same proposed-project boundary. The tract descriptions total 2,810.0553 acres, while the applicant narrative says approximately 2,842 acres.
Legal correction recorded
The Observatory corrected the earlier suggestion that dispatchable generation may be exempt from the JETI compelling-factor requirement. SB 2322 did not become law.
Supplement 1 indexed
Twelve page-level findings were added, including the project-scope change, Ohio alternative, and revised economic projections.
Owner records corrected
EDCAUS11 and EDCAUS12 now identify Burr Computer Environment Inc. as the TDLR owner of record; any other relationship remains a separate research question.
FM 535 cluster expanded
AUS02, EDCAUS11, and EDCAUS12 are tracked separately and analyzed cumulatively.
Most consequential correction
SB 2322 proposed the dispatchable-generation exemption; it did not enact it.
Current §403.609(b)(3) and the Comptroller’s current FAQ still state the compelling-factor requirement.
Privacy
Residences are context; residents are not identifiers
An anonymous public address-point pattern can show community proximity without publishing a household’s name, street address, ownership, contact information, or private submission.
Public: official parcels, filed project locations, agency records, public infrastructure, named public facilities, aggregate counts, and residential points stripped to coordinates only.
Protected: resident names, street addresses, ownership, contact details, private submissions, and any tooltip or export that could identify a household.
Anonymous site analytics: the Observatory counts page views, browser-level visitors, sessions, referrer hostnames, active-page time, device category, and approximate city, region, and country. Raw IP addresses, exact coordinates, search queries, form contents, and private submissions are not stored in traffic analytics. Browser Do Not Track and Global Privacy Control signals are honored.