Public hearing on Project Spectrum centers on water, traffic and noise as AWS/Vistra describe PPA and technical plans

Hood County’s public hearing on Project Spectrum on Jan. 27 drew developers, technical consultants and dozens of residents to question environmental and infrastructure impacts tied to a large data-center campus proposed on Vistra-owned land.

Andrea Hutchins, of Amazon Web Services’ economic development team, told the court AWS has worked for decades on data-center campuses and emphasized community commitments: “When we come into a community and make an investment, it is not just a concept plan we build and you never hear from us again,” she said. A Vistra representative said the company has an existing power-purchase agreement and “we've contracted 1,200 megawatts” for the project. The parties said Vistra controls reservoir water rights used for intake and discharge structures identified in engineering plans.

Public commenters and commissioners pressed specifics. Questions included whether the project uses once-through cooling or a closed-loop system, how much water would be withdrawn and whether constructed evaporative or cooling ponds would discharge to Squaw Creek. Andrea Hutchins said the project’s water use is expected to be small relative to Vistra’s holdings: “It’s less than 2% of the existing rights that they already have,” she said, and described a multi-cycle treatment and reuse process.

Technical consultants addressed traffic and noise. Kathy Smith of HDR said a traffic impact analysis had been submitted to TxDOT and recommended widening Coats Road to 30 feet in parts; she said the TIA looked to TxDOT standards and that further comments were expected. A noise consultant summarized construction noise variability and said operational noise could be engineered to meet local standards; AWS representatives said generator testing might reach about 65 dB while regular operations are designed to be near 45 dB at the fence line.

Commissioners repeatedly raised the county’s leverage and the use of incentives: testimony referenced prior discussions around a "3 81" agreement and earlier drafts that had allowed large rebate percentages; AWS said such agreements can include enforceable commitments and that the company would work with the court on local terms. Commissioners also expressed concern that if the county’s moratorium vote (noted in public comment) takes effect later, projects still submitted under current rules would be judged by the rules in place when filed.

At the close of the hearing a motion was made to conditionally approve Project Spectrum subject to the same categories of conditions ordered earlier — drainage plans, wastewater treatment certification, water-resource demonstration and a traffic impact analysis — and was seconded by Commissioner Wilson. The transcript records at least one voiced opposition but does not record an announced final tally in the provided excerpt; county staff directed applicants to submit the documented studies for staff and counsel review before site-plan approval.

Next procedural steps: applicants were instructed to provide the specified studies and to work with county staff and TxDOT on traffic improvements; the court will revisit the projects as documentation is provided.