Inside the Granbury data center revolt: recalls, lawsuits and Texas Rangers
A lakeside city of roughly 13,000 people has become the front line of a rural Texas revolt against data centers — a fight now playing out through a recall petition, an Open Meetings Act lawsuit, a Texas Rangers complaint and a citizen-drafted zoning ordinance.
Here is what rural Texans need to know about the procedural fight over Project Patriot, a proposed 2,000-acre power plant and data center campus on the former Knox Ranch, and why residents in Hood County, Johnson County and beyond are watching Granbury closely.
The project and the annexation
Project Patriot is being developed by Dallas-based Bilateral Energy LLC. A concept plan released by the city in June shows five data center buildings, storage and administrative structures, and more than a dozen unlabeled spaces. In 2025, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality approved an emissions permit allowing Bilateral Energy to build eight simple-cycle power turbines and 87 linear generators at 1225 Meadow Wood Road — the center of the parcel.
The land, straddling Meadow Wood Road south of U.S. 377 and north of Paluxy Highway, was annexed by Granbury in January At that meeting, city leaders said they had received no communications from a developer interested in the site. On April 7, the City Council voted to rezone the roughly 2,000 acres for industrial development, which allows power plants and data centers.
The Open Meetings Act lawsuit
On April 6, Granbury attorney Steven Dias with the firm Dias Hall filed suit on behalf of several residents, naming City Manager Chris Coffman, Mayor Jim Jarratt, Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Wadley and City Council members. The suit seeks a permanent injunction, a temporary restraining order, a jury trial, reversal of the annexation, and compensation for lost property values.
The core allegation is that the council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act when members toured a Dallas data center in early January — days before the Jan. 6 annexation vote. Internal communications included in the lawsuit list all council members, Jarratt and other city leaders as expected attendees.
Granbury’s former economic development director, Shea Hopkins, suggested in emails that the tours be staggered “even two minutes behind” to avoid a quorum. “I just want to make sure that we are doing things the appropriate way,” Hopkins wrote, according to Star-Telegram reporting. Hopkins left her position with the city in May.
The suit also alleges Granbury “willfully evaded” providing documents in public records requests, even after Attorney General Ken Paxton ordered the city to produce records that were not confidential.
The document trail Samuelson put on the screen
At a specially called Hood County commissioners court meeting in April, Commissioner Nannette Samuelson displayed documents she said the county received from Granbury’s economic development department in June 2025 — seven months before the annexation.
One document read: “Bilateral Energy, powering the future of Granbury, a data center campus and power generation development.” The project was originally called Project Horizon before becoming Project Patriot.
Samuelson said Project Patriot appeared on the county’s July 8, 2025, Commissioners Court agenda and was mentioned in several meetings before the Jan. 6 vote. At that Granbury meeting, Coffman and Jarratt said they had no knowledge of development plans for the Knox Ranch property.
“For him to say he didn’t know where Project Patriot was or what it was is inconsistent with the facts,” Samuelson said, according to the Star-Telegram. She said basic Google searches turned up information about Bilateral Energy and its director, Daniel Wong, whom Coffman said during the meeting he did not know.
“Is this incompetence or purposeful deception on the part of the city attorney and the city manager?” Samuelson asked.
Coffman, in a text message to the Star-Telegram, said, “As you know, this matter is under litigation and no comments are advised by legal counsel.”
The Texas Rangers complaint
Hood County resident Kellie Chewning filed a complaint with the Texas Rangers alleging Granbury violated government codes governing zoning notification. Chewning said she first filed with Granbury police, who referred it to the Rangers. A Texas Department of Public Safety spokesman told the Star-Telegram the Rangers “are aware of this information and are reviewing it, but have not opened an official investigation at this time.” Chewning said she was told the Public Integrity Unit is investigating.
Her complaint alleges the zoning notice for the 2,100 acres listed 2801 W. Highway 377 — an address she says did not reflect the true size of the tract — and that no public notice appeared in a newspaper, on the city website or on a meeting agenda for the full acreage. She notes that property owners within 200 feet have the right to protest zoning changes even if their property is outside city limits.
The recall petition and how it works
On July 13, residents filed a petition to recall Jarratt and every City Council member except Angela Parker. It followed a July 8 meeting at which more than 800 residents backed a separate petition calling for a vote of no confidence to remove Coffman and City Attorney Jeremy SoRelle.
Under Granbury’s home rule charter, a recall petition must be signed by registered qualified voters equal to at least 15% of the city’s eligible voters. Within 15 days, the city secretary must present the petition to the City Council. Officials named in the petition may hold a public hearing to “present facts pertinent to the charges.” If the official does not resign, the council must order an election at the earliest date state law allows.
Granbury spokesperson Jeff Newpher declined to confirm that the city received the recall petitions, though organizers posted a photo showing petitions stamped by the city secretary’s office. Newpher also told residents earlier that there is no “mechanism” in the city’s charter to act on the no-confidence petition.
Recall organizer Janet Logsdon, a plaintiff in the Open Meetings Act suit, previously campaigned for Jarratt. “The whole group is disappointed in the elected officials that we put in there,” she said.
The citizen-drafted zoning language
The same day the recall petition was filed, the Granbury Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the council approve an amendment requiring data center developers to obtain a special use permit and observe a 1,000-foot setback from property lines.
The ordinance was written by Nikki Sopchak, a Hood County resident who owns property in Granbury and holds a master’s degree in urban planning. Commissioners also considered a version with additional language written by city staff, but recommended Sopchak’s draft. The City Council has final say.
“If I see something that’s being done that’s wrong, that motivates me,” Sopchak said.
The wider rural picture
Half of the 248 data centers planned in Texas will be in rural areas with few regulations and limited county authority to stop them, according to the Texas Tribune. On May 26, Hood County commissioners approved an Amazon data center called Project Spectrum on a 3-0 vote.
Gov. Greg Abbott, speaking at a Bullard campaign event, said AI data centers “must be prohibited” from rural Texas neighborhoods and that tax breaks for them “must be eliminated.” His June 10 letter directed state regulators to shield Texans from data center-related electricity costs. He also said state lawmakers should to require large facilities to annually report water and electricity use to the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Parker County commissioners passed a June 9 resolution barring county-level tax incentives for data centers. Weatherford has moved to prohibit them inside city limits. Willow Park is weighing charter language to define and limit them.