Private Deal, Public Questions:
Haden’s data center agreement tests confidence in county leadership
By Anthony Collins
LPR Editor
For several months, Caldwell County Judge Hoppy Haden has stood at the center of one of the county’s most consequential debates: how a rapidly growing rural county with limited regulatory authority should respond to the arrival of large-scale data centers. He has warned of the demands those projects could place on water, electricity, roads and surrounding communities. He has defended the county’s use of development agreements to secure protections that state law does not otherwise allow it to impose. He has urged lawmakers to give Texas counties more control over what is built beyond city limits.
Now, Haden’s own personal land has become part of that debate. During announcements at the Caldwell County Commissioners Court meeting Thursday, July 23, Haden acknowledged that he and former Assistant Criminal District Attorney Richard Sitton, had entered into separate agreements with the same land acquisition group seeking to purchase their adjoining ranches to be the home to a new data center.
The disclosure has placed two public servants under immediate scrutiny. One who presides over Commissioners Court and the other who, until recently, served as its legal counsel, have now come under fire since their private transactions involving an industry they had encountered through their government responsibilities has been announced.
Sitton is no longer employed by the Caldwell County District Attorney’s Office as of last week. Caldwell County Criminal District Attorney Fred Weber stated Sitton’s termination was not based on evidence of criminal conduct. Instead, Weber said the circumstances created an appearance of impropriety and a potential conflict of interest that could undermine confidence in his office and Caldwell County government as a whole.
Haden has defended the agreement as a lawful exercise of his family’s private-property rights. He said the contract is preliminary, that he promptly filed a conflict-of-interest disclosure, had hired an independent attorney and permanently committed to recusing himself from any county matter involving the company or development of the land going forward. The result is a controversy defined not by an allegation that a crime occurred, but by a more difficult question: How should the County Judge’s private financial dealings, that intersect with the official duties of those he is entrusted to represent, be considered a conflict of interest or not?
The Lockhart Post-Register received a written statement from Weber on Friday evening, July 24, one day after the Commissioners Court meeting. “On Tuesday afternoon the Assistant District Attorney, assigned to act as legal counsel to the Commissioners Court, informed me that he and Judge Haden had entered into separate sales contracts with a business seeking to purchase their adjoining ranches in Caldwell County,” Weber said.
The agreements do not represent completed sales. The identity of the acquisition group, the amount of land involved, the proposed purchase prices and the full conditions that would have to be met before either transaction could close have not been publicly disclosed. There also has been no public evidence that the company is currently seeking a development agreement, tax abatement, reinvestment zone or other approval from Caldwell County.
Nevertheless, Weber said the roles Haden and Sitton had played in county government gave the transactions an unusual public significance. “Historically Judge Haden and the attorney have been responsible for negotiations between similar companies and Caldwell County regarding development agreements, tax abatements and related issues,” Weber said. “As such, they could be perceived as having inside knowledge, resources and contacts not available to the general public.” Sitton was not simply another neighboring landowner. As an assistant criminal district attorney assigned to civil matters, he provided legal counsel to Commissioners Court on contracts, development agreements, tax abatements and other issues involving county government.
Haden, as County Judge and presiding officer of Commissioners Court, has been one of the county’s most visible representatives in discussions with developers and in public debates over data centers. “In my opinion, this transaction could be seen by the citizens we work for as having an appearance of impropriety and a potential conflict of interest due to their roles as public employees,” Weber said.
Weber said he was responsible for addressing any conduct by employees that could cause residents to question the integrity of the District Attorney’s Office. “I am ultimately accountable for the actions of my employees,” Weber said. “I am obligated to address any conduct by an employee that I feel could cast doubt on the integrity of the District Attorney’s Office, and the attorney in question is no longer an employee.” Weber did not accuse Sitton or Haden of committing a crime. “Based on the information I have at this time, I have no reason to believe that anything illegal has occurred,” Weber said.
He also corrected an assumption that Sitton had acted as Haden’s private attorney in the transaction. “Additionally, the Assistant District Attorney did not perform private legal work for Judge Haden,” Weber said.
According to Weber, the purchasing company had not previously conducted business with Caldwell County, and no agreements had been negotiated between the company and the county. Weber said he intended to verify that information. “My concern is strictly the appearance of the transaction due to their positions as public servants,” he said. That distinction is central to the controversy.
A public official does not surrender the right to own, manage or sell property upon taking office. Sitton’s termination does not prove that either man misused public information, worked on the transaction during county time or used county resources to advance a private sale. No evidence establishing any of those circumstances has been presented. Weber’s concern centered instead on whether the public could reasonably question how the opportunity arose and whether the officials’ government experience, information or contacts gave them an advantage unavailable to other landowners. “I firmly believe that private citizens have the right to sell their property to whomever they wish,” Weber said. “However, when someone chooses to be a public servant, they assume an obligation to be completely transparent in any business dealings that could intersect with the interests of the people they represent.”
In a public statement responding to the controversy, Haden said two data center groups had approached his family about purchasing the ranch he owns with his wife, Linda. The family rejected the first group. “On July 21, we signed a pre-sale agreement with a land acquisition group, a preliminary agreement that simply lets the buyer study the property for up to a year and lets my family walk away at any point,” Haden said.
Haden said the agreement does not guarantee a sale and gives the prospective buyer time to determine whether the property is suitable for its intended use. He said he filed a conflict-of-interest disclosure the following day, July 22, under Chapter 171 of the Texas Local Government Code. “The very next day, I filed the conflict-of-interest disclosure required by Chapter 171 of the Texas Local Government Code,” Haden said. Haden also said he hired an independent attorney who performs no work for Caldwell County to review the contract. “I retained independent outside counsel, a lawyer who does no work for the county, to review my contract,” he said.
Most significantly, Haden pledged to remove himself from any future county action involving the buyer or development of the property. “I have committed, publicly and permanently, to recuse myself from every discussion, decision and vote involving this company or any other regarding development on this land,” Haden said. That commitment is narrower than withdrawing from every matter involving data centers throughout Caldwell County. Haden maintains that he can continue participating in broader policy discussions while abstaining from matters connected to his property or the prospective purchaser. But some question why did he not abstain or file a conflict of interest form before, while negotiations were unfolding.
Haden placed the controversy within the broader challenge of managing Caldwell County’s rapid growth. He said the county’s population has increased by approximately 30 percent and that more than 50,000 lots have been platted in unincorporated areas. Unlike cities, Texas counties generally do not have zoning authority. That means county officials have limited power to dictate where large industrial projects can be built or prohibit landowners from selling property for those uses. “Caldwell County is growing whether we like it or not,” Haden said. “Because Texas counties have no zoning authority and almost no power to regulate what gets built, the only real tool we have is the development agreement — and securing one sometimes requires offering tax incentives in exchange for enforceable protections.”
Haden said Commissioners Court has helped bring more than $1 billion in capital investment and more than 1,000 jobs to Caldwell County. He also defended the county’s approach to data centers, saying development agreements have been used to require limits on water consumption, closed-loop cooling systems, non-potable water, wastewater treatment standards, stormwater controls, enforceable noise restrictions, dark-sky lighting, road-use agreements and right-of-way dedications. “When data centers came, we did not roll over,” Haden said. “We used development agreements to impose some of the strongest protections in Texas.”
Haden has also advocated for changes in state law that would give counties more authority over data centers and other large developments. In May, Commissioners Court unanimously adopted a resolution asking state leaders for additional regulatory tools and greater disclosure of projects’ water, electrical and infrastructure demands. Those efforts have earned Haden support from officials who view him as a leading advocate for local control. They also explain why his private agreement has drawn such intense scrutiny. The issue is not merely that Haden may sell land. It is that the possible purchaser belongs to an industry whose projects, incentives and effects have occupied a growing share of the county’s public business.
Haden said he and Linda have lived in Caldwell County for more than 30 years, raised five children here and built a construction business and ranching operation. He pointed to years of service through the Lockhart Chamber of Commerce, Kiwanis, Lockhart Little League, the Caldwell County Food Bank and other community organizations. “This county is our home,” Haden said. He described the ranch as the product of nearly a decade of work. “We cleared the land, planted the pastures, and built what we thought would be our forever home,” he said.
Haden said the possible sale, should it ultimately close, would provide financial security for his family for generations. “Like every family in this county, we have the right to decide the future of our own land,” Haden said. “I made this decision knowing it would draw criticism.”
He also directly addressed residents who believe the transaction damaged their trust in him. “If this decision has shaken your faith in me, I hear you, and I am sorry for that,” Haden said. He thanked those who had contacted him with messages of support and rejected calls for him to step down or end his campaign. “I have no intention of resigning or of withdrawing from this race,” Haden said. “As long as I am your county judge, I will keep working to manage this county’s growth on our terms, with transparency, with enforceable standards and with Caldwell County families first.”
Precinct 3 Commissioner Ed Theriot was the first and only member of Commissioners Court to respond to questions from the Lockhart Post-Register. Theriot said he did not believe the transaction represented a conflict of interest, based on his understanding that the acquisition group had not previously held and was not currently holding discussions with Caldwell County about a development project.
He also said he thought Haden could continue serving the county fairly and should not be required to abstain from every future discussion or vote involving data centers. “Judge Haden has been a leader in developing standards to mitigate the harmful impacts of data centers on our water and power resources,” Theriot said. “In addition, he is one of the top voices in the state for legislative amendments to give counties more authority to regulate data centers.”
Haden’s statement establishes several key dates. The pre-sale agreement was signed July 21. He said the Chapter 171 disclosure was filed July 22. The transaction was publicly acknowledged during Commissioners Court on July 23, and Weber released his written statement July 24. But significant questions remain. The acquisition group has not been publicly identified. The acreage, potential purchase price and complete terms of the contracts remain undisclosed. It is unclear whether the purchaser intends to construct a data center itself, transfer the property to another developer or abandon the project following its review.
It also remains unclear whether the company or any affiliated business had previous informal contact with county representatives, even if no formal agreement was negotiated. Weber said he intends to verify that the company has had no previous business dealings with Caldwell County.
Texas conflict-of-interest laws generally require public officials to disclose qualifying financial interests and, in certain circumstances, abstain from participating in decisions affecting those interests. Whether additional disclosure requirements apply will depend on the company’s identity, its relationship with the county and any future action it requests.
For now, the facts disclosed publicly do not establish illegal conduct. They do, however, expose the narrow and often uncomfortable distance between what the law permits and what public trust demands. For Haden, the issue is one of private-property rights, timely disclosure, recusing his position and his family’s financial future.
For Weber, it is about protecting confidence in the District Attorney’s Office and addressing conduct that could appear improper even in the absence of a crime.
For Caldwell County residents, the test will come later, when the purchaser is identified, when plans for the land become clear and when county officials are asked to make decisions that could affect the project.
At the moment, the public will not judge the process solely by whether every legal requirement was met. Residents will judge whether the boundary between private opportunity and public duty remained visible, enforceable and worthy of their trust.
The public’s trust in Haden will come with the November election when he is up for re-election for County Judge.
