San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas


The proposed — or, shall we say, inevitable — Needmore Ranch Municipal Utility District on the former O’Quinn River Ranch near Wimberley has stirred up seemingly unanimous opposition in the valley. Depending on whose headcount you believe, between 200 and 400 people turned out at a town hall meeting in Wimberley last week to protest the proposal.

Many of those in attendance had harsh words for State Rep. Jason Isaac — who, to his credit, showed up to take his medicine — and for State Sen. Donna Campbell — who did not show and instead sent an aide to face the music on her behalf. (Here is a colorful account from the venerable, albiet avowedly liberal, Texas Observer.)

But two other major MUDs in Hays County are drawing little to no local notice as they wend their way through the Texas Legislature. One of them, the La Salle MUD in northern San Marcos, would build out at 7,000 homes over the next decade, according to its developers’ projections.

Sponsored by State Sen Judith Zaffirini and Campbell, the La Salle MUD — actually four separate MUDs stretching nearly from Interstate 35 to Texas 21 — were approved on by the Senate on Friday and are awaiting action by the House. State Rep. Jason Isaac’s companion bills have cleared the Special Purposes Districts committee and are presumably headed for a vote by the full House.

View Larger Map

Email Email | Print Print


10 thoughts on “Brad Rollins’ Blog: More MUDs in Hays County (interactive)

  1. What happened to these politicians? They advocated they were going to be for the people and against government obtrusive. They sure had me fooled. Donna you were the darlin’ of the party around Central Texas, now we see the light. Extremely disappointed former supporter.

  2. So what’s the point of this blog – besides reiterrating Isaac’s only defense on the Needmore Ranch MUD, i.e. we filed all those other MUD bills and no one said a word.
    Bucking for a job on his staff as communications director?

  3. It’s just information, Lila, presented in the form of a graphic instead of a story. If there’s a political subtext it is: Donna Campbell isn’t showing many signs of growing into the stature befitting a Texas senator, someone like Jeff Wentworth, for instance. But that was just a passing jab at Campbell, not really “the point.”

    I have a job I love, by the way, and it’s going pretty damn well.

  4. I was at the Wimberley meeting and it was well over 400 people. The point is well detailed in Will Conley’s letter to Isaac and Campbell and if you have not seen that, I’ll send it to you. There is a lot more to this story, it is not just any old MUD. And Mr. LaMantia is not following the law in altering his wells and his land.

  5. Dianne,

    We published Commissioner Conley’s letter as well an an Op/Ed from CARD’s chair as well as publicized the Wimberley community meeting and the Lege hearing several days beforehand. On the other hand, we published Rep. Isaac’s Op/Ed.

    I’m not snipping at you, Dianne. Lila is a professional rebel-without-a-cause-or-compass, in my opinion, and not much else. Anyone would have gotten the impression from her comment that this blog post was the first we’ve done on the Needmore MUD.

  6. We just tried to call on the bill and were advised it is now “local and consent calendar” which means that it will not go up for a vote by the larger body because the local officials want it {this is how it was just explained to us over the phone when we tried to call our officials at the state, very nice person, very helpful!)

    Can someone please help me understand? Brad, I hope you write a blog about this tonight. Since our local officials do not want it.


  7. Dr. Campbell’s office just clarified. We spent some 40 minutes on the phone. Props to her staff. Im sifting thru the issues. Best Regards, LMC

  8. Issac and Campbell are for smaller government, yet they support creating another level of government. They are for less tax, but they wish to create another taxing entity. They are for private property rights, but wish to give this new entity the right of eminent domain.

    Normally I would just call them hypocrites, but not this time; I’ll call them what they are, liars.