A public dispute between Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra and the Hays County Criminal District Attorney’s Office unfolded this week after Becerra’s proposed water-related agenda items failed to secure support at Commissioners Court. The disagreement is documented in two formal letters issued within 24 hours of one another, each sharply disputing the other’s account of what occurred before and during the meeting. The focus of the dispute is whether the county has legal authority to pause or condition development approvals based on projected industrial water use. The exchange comes as Becerra seeks reelection, placing a high-profile groundwater debate within the context of campaign season. 

Hays County Judge Becerra’s Public Statement

In a public statement dated February 25, 2026, Becerra told “Fellow Hays Resident[s]” that he presented “a series of items” at the prior day’s Commissioners Court meeting and that, despite “flowery speeches about water conservation,” other members of the court “chose not to support” efforts he said were designed to slow “industrial projects which use absurd amounts of water.”  Becerra represented the outcome as both disappointing and predictable, writing that “politics continues to direct the votes of some of my fellow Commissioners more than the desires and needs of the residents of Hays County.” He also thanked supporters who contacted the county and appeared in person, saying their message was that “we must do something to stop these heavy water users from draining our groundwater dry.” 

Becerra’s statement then moved from the policy debate to process and legal review. He said a major criticism of his proposals was that “there was no time for our legal team to vet the document,” and he asserted his office sent the Civil Division a draft resolution “four days prior” to the hearing. He also said the Civil Division scheduled an hour-long Teams meeting on Monday, February 23, and that his staff “encouraged input and asked for assistance in crafting the document,” but “no feedback or guidance” was provided until the matter was discussed in open court. 

Becerra also challenged a warning he attributed to county civil attorneys. He wrote he had requested clarification regarding a statement that “the County will get sued and lose” made by a member of the Civil Division, and he said he had not been shown “black letter law” preventing the county from pausing approval of industrial efforts using “over 20,000 gpd of water.” In the same passage, he noted that the county “has delayed projects for months for a myriad of reasons including groundwater issues.”  He concluded that he lacked the votes to pass “any efforts regarding groundwater abuse” but would pursue “alternative measures,” emphasizing in all-caps that he “WILL NOT GIVE UP THIS VITAL EFFORT.”

In the continuation of his February 25, 2026 communication, Becerra listed four next steps. He said he will host a “Clear Water Summit” and has already reached out to groundwater districts and providers. He said he is working with Senator Judith Zaffirini’s office and other lawmakers on “meaningful changes to County authority regarding groundwater conservation and development.” He said he directed Civil Division staff to clarify objections and cite regulations and precedents supporting their opposition, after which he would work on legislation to address those concerns while maintaining an impact on conservation efforts. He also said he is coordinating with other county judges and commissioners statewide to examine existing tools to slow the impact of heavy water users.  Becerra alleged the moment was urgent, writing that “with large industrial water users at our gates, Hays County must demand more from its leaders,” and he pledged to “stand up for you and not the special interests.” 

Clear Water Summit Letter

Also dated February 25, 2026, a separate letter on county judge letterhead addressed “To Whom It May Concern” describes the “Clear Water Summit” in more operational terms. Becerra wrote that, “as the presiding officer and Emergency Management Director of Hays County,” he was formally authorizing “Mr. Mark Key” to assist in outreach to groundwater districts, water supply corporations, municipal utilities, and other water providers operating in Hays County.  The letter states Key has authorization to “contact, convene, and help facilitate participation” in a countywide meeting titled the Clear Water Summit. The stated purpose is to “urgently address current drought conditions, groundwater sustainability, regional water supply coordination, and emergency readiness planning.” Becerra described the matters as “time-sensitive” and “directly tied to public health, safety, and the long-term viability” of shared water resources, and he encouraged relevant entities to cooperate and prioritize participation. 

The District Attorney’s Response

On February 26, 2026, the Hays County Criminal District Attorney’s Office issued a written response addressed to Becerra. The letter, on office letterhead and signed by First Assistant District Attorney Gregg Cox, says it was sent in response to Becerra’s public statement released the prior afternoon and that it was intended to “set the record straight” regarding matters raised by Becerra that “called into question the diligence and integrity” of the Criminal District Attorney’s Office. The letter disputes Becerra’s characterization of the timeline and the substance of attorney input. It says a document was shared with Jordan Powell, identified as the civil first assistant, at about 5:30 p.m. on Friday, February 20, after the office had closed for the week. The letter states that, upon receiving the draft after hours, the Civil Division “promptly provided” Becerra’s office with a legal opinion and requested the Monday, February 23, meeting Becerra referenced. It further says that during that meeting, Becerra’s staff was provided legal advice “from multiple attorneys” in the Civil Division.  The DA’s office then addresses Becerra’s statement that the civil attorneys gave “no feedback or guidance.” The letter says it was apparent—based on Becerra’s comments in Commissioners Court and in his statement—that he “didn’t like the legal advice” given. The letter adds that disliking advice is different from receiving none, and says the office will not comment further about those communications because attorney-client communications are taken seriously and the letter is intended for public release.

A key factual contention in the DA’s response is that the document provided to Commissioners Court during Tuesday’s meeting was not the same one previously provided to the Civil Division. The letter states that the document presented in court was a “different version” than the one Becerra’s office previously shared and “had not been seen or reviewed” by the Civil Division prior to the meeting. According to the letter, even though the document differed, it was determined during the meeting that it “ran afoul” of what counties are legally authorized to enforce regarding development permits.  In that same section, the letter reiterates that legal advice was provided, even if Becerra did not agree with it. 

Becerra’s February 25, statement attributes opposition to politics and suggests legal staff did not support the efforts. The DA’s office response addresses that directly. The letter says the duty of the Criminal District Attorney’s Office is to provide legal advice and counsel to Commissioners Court. It states that when the office is called upon, the guidance is “legal advice and counsel,” and the office is “not political actors” in those situations and is not taking a stance on how the court should vote. The letter says the office’s opinions are based on statutes and legal precedent.  It further states the office does not provide a political opinion on the subject matter and describes its role as ensuring decision makers understand legal ramifications and possible consequences for taxpayers. The letter also references the need for decisions to be “legally defensible” if the Office of the Attorney General or another actor retaliates against the county for Commissioners Court decisions. 

Election Context

The public dispute is unfolding during campaign season as Becerra seeks reelection as Hays County Judge. Water development, drought conditions, and rapid growth have emerged as an important issues in the county, making groundwater policy a focal point in local political discussion. The exchange between the county’s chief executive and its legal advisors adds another dimension to that debate by raising questions about both policy direction and statutory authority.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing about a Texas judge filing a lawsuit over same-sex wedding refusals.

Or you may find our publishing on a TABC agent receiving a stipend for a degree he didn’t hold, of interest. 

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---