A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

What the July 2026 intrusions into U.S. water systems mean for Texas cities — and why this is a budget problem before it is an IT problem

---

What actually happened

On the nights of Sunday, July 26 and Monday, July 27, 2026, someone reached into the control systems of more than thirty community water and wastewater utilities in Minnesota. Minnesota IT Services confirmed on July 28 that the activity was coordinated. Four communities were named publicly: Braham, Plymouth, South St. Paul, and Maple Plain. Braham’s water plant went offline. Plymouth disconnected cellular-connected equipment at two water towers and several wastewater lift stations. Maple Plain declared a local state of emergency. Nobody’s drinking water was contaminated.

By Thursday, July 30, the FBI and EPA had issued a joint public service announcement: water and wastewater utilities in at least seven states had reported intrusions since July 27, and some of that activity degraded operations. The agencies declined to name the states. Michigan later confirmed it was among them, with nine municipal systems reporting problems. Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources sent its utilities an urgent directive the same week. CISA reported that some incidents had produced boil-water notices and forced utilities into sustained manual operation.

As of this writing, no public water supply anywhere in the country has been shown to have been altered or made unsafe.

How they got in — and why it should worry every small city

This was not an exotic attack. That is the point.

The targets were programmable logic controllers — PLCs — the small industrial computers that open a valve, run a pump, hold a tank level, dose a chemical feed. In the affected systems, those controllers were reachable directly from the public internet. The intruders connected to them using the manufacturers’ own engineering software, running on leased hosting infrastructure, then changed device IP addresses and passwords. That locked operators out of their own equipment and stripped them of monitoring and control. In some cases the result was pressure loss and flooding.

CISA’s advisory AA26-097A, first published April 7, 2026 and updated July 22 — four days before the Minnesota incidents — named the specific gear: Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley CompactLogix and Micro850, Schneider Electric Modicon M340, Siemens S7-1200. The July update added a detail worth pausing over: at one confirmed U.S. victim, the attackers modified the controller’s ladder logic to disable safety shutdowns and alarms, so that an unsafe condition could develop without anyone being told.

When the April advisory came out, the security firm Censys counted 5,219 internet-exposed hosts worldwide identifying themselves as Rockwell/Allen-Bradley devices on the standard industrial port. A large share of that exposure traced back not to corporate networks but to cellular carrier connections — which is to say, field equipment. Lift stations. Remote pump houses. Elevated storage tanks. The exact architecture that lets a two-person public works department watch a tank level from a truck at 2 a.m. is the architecture that was exploited.

There was no zero-day here. There was misconfiguration at scale.

On attribution, and the politics of it

Federal officials have said privately that Iran is the leading suspect, consistent with a documented Iranian-affiliated campaign that CISA, FBI, NSA, EPA, DOE, U.S. Cyber Command, and now Treasury have jointly tracked since April. The group has previously been tracked under the CyberAv3ngers alias and tied to the IRGC Cyber Electronic Command — the same actor set implicated in the 2023 Unitronics compromises at U.S. water utilities. There is no apparent financial motive, which argues against ordinary criminals.

Officials have also been careful to say the assessment is preliminary and that definitive forensic proof has not been established. That is normal. Complex intrusion investigations routinely take months, and sometimes never reach a public, authoritative conclusion.

The attribution question became political almost immediately. President Trump publicly rejected the Iran theory and blamed Minnesota’s state government, saying he thought Minnesota was behind it and disputing that an Iranian cyberattack had occurred at all. Governor Tim Walz rejected that and pointed to reductions in federal cyber support. Braham’s mayor, Nate George — a Republican running for state auditor — said federal and local officials on the ground had little doubt about the likely culprit, allowed that the president was entitled to his opinion, and argued the practical obligation now is helping cities harden their defenses.

That last framing is the useful one for those of us who work on city budgets. Whoever turned the knob, the knob was reachable.

Texas has already lived this

In January 2024, a citizen in Muleshoe noticed water pouring off an elevated tank. It was not a stuck valve. Attackers had gotten into the remote login system for the SCADA software through a third-party vendor’s access, and the tank overflowed for roughly 30 to 45 minutes before crews took the machine offline and went to manual. Abernathy had a tank overflow the same period. Hale Center logged something on the order of 37,000 attempts against its firewall over four days and unplugged rather than risk it. Lockney took precautions the same day.

Mandiant attributed the activity to Sandworm, the Russian GRU-linked group, operating through a front calling itself the Cyber Army of Russia Reborn. In July 2024, Treasury sanctioned two of that group’s leaders specifically for the Muleshoe and Abernathy hacks.

Muleshoe has about 5,000 people. Abernathy has under 3,000. Nobody targeted them because they mattered strategically. They were reachable, and that was enough. Security researchers describe this bluntly as adversaries taking low-hanging fruit — vulnerable services sitting directly on the internet.

Texas has been the demonstration case for two years now. The July 2026 wave is the same play run at larger scale by a different flag.

The structural problem is a finance problem

Here is the number that ought to reframe this whole conversation for anyone who works in Texas local government finance.

TCEQ oversees more than 7,000 public water systems serving roughly 29 million Texans. Of 7,053 systems counted in TCEQ’s Sunset self-evaluation, 84% serve fewer than 3,300 people. Of 4,641 community water systems, 3,483 serve fewer than 3,300.

Now set that against federal law. America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, Section 2013 — amending Safe Drinking Water Act §1433 — requires community water systems serving more than 3,300 people to certify a Risk and Resilience Assessment and an Emergency Response Plan to EPA on a five-year cycle, and that cycle explicitly covers cyber threats. Recertification for systems serving 100,000-plus was due March 31, 2025. The 50,000–99,999 tier was due December 31, 2025. The 3,301–49,999 tier — where most Texas cities with a real utility fund actually live — came due June 30, 2026. Five weeks ago.

Everyone below 3,300 has no federal cyber assessment requirement at all. In Texas, that is the overwhelming majority of systems: water supply corporations, small districts, subdivisions, and towns operating with a licensed operator, a part-time clerk, and a SCADA package installed by an integrator a decade ago and touched only when something breaks.

The federal watchdogs have said as much. GAO’s 2024 review found roughly 170,000 U.S. water systems facing cyber risk in an increasingly automated sector. EPA’s Inspector General identified critical- or high-severity vulnerabilities at 97 drinking water systems serving 27 million people.

This is not a technology gap. It is a scale-economics gap. A city of 2,400 cannot carry an OT security program on 800 water connections, and no rate structure that voters will tolerate changes that arithmetic.

Where the regulatory line is moving

EPA tried in 2023 to fold cybersecurity reviews into state sanitary surveys. That rule was stayed in court and withdrawn. The agency has since worked through guidance and existing enforcement authority instead — a May 2024 enforcement alert on cyber gaps, and an October 2025 package including a revised Emergency Response Plan guide, a Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan template, incident-specific checklists, and a procurement checklist.

Meanwhile the states are moving. New York finalized binding cybersecurity regulations for wastewater facilities in March 2026, with mandatory incident reporting effective March 26, 2026, built around EPA’s own guidance incorporated by reference. Wastewater has never been covered by AWIA at all, which makes it the obvious place for states to start. Expect imitation.

At the federal level, CIRCIA will require covered entities — water and wastewater utilities included — to report significant incidents to CISA within 72 hours and ransom payments within 24 hours. Final rules are expected later in 2026. Any utility waiting for the final rule before building a reporting process is choosing to scramble later.

In Texas, the obligations already exist and are older than most people realize:

• 30 TAC §290.46(w) requires public water systems to notify TCEQ immediately, by toll-free number, of unauthorized entry, acts of terrorism, or unauthorized attempts to probe or access proprietary information supporting key activities. The threat hotline is (888) 777-3186.
• Since September 1, 2023, local governments — including municipalities, counties, districts, water authorities, and water supply corporations — must report security incidents to the state within 48 hours of discovery.
• HB 150, signed June 2, 2025, created the Texas Cyber Command as a component of the UT System headquartered in San Antonio, consolidating the cybersecurity functions previously held by the Department of Information Resources. The transfer is phased, with completion required by December 31, 2026. Governor Abbott framed the new agency in part as a response to threats from Iran, Russia, and China against power, water, and communications.
• SB 1034, filed in the 89th session as part of Senator Kevin Sparks’s water package, would have gone considerably further: prohibiting direct internet connection of SCADA systems except through secure VPN, requiring annual employee cyber training, authorizing security assessments and compliance audits, mandating 48-hour incident reporting, and giving retail public utilities access to state network security services, with full SCADA compliance by September 1, 2027. It did not become law. SB 1625, which would have expanded the §290.46(w) reporting list to name cyber threats explicitly, moved through committee but likewise did not reach enactment.

Texas came within one bill of having the strongest water-sector cyber statute in the country. The 90th Legislature convenes in January 2027, and after this summer the politics of that bill look very different.

Now the money — and this is the part cities will not like

The federal funding picture is thinner than the rhetoric suggests.

The State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program — the $1 billion program from the 2021 infrastructure law that states have used to reach small utilities — expired September 30, 2025, along with the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, the law providing liability protection when utilities share threat intelligence. Both were reinstated November 12, 2025 in the shutdown deal, lapsed again briefly, and are currently extended only through September 30, 2026 under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026. Annual SLCGP funding has already fallen sharply: $374,000,000 in FY2023, $279,000,000 in FY2024, $91,750,000 in FY2025. A ten-year reauthorization has passed the House but the program’s future funding level would be set annually through appropriations rather than guaranteed up front.

CISA also stopped funding MS-ISAC, which now charges fees — pushing out precisely the smallest and least-resourced members who benefited most.

What remains: the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds still carry the additional $11.7 billion each from the infrastructure law, and EPA continues to encourage states to fund cyber resilience projects from them. EPA’s Midsize and Large Drinking Water System Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability grant program made roughly $9,500,000 available nationally in its most recent round. Against 170,000 systems, that is a rounding error.

Translated into budget language: this is going on your rate base. Plan accordingly, and do not build a capital program that assumes a grant cycle which keeps landing on the continuing-resolution chopping block.

What belongs in the FY2027 budget

For a Texas city utility fund, the work sorts into things that cost almost nothing and things that need a line item.

Nearly free, do it this month:

• Inventory every internet-reachable OT device, including anything on a cellular modem. Most cities do not actually know. That inventory is also the foundation the RRA, any future state rule, and CIRCIA readiness all silently assume you already have.
• Take PLCs off direct internet exposure. Remote access through a controlled VPN, not an open port.
• Change default and vendor-set device passwords. Require multifactor authentication for remote access.
• Review your integrator and SCADA vendor’s remote access path. Muleshoe was entered through a third-party vendor’s remote login. Contract language matters here as much as firewalls.
• Confirm who calls the TCEQ hotline and who files the 48-hour state report, by name, and make sure they are not the same person who will be running the plant manually that night.

Needs money in the budget:

• Manual-operation capability and drills. Every utility that came through July intact did so by unplugging and running by hand. That is a staffing and training cost, and it is the cheapest resilience you will ever buy.
• Network segmentation between business IT and plant OT.
• Continuous OT monitoring and logging, sized to the system.
• An incident response plan that has actually been exercised with the city manager and at least one council member in the room.
• Cyber coverage review with your risk pool, and a candid look at what your policy excludes for nation-state activity.

And for the smallest systems: regionalization. A wholesale provider or a shared-services arrangement with a larger neighbor can carry an OT security program that 800 connections cannot. That has been the right answer to the small-system problem in Texas for thirty years for operations, compliance, and capital. It is now the right answer for security too.

A closing thought

There is a temptation to file this under exotic threats — foreign intelligence services, industrial control systems, the language of cyberwar. But strip the geopolitics away and what happened in Braham and Muleshoe was mundane. A controller was left where anyone could reach it. A default password was never changed. A vendor’s remote access was never reviewed. Somebody far away tried the door, and the door opened.

Public infrastructure is stewardship in the plainest sense. Somebody built the tank, somebody bonded it, somebody maintains it, and the water is clean tomorrow because a chain of unremarkable people did unremarkable things faithfully. The chain now includes a firewall rule and a password policy. That is not glamorous work, and it will not be in any ribbon-cutting photo. It should be in the budget anyway.

---

Sources

• FBI/EPA joint public service announcement, July 30, 2026
• CISA Advisory AA26-097A, “Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure,” April 7, 2026, updated July 22, 2026
• The New York Times, “Scope of Hacks on U.S. Water Supply Widens as Evidence Points to Iran,” August 1, 2026
• NBC News, Engadget, Government Technology, The Record, Cybersecurity Dive — July 30–31, 2026 coverage
• Tenable, “What water utilities need to know about cybersecurity compliance,” July 30, 2026
• WaterISAC advisory summary on AA26-097A; IOActive analysis, July 2026
• CNN, Texas Tribune, and Lubbock Avalanche-Journal coverage of the Muleshoe, Abernathy, Hale Center, and Lockney incidents, April and July 2024
• TCEQ, 30 TAC §290.46(w); TCEQ Sunset self-evaluation, Chapter IX; TCEQ Homeland Security for PWS
• Texas HB 150 (89R); Texas SB 1034 (89R); Texas SB 1625 (89R)
• GAO-24-106744; EPA Office of Inspector General management implication report on drinking water cybersecurity
• FEMA State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program funding history

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Florida and Texas have spent eight months trying to convert a political judgment into a legal status. The gap between the two is where the Constitution lives.

In American law, terrorist can be three different things: a political accusation, a factual finding in a criminal case, or a formal status created by statute. The campaign against the Council on American-Islamic Relations depends on treating all three as interchangeable.

On November 18, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued Proclamation 41-4241 declaring CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood “foreign terrorist organizations” and “transnational criminal organizations,” barring them from acquiring Texas land and calling for “heightened enforcement.” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis followed in December with Executive Order 25-244. When a federal judge blocked that order in March, Florida rewrote the rules: House Bill 1471, signed April 6, 2026, created a state designation system carrying criminal, corporate, educational, and contracting consequences. It took effect July 1. Within twenty-four hours, DeSantis announced that CAIR was on the list — and CAIR was back in federal court.

CAIR denies supporting terrorism. It has never been federally designated a foreign terrorist organization. That is not a technicality. Congress gave the designation power to the Secretary of State under 8 U.S.C. § 1189 and wrapped it in procedure: findings, classified-record review, notice to Congress, Federal Register publication, revocation and redesignation, and direct review in the D.C. Circuit. A governor’s press conference does not touch that list. There is a federal track running in parallel — an executive order initiating FTO designation of certain Muslim Brotherhood chapters, a domestic-terrorism label for “Antifa,” and bills in Congress to designate CAIR — but that is precisely the point: the federal process exists, and the states are routing around it.

So the dispute presents two questions that officials keep collapsing into one. May a state criticize CAIR, investigate it, and prosecute any crime it can prove? Obviously. May a state build a parallel terrorism regime that punishes a domestic nonprofit — along with its donors, lawyers, employees, students, and landlords — on an executive determination? That is where the constitutional trouble starts.

What has actually happened

Texas moved first and has moved slowest. Attorney General Ken Paxton sued CAIR-affiliated entities in Collin County district court on February 5, 2026, seeking temporary and permanent injunctions to halt their Texas operations under the state’s terrorism ban, its property prohibition for transnational criminal organizations, and its gang and public-nuisance statutes. CAIR’s Texas chapters, represented by the Muslim Legal Fund of America and CAIR’s Legal Defense Fund, sued Abbott and Paxton in the Western District of Texas in November 2025 and moved for a preliminary injunction on January 22, 2026.

That motion has not been decided. What the court has done is grant the state discovery. On May 7, Judge Alan Albright partially granted motions to compel, ordering CAIR to produce records of foreign donors who gave $5,000 or more in any year from 2021 through 2024, records of foreign recipients of $2,500 or more from CAIR over the same period, and itineraries for executive director Nihad Awad’s travel to nine countries between 2019 and 2023. Abbott called it a win; CAIR pointed out that the court had refused his far broader demand for every donor above $5,000 over a decade. Both characterizations are self-serving, and the episode is a reminder that a designation fight is also a compelled-disclosure fight — a domain where the Supreme Court has demanded exacting scrutiny at least since NAACP v. Alabama in 1958, and reaffirmed it in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta in 2021.

Florida moved faster and lost first. Executive Order 25-244 directed state and local agencies to deny contracts, employment, funds, and benefits to CAIR and to anyone providing it “material support,” including “expert advice or assistance.” On March 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker preliminarily enjoined it. His framing was unusually direct: “The question before this Court is whether the Governor can, in a non-emergency situation, unilaterally designate one of the largest Muslim civil rights groups in America as a ‘terrorist organization’ and withhold government benefits from anyone providing material support or resources to the group. This Court finds he cannot.” The evidence of chill was concrete — a production company walked away from a podcast agreement; a federation of Muslim organizations cut CAIR-Florida from a conference. The order was preliminary, not a final judgment on every allegation, and it is now on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.

HB 1471, now Chapter 2026-28, was the response. Most of the bill is not about designation at all: it bars Florida courts from applying “religious law… specifically includ[ing] Sharia law” or foreign law, and its sponsors sold it on that basis. The designation machinery rode along behind. It lets Florida’s Chief of Domestic Security — the head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement — recommend that an organization be designated a domestic or foreign terrorist organization, subject to ratification by the Governor and Cabinet on seven days’ written notice, with publication in the Florida Administrative Register and review every five years. The consequences are not symbolic. Knowingly providing material support to a designated group is a felony punishable by up to thirty years, whether or not the support was meant to further anything unlawful, and Florida defines material support to include “any property… or service,” expressly including “expert advice or assistance.” Because the statute reaches anyone who “work[s] under the direction and control” of a designated group, its own staff could face felony exposure for continuing to do their jobs. A designated organization is also treated as a “criminal gang” under Chapter 874. Public colleges must expel students who “promote” a designated group in ways deemed to support violence; private schools taking state money may not hire anyone “affiliated with” one, a term the law leaves undefined. A designated group gets thirty days to sue in the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County — while a companion public-records exemption limits its access to the evidence used against it. Once challenges are exhausted, the state may move to dissolve the organization, though that power reaches only Florida-incorporated nonprofits, not the D.C.-organized CAIR Foundation.

On July 1, FDLE Commissioner Mark Glass recommended designating CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and “Antifa,” alongside more than ninety foreign entities already designated by the federal government — Tren de Aragua, the Sinaloa and Gulf cartels, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The padding is telling: for ninety-odd groups the state is mirroring a federal list built through federal process; the novelty is the domestic additions. CAIR and CAIR-Florida sued within hours, represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, the SPLC, Akeel & Valentine, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore. Judge Walker denied immediate emergency relief, holding that he needed further briefing and proof that officials were actually following through. As of mid-July, they were not: the Cabinet had not met, FDLE’s implementing rules were unfinished, and the state told the court it could not give a timeline. The parties were due to report back on July 22. The designation, in other words, has been announced but not imposed — which is itself a fact about how these regimes work. The label does its damage on the day of the press conference.

The doctrinal problem

Supporters of state designation point to Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, where the Supreme Court upheld the federal material-support ban even as applied to speech coordinated with designated foreign groups. But the opinion contains a sentence its state-level admirers rarely quote: the Court “do[es] not suggest that Congress could extend the same prohibition on material support at issue here to domestic organizations.” The holding rested on the foreign-affairs and national-security posture of federal designation. Lifting the phrase “material support,” attaching it to a domestic nonprofit selected by a politically accountable state official, and assuming the analysis carries over is not a small extension. It is the precise move the Court reserved.

The associational doctrine points the same direction. In United States v. Robel, the Court struck down a bar on Communist-organization members working at defense facilities because it “sweeps indiscriminately across all types of association.” In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, it refused to impose liability on nonviolent boycott participants because some in the movement had committed unlawful acts, observing that “guilt by association is a philosophy alien to the traditions of a free society.” Liability requires knowledge of and specific intent to further a group’s unlawful ends. Penalties keyed to “membership,” “affiliation,” or “promotion” do not.

Then there is NRA v. Vullo, decided unanimously in 2024. A New York regulator had pressed insurers and banks to cut ties with the NRA. The Court, building on Bantam Books v. Sullivan, held that government may not use official power to coerce third parties into punishing a disfavored speaker. Walker’s March order was, in substance, a Vullo case: the injury was not what Florida said about CAIR but what Florida told everyone else to do about CAIR. The rule protects the NRA and CAIR on identical terms, which is the point.

Vagueness and due process compound the problem. What does it mean to be “affiliated with” a designated organization? To “promote” one? Fair notice is a constitutional minimum where criminal liability attaches, and it is hard to supply when the evidentiary basis for the designation is itself shielded from disclosure. Secret evidence and post-deprivation review are sometimes defensible in genuine emergencies. They are harder to defend against a thirty-year-old American nonprofit after years of public political conflict.

Federalism supplies the last limit. States prosecute local crime; the national government conducts foreign relations. A state list of “foreign terrorist organizations” that supplements or contradicts the federal one invites preemption and dormant foreign-affairs challenges — Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council is the obvious analogy. Calling a nonprofit organized under District of Columbia law “foreign” does not fix that.

The model is spreading

Florida and Texas are not isolated. Indiana enacted Senate Bill 256 in March 2026, letting the Governor designate domestic groups and individuals as “affiliates” of federally designated foreign terrorist organizations on a “more likely than not” standard, after Attorney General civil investigative demands. “Affiliate” includes anyone who “acts or acted in any capacity at the order or request” of an FTO — language that could reach purely expressive activity. Designated entities lose state funds, employment, and tax exemption.

Arizona’s HB 2808 would authorize designation where a group’s “ideological alignment demonstrates documented ideological, operational or advocacy alignment” with a federally designated entity — a standard that manages to be circular and boundless at once. Oklahoma has considered two versions of the idea, one keyed to state-law “terrorism,” one to federal designation.

Louisiana is the useful counterexample. SB 388 as introduced would have let the governor designate U.S.-based “foreign terrorist organizations” and imposed contractor certification requirements with long debarment. What passed, effective June 3, 2026, is two pages: it authorizes the division of administration to review whether state contracts are held by a foreign adversary, a federally designated foreign terrorist organization, or their agents. No new designation power, no new list. Keying consequences to an existing federal designation raises far fewer foreign-affairs and procedural problems than a governor-created blacklist, though it can still be applied unconstitutionally.

Not only a Republican temptation

On September 3, 2019, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors declared the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” and urged the city to reassess contractors doing business with it. The NRA sued six days later. Mayor London Breed and City Attorney Dennis Herrera then issued a joint memo confirming that the resolution “does not impose duties on City departments, change any of the City’s existing laws or policies,” and that “no department will take steps to assess the relationships between City contractors and the NRA.” The NRA dismissed its suit that November, and both sides claimed victory.

That episode is worth remembering precisely because the politics run the other way. A blacklist built for one enemy is precedent for the next administration’s. Muslim civil-rights groups, gun-rights organizations, racial-justice movements, abortion-rights and anti-abortion networks, environmental activists, and labor organizers will not all hold power at once. Constitutional rules have to survive the rotation.

Governments already have less theatrical tools: state terrorism offenses, conspiracy, racketeering, charitable-fraud enforcement, sanctions compliance, prosecution for threats, arson, or homicide. Texas’s own Civil Practice and Remedies Code already authorizes injunctions against foreign terrorist organizations — but it requires the state to prove the elements in court, which is presumably why a proclamation was more attractive.

The allegations still matter — but labels are not proof

None of this makes CAIR immune from scrutiny. In May 2007, prosecutors publicly filed a list of 246 unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case; CAIR was on it. Five HLF leaders were convicted of terrorism financing on retrial in November 2008. CAIR was never charged or tried. In 2009 the district court, unsealing an opinion in the dispute over the list, wrote that the government had produced ample evidence of associations among CAIR, other named groups, HLF, and Hamas — but held that publishing the list violated the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the due-process holding in 2010 and pointedly added that those findings “do not amount to a ruling” that the named organizations took part in a criminal conspiracy.

DeSantis has leaned heavily on that 2007 list. It is a strange foundation on which to build a designation, given that both courts to consider it held that publishing the list was itself a violation of due process.

Nihad Awad’s November 2023 remark that he was “happy to see” Gazans “breaking the siege” on October 7 drew a condemnation from the Biden White House; Awad said he was describing rights under international law and that targeting civilians is never acceptable. These are fair subjects for reporting, debate, donor judgment, and — given evidence of a crime — investigation. They do not establish the elements of an offense, and they do not make a supporter, a landlord, or a law student a felon.

Better options

Officials genuinely worried about terrorism have more durable tools. Investigate conduct, not identity, and apply the same evidentiary threshold to Muslim, white-supremacist, anti-government, and left-wing suspects alike. Go to court early: asset restraints, dissolution, and funding cutoffs should follow an adversarial hearing, not a press release. Write narrow definitions tied to intentional assistance for specified violent acts, with carve-outs for advocacy, journalism, legal representation, humanitarian work, worship, and scholarship. Build real review — notice, disclosure of unclassified evidence, a response period, a written decision, time limits, and expedited appeal. Screen vendors for sanctions violations and demonstrated risk under published, viewpoint-neutral rules, not ideological disassociation. And fund what actually reduces harm: threat-assessment teams, hate-crime reporting, victim services, protective security grants.

Residents can apply a short test to any designation: What statute authorizes it? What conduct — not rhetoric — is alleged? What is the burden of proof? Who reviews the evidence? Can the organization respond before penalties attach? Would this official accept the same power in an opponent’s hands?

The bottom line

States are not powerless against terrorism. They can investigate, prosecute, regulate, contract, and coordinate with federal authorities. What they cannot do is substitute proclamation for proof.

A terrorism label wins a news cycle. A conduct-based case, tested before an independent judge under clear law, is what the Constitution requires. If the evidence is real, the government should be willing to prove it. If it is not, the label is not public-safety policy. It is a blacklist.

---

Sources and further reading

• Texas Proclamation 41-4241 (Nov. 18, 2025) and the Governor’s announcement
• Florida Executive Order 25-244
• Order granting preliminary injunction, CAIR v. DeSantis (N.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2026)
• Florida HB 1471 (2026) — text, history, and analyses
• ICNL, State-Level Terrorism Designation Laws and U.S. Nonprofits (May 2026)
• Florida Phoenix: DeSantis announces CAIR designation (July 1, 2026) and designation delayed (July 14, 2026)
• ACLU case page, CAIR Foundation v. DeSantis
• Complaint, CAIR Texas v. Abbott (W.D. Tex.)
• Texas AG announcement of suit against CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood
• Indiana SEA 256 (2026) · Arizona HB 2808 · Louisiana SB 388, enacted as Act 764 (2026) · Oklahoma SB 1784 · Oklahoma SB 1536
• 8 U.S.C. § 1189 (federal FTO designation)
• NRA v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024) · Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) · NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886 (1982) · United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967) · Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000)
• Fifth Circuit opinion in the Holy Land Foundation appeal (2010) and summary of the unindicted co-conspirator ruling
• CNN: White House condemns CAIR director’s October 7 comments (Dec. 8, 2023)
• Courthouse News: NRA drops suit over San Francisco “terror group” resolution and SF Examiner on Mayor Breed’s memo

This article is general legal analysis, not legal advice. The Florida and Texas cases are active as of July 31, 2026. The parties in the Florida designation case were due to report to the district court on July 22; the outcome of that report was not publicly available at press time. The March 4 preliminary injunction is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit (No. 26-10735), and the Texas preliminary-injunction motion filed January 22 remains undecided. Later rulings may change the analysis.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

A Georgia father goes to prison, and a decade of legal doctrine finally has a spine

On the morning of July 30, 2026, a 55-year-old man in an orange-and-white striped county jail uniform stood in a Barrow County courtroom in Winder, Georgia, and listened to Superior Court Judge Nicholas Primm tell him something no American parent had ever heard from a bench in quite this way.p

“It is clear you failed as a parent,” Primm said. “The weight of your crimes is tethered and tied to the acts of someone else, your son.”

Colin Gray was sentenced to 15 years in prison. His son Colt had been sentenced two days earlier to life without parole for walking into Apalachee High School on September 4, 2024, and killing two 14-year-old students, Mason Schermerhorn and Christian Angulo, and two teachers, Richard Aspinwall and Cristina Irimie, while wounding several more. Colt was 14 years old on the day of the shooting. The rifle was a Christmas gift from his father.

Colin Gray is the first parent in the United States convicted of murder for a school shooting committed by his child.

What the jury actually found

This distinction matters enormously, and it is the part most likely to get lost in the headlines.

A Barrow County jury convicted Gray in March 2026 on 27 counts — two counts of second-degree murder for the two students, two counts of involuntary manslaughter for the two teachers, plus reckless conduct and cruelty to children. Judge Primm was explicit at sentencing that these were crimes of negligence. Gray was never accused of knowing his son’s plan, helping to plan it, or wanting it to happen. He was convicted for what he failed to do: he bought a 14-year-old an AR-15-style rifle, left it accessible, and did not act on an accumulating record of warnings about the boy’s deteriorating mental state.

“You didn’t get him mental health counseling when it was obvious he needed some,” Primm said. “None of those failures helped your case, but those aren’t why you were convicted.”

That is a narrow and carefully drawn holding, and prosecutors around the country will read it that way. It is not a theory that parents are responsible for whatever their children do. It is a theory that a specific chain of adult decisions — arming a minor, leaving the weapon unsecured, ignoring escalating red flags — can constitute criminal negligence when children die at the other end of it.

The gap between 80 years and 15

District Attorney Brad Smith asked for 80 years. Gray faced a theoretical maximum of 180. His defense asked for 20 years with 10 to serve. Primm imposed 15 years on each second-degree murder count, 10 years on each reckless conduct count, and 10 years for cruelty to children, all running concurrently rather than stacked.

The result landed much closer to the defense’s request than the prosecution’s, and several family members of the victims told reporters afterward that they found it too lenient. Smith had argued in court that Gray was the reason four people are dead, seven were injured, and a 16-year-old boy will die in prison.

Primm addressed that tension directly. “My heart aches for everyone that was there that day,” he told the families. Then: “The law requires that I set aside emotion. I don’t get to sentence with passion.”

Defense attorney Brian Hobbs has said he plans to appeal, which would go to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Nothing here is finally settled.

The line of cases behind it

Colin Gray did not arrive out of nowhere. He is the sixth or seventh significant American case in eight years, and the pattern is worth laying out because the trend line is unmistakable — and so are its limits.

Illinois, 2018 — Jeffrey Reinking. Returned an AR-15 to his son Travis after Illinois State Police revoked the son’s firearm owner’s ID card and after Travis had been hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation. Travis killed four people at a Nashville Waffle House in April 2018. The father was convicted in 2022 of illegal delivery of a firearm to a person treated for mental illness within five years, sentenced to 18 months in March 2023, and lost his appeal in 2024.

Illinois, 2022 — Robert Crimo Jr. Sponsored his 19-year-old son’s firearm application months after police had responded to reports of a suicide attempt and a threat to kill family members. His son killed seven people at the Highland Park Fourth of July parade. Crimo Jr. pleaded guilty in November 2023 to seven misdemeanor counts of reckless conduct: 60 days in jail, two years probation, 100 hours of community service, surrender of his own FOID card and firearms. He served 27 days.

Michigan, 2021 — James and Jennifer Crumbley. The landmark case. Their son Ethan killed four students at Oxford High School with a pistol they bought him days earlier, after school officials called them in the morning of the shooting over his violent drawings and they declined to take him home. Each parent was convicted at a separate trial in early 2024 of four counts of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced in April 2024 to 10 to 15 years. They are still litigating. A judge denied new trials in June 2025, and the Michigan Supreme Court declined to release Jennifer Crumbley on bond pending appeal in July 2025.

Virginia, 2023 — Deja Taylor. Her 6-year-old son took her handgun from a dresser to Richneck Elementary in Newport News and shot his first-grade teacher, Abby Zwerner. Taylor drew 21 months in federal prison on a drug-and-firearm count and two years in state prison for felony child neglect. She was released in May 2026.

Wisconsin, 2024 — Jeffrey Rupnow. The live case. His 15-year-old daughter Natalie killed a teacher and a student at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison in December 2024 before killing herself. Rupnow had bought her the handguns and, by his own statement to investigators, told her the combination to the gun safe was his Social Security number entered backward. He faces two felony counts of intentionally providing a dangerous weapon to a minor causing death and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a child — a combined maximum of 18 years. A Dane County judge refused to dismiss, and a state appeals court denied his challenge on July 8, 2026. Trial is set for March 2027.

Where the doctrine stops

Anyone tempted to read Winder as an unlimited expansion of criminal liability should look at Newport News two months earlier.

Ebony Parker, the assistant principal at Richneck Elementary on the day Zwerner was shot, faced eight felony child neglect counts — one for each bullet in the gun. Prosecutors argued she had both the authority to act and knowledge of the crisis, and did nothing. On May 21, 2026, on the fourth day of trial and after 16 witnesses, Circuit Judge Rebecca Robinson struck all eight counts before the case reached the jury.

“The court is of the legal opinion that this is not a crime,” Robinson said, “not under the common law of Virginia, nor under the code of Virginia.”

Robinson’s ruling is the boundary marker. Courts have proven willing to criminalize the conduct of the adult who put the gun in the child’s hands. They have been considerably less willing to criminalize the conduct of the adult who merely failed to catch it downstream. Parker still faces the consequences of a $10 million civil verdict, which is exactly the point: the civil system and the criminal system are drawing the line in different places, on purpose.

The Texas question

Here is where this gets uncomfortably close to home, and where I think Texans ought to pay attention.

Texas has a safe-storage statute. Penal Code Section 46.13, “Making a Firearm Accessible to a Child,” has been on the books since 1995 and has not been amended since 1999. It makes it an offense to leave a readily dischargeable firearm where a person with criminal negligence knew or should have known a child would gain access.

The penalty is a Class C misdemeanor. If the child actually discharges the weapon and causes death or serious bodily injury, it rises to a Class A misdemeanor — a maximum of one year in county jail and a $4,000 fine. The statute defines “child” as a person younger than 17, which is why it did not reach the Santa Fe High School shooting in May 2018, where the 17-year-old shooter used his father’s shotgun and pistol. The statute also carries four affirmative defenses and a provision barring arrest of a family member for seven days.

Compare the arithmetic. Georgia gave a prosecutor a path to second-degree murder and a jury gave him 27 convictions. Wisconsin gives a prosecutor felony counts carrying 18 years. Texas, on its firearms statute alone, gives a prosecutor one year in county jail. A Texas district attorney facing an identical set of facts would have to build the case on general homicide provisions — criminally negligent homicide is a state jail felony, 180 days to two years — because the firearms-specific offense is a misdemeanor and therefore cannot serve as the predicate felony for felony murder. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but the structural gap is not subtle, and any Texas legislator who wants to close it knows exactly which section number to pull up.

What this actually means for the people who have to act

For law enforcement, prosecutors, school administrators, and the ordinary citizens who keep noticing things and wondering whether to say something, I think the Apalachee sentencing carries four practical lessons.

Documentation is the whole case. Every one of these convictions was built on a paper trail: text messages, therapy records, school counselor notes, police reports, purchase receipts, safe combinations described to investigators. The prosecutions that succeeded were the ones where somebody wrote it down. The warning was not new information on the day of the shooting; it was the accumulated weight of things that had already been recorded.

Criminal negligence is a real standard, not a rhetorical one. Judge Primm convicted a man who was not accused of wanting anyone dead. That is a genuine shift, and it is a shift that took roughly eight years and a half-dozen prosecutions to establish.

The deterrent runs upstream, not downstream. The message these cases send is aimed at the adult standing in the gun store in December, not at the school employee triaging a chaotic Tuesday morning. Ebony Parker’s dismissal makes that division of labor explicit.

And the sentence itself is a caution against triumphalism. Fifteen concurrent years, with families in the gallery who wanted 80, is what accountability looks like when a judge is doing his job rather than expressing the community’s grief. Gray will likely appeal. The Crumbleys are still appealing two years on. This is not a finished body of law; it is a body of law being built one hard case at a time.

Apalachee High School’s first day of classes was the day after the sentencing.

---

Sources

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CNN, NBC News, CBS News, Fox News, Al Jazeera, WSB-TV, and Georgia Public Broadcasting reporting on the Colin Gray sentencing, July 30, 2026. Michigan Public Radio, Courthouse News, and CBS Detroit on the Crumbley prosecutions and appeals. CBS Chicago, ABC7 Chicago, and BBC on Robert Crimo Jr. Associated Press, Washington Post, and WKRN on Jeffrey Reinking. Wisconsin Public Radio, PBS Wisconsin, Spectrum News, and AP on Jeffrey Rupnow. CNN, NBC News, WAVY, and VPM on the Ebony Parker dismissal. Texas Penal Code Section 46.13 and PolitiFact Texas on the statute’s scope.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

On Tuesday, July 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge David Hittner permanently enjoined the City of Houston from enforcing the race-conscious portion of a contracting program the city had operated since 1984. The Midtown Management District, whose board is appointed by the mayor and council, was enjoined on the same terms.

For anyone who works in Texas municipal procurement, finance, or economic development, this is not a Houston story. It is the latest entry in an eighteen-month sequence that has already redrawn state and federal contracting rules, and it arrives with a set of practical questions that every city, county, EDC, and special district in Texas should be able to answer.

What the court actually decided

Gerald (“Jerry”) and Theresa Thompson own Landscape Consultants of Texas and Metropolitan Landscape Management. Their workforce is predominantly Hispanic. Their ownership is white, which excluded them from Houston’s Minority, Women and Small Business Enterprise program and required them to subcontract portions of work they were qualified to self-perform. Represented at no charge by the Pacific Legal Foundation, they filed suit in September 2023, roughly two months after the Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

Hittner denied all summary judgment motions in February 2025 and tried the case to the bench over four days in December 2025. His findings of fact and conclusions of law, entered this week, describe the decision as the first to extend the SFFA framework to municipal public contracting.

The reasoning is narrow and it matters. Under strict scrutiny, a government using racial classifications must identify concrete, particularized discrimination and show that the racial remedy is necessary to correct it. Hittner found that Houston had not done so. He pointed to testimony from the city’s own expert that Houston’s 2024 disparity study identified no specific instances of intentional discrimination by city officials or employees in recent years, and that the city had disciplined no one for contracting discrimination. General statistical underutilization, standing alone, did not carry the burden.

That holding is not new law so much as a hard application of old law. City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. has required exactly this since 1989: strict scrutiny, evidence of identified discrimination, serious consideration of race-neutral alternatives, and narrow tailoring. What SFFA changed is the appetite of federal courts to enforce Croson without slack.

What survived

The injunction reaches the race-based components only. Houston and the Midtown district may continue to direct contracts toward small businesses and women-owned businesses. City Attorney Arturo Michel confirmed the city is evaluating an appeal, stated that the ruling does not disturb the city’s Small Business Enterprise Program, and said Houston will abide by the decision as to existing and recently awarded contracts pending further order.

That severability is the single most useful fact in the opinion for other Texas jurisdictions. Programs built as a single undifferentiated ordinance are exposed in full. Programs with a clean architectural separation between small-business provisions and race-conscious provisions can lose the second without losing the first.

The dollars in dispute

Houston awarded roughly $2,500,000,000 in construction, professional services, goods, and other services contracts in fiscal year 2025. Of that, $579,000,000 went to firms certified under the MWSBE program across more than 1,600 separate contracts. Within that $579,000,000, Hispanic-owned firms received 34%, Asian-owned firms 22%, firms owned by white women 17%, and Black-owned firms 14%.

Those percentages explain why the city’s own 2025 council debate was complicated. The disparity study that preceded the trial found no disparity for Asian- and Hispanic-owned firms in certain spending categories, and disparities across all categories for Black-owned firms. Council accepted the study results, declined to narrow the program, and added a veteran-owned small business certification. Mayor John Whitmire argued at the time that visible consensus mattered for the coming litigation.

The reaction, from both directions

Erin Wilcox of the Pacific Legal Foundation framed the outcome as equal protection applying to everyone, and said the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees every owner the same shot at a public contract regardless of race.

Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis, who championed the Houston program four decades ago, said the disparities documented then still exist today and that the decision falls hardest on family firms and small contractors. U.S. Rep. Christian Menefee described it as part of a sustained campaign against tools that minority and women business owners use to compete. Carol Guess, chair of the Texas Association of African-American Chambers of Commerce, warned that the greater risk is other municipalities preemptively dismantling their programs to avoid the cost of a court fight.

That last concern is the one with the most direct operational relevance, because it is already happening, and it started before this ruling.

The statewide landscape this ruling landed in

Texas municipal contracting policy has been under simultaneous pressure from three directions since mid-2025.

State level. On October 28, 2025, Acting Comptroller Kelly Hancock suspended all new and renewed Historically Underutilized Business certifications pending legal review, citing Governor Abbott’s January executive order. On December 2, 2025, his office issued emergency rules restructuring the HUB program as VetHUB, limited to businesses owned by veterans with a service-connected disability of 20% or higher. On January 6, 2026, more than 15,000 minority- and women-owned firms were decertified, leaving roughly 500 certified businesses statewide. For scale, HUB firms held 3,634 contracts worth more than $4,000,000,000 in 2024.

Four businesses and a statewide trade association sued Hancock in Travis County district court on March 2, 2026, arguing that the Comptroller exceeded his statutory authority under Government Code Chapter 2161, bypassed the Administrative Procedure Act, and violated Texas constitutional protections including separation of powers. Two more businesses joined on March 13. On April 14, 2026, the court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered the six named plaintiffs reinstated. Other decertified firms were not automatically restored. Permanent VetHUB rules took effect May 12, 2026. The merits remain undecided.

Note the political detail: the 89th Legislature considered and declined to pass bills eliminating the HUB program in the 2025 session. The plaintiffs’ separation-of-powers claim rests squarely on that fact.

Federal transportation. On October 3, 2025, USDOT issued an Interim Final Rule eliminating the race- and sex-based rebuttable presumption of social and economic disadvantage from the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise and Airport Concession DBE programs. Owners must now demonstrate individualized disadvantage by narrative. Every Unified Certification Program entity must recertify its existing DBE roster, and DBE contract goals are prohibited until recertification is complete. On March 19, 2026, the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed Mid-America Milling Co. v. USDOT as moot, since the rule gave the plaintiffs everything they had asked for, and dissolved the September 2024 preliminary injunction. This reaches TxDOT-funded local projects, DART, Metro, Capital Metro, VIA, and every commercial service airport in the state.

Federal grant conditions. Executive Order 14173 pushed a separate wave, tied not to litigation risk but to grant eligibility. Fort Worth’s council voted 7 to 4 on August 5, 2025, to suspend the Business Equity Ordinance, MWBE requirements in economic development incentive policies, and the standalone Diversity and Inclusion department, after staff warned that roughly $277,100,000 in federal grants was at risk. The city manager estimated a property tax rate increase of about four cents per $100 of valuation would be required to replace that revenue. Fort Worth replaced the program with a Small Business Development Program offering a 5% bid preference on contracts up to $100,000 and a 30% utilization target above that threshold.

Dallas suspended its Business Inclusion and Development Policy in June 2025 and is standing up the Developing Regional and Inclusive Vendor Enterprises framework, a small-business-focused policy grounded in a market utilization study rather than a disparity study, with first-look access, a small business directory, and bonding and technical assistance. Dallas receives roughly $305,000,000 annually in federal grants.

San Antonio discontinued the M/WBE component of its SBEDA program, which had operated since 1989, in late 2025. The city’s 2023 disparity study had found that minority- and women-owned firms accounted for 53% of city-funded contract payments.

Austin, as of late 2025, took the position that its MBE/WBE Procurement Program remained active and compliant, and issued public notice that the state HUB suspension did not affect the city program. That position is now the outlier among the large Texas cities and deserves watching.

Still pending. The Pacific Legal Foundation’s parallel suit against Harris County remains live. Interim County Attorney Abbie Kamin noted that MWBE participation in county contracts rose from 9% to nearly 30% over four years, with nearly $400,000,000 of $1,500,000,000 in program-eligible contracts going to MWBE firms. PLF has publicly identified Port Houston, Metro, Harris Health System, and Houston ISD as entities with comparable programs.

What this means operationally

A district court judgment binds the parties. Hittner’s ruling controls Houston and the Midtown Management District. It is not binding precedent on other Texas cities, and it may go to the Fifth Circuit. But a fully tried case with findings of fact, in the Southern District of Texas, applying SFFA to municipal contracting, is persuasive authority that opposing counsel will cite in the next filing. The practical question for a city manager or finance director is no longer whether the program is defensible in theory. It is whether the city wants to fund the defense.

A short checklist for Texas jurisdictions:

1. Inventory every place a racial, ethnic, or sex-based classification appears. This is broader than the procurement ordinance. Check EDC and CDC incentive policies, Chapter 380 and 381 agreements, bond program participation goals, developer agreements, grant subrecipient terms, and standard contract boilerplate. Fort Worth’s action reached its economic development incentive policy, not just its purchasing rules.
2. Confirm severability. If race-conscious provisions are struck, does the small-business framework survive on its own text? Houston’s did. Ordinances drafted as a single integrated scheme may not.
3. Stop treating a disparity study as a safe harbor. Hittner’s ruling turned in part on the city’s own expert conceding that the 2024 study identified no specific instances of intentional discrimination. Statistical underutilization was the evidentiary foundation of nearly every MWBE program in the state, and this decision holds that it is not sufficient by itself.
4. Build out the race-neutral tools that actually move participation. Contract unbundling, bonding and insurance assistance, prompt payment and mobilization advances, reduced prior-experience thresholds, local and small business preferences, mentor-protégé structures, and best-value evaluation. These are defensible, they are what Croson asked jurisdictions to try first, and they are what Dallas and Fort Worth are now leaning on.
5. Plan for certification churn. Firms are moving among NCTRCA, SCTRCA, the DFW Minority Supplier Development Council, the Women’s Business Council Southwest, SBA size standards, and the federal DBE recertification queue. Vendor lists, reciprocity provisions, and compliance reporting all need review, and small vendors will need help navigating it.
6. Watch three dockets. The Houston appeal, if the city files. The Travis County HUB case on the merits. The PLF suit against Harris County.

The honest bottom line

Whatever a given official thinks about the merits of race-conscious contracting, the compliance environment has changed materially and in one direction. Between the state’s VetHUB restructuring, USDOT’s elimination of the DBE presumption, federal grant conditions, and now a tried-and-decided federal judgment applying SFFA to a municipal program, the legal position of race-conscious municipal contracting in Texas is substantially weaker in July 2026 than it was in June 2025.

The programs that survive this period are going to be the ones built on small business size standards, local presence, and capacity building, with the goals grounded in market availability rather than racial classification. Cities that have not yet done that inventory should start it before the next bid package goes out.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

What the fight over data centers reveals about the fastest, cheapest way to make people love each other

---

There is a moment, early in almost every land-use fight, when a stranger becomes a friend.

It happens in a folding chair. Someone leans over during the third hour of a zoning hearing and says something like can you believe this guy, and the person next to them — a person they have never met, whose politics they’d have found repellent at a dinner party — says no. No I cannot. And something clicks into place that would have taken a year of shared hobbies to build.

Social psychologists have a name for what just happened, and a body of evidence about how well it works. In 2006, Jennifer Bosson, Amber Johnson, Kate Niederhoffer and William Swann published a paper with the deceptively cheerful title Interpersonal chemistry through negativity. Across two surveys and an experiment, they found that discovering you share a negative attitude about a third party predicts liking a stranger more strongly than discovering you share a positive one — at least where the attitudes are not already strongly held. Shared dislike is a faster solvent than shared affection. It draws the in-group boundary in one stroke, flatters both parties, and — because most people are careful about voicing contempt — signals a level of candor that ordinary agreement doesn’t.

The paper’s most unsettling finding is the last one: participants seemed largely unaware the effect was operating on them.

I want to trace that effect through a live case — the American fight over AI data centers — because it is unusually well documented, unusually fast-moving, and because it has now run far enough to show you the whole arc. Not the arc from apathy to activism. The arc from activism to something else.

A note on method: the specific incidents below are real and sourced. The folding-chair scene above, and the composite passages marked as such, are illustrative — assembled from the recurring texture of these fights rather than any single meeting.

---

Stage one: the lawn sign

The mildest form of the bond is a sign.

Drive through Loudoun County, or Mason County, Kentucky, or the ring roads outside Atlanta, and you’ll see them: hand-lettered, coroplast, a mix of fonts that betrays a dozen different households ordering from a dozen different print shops. NO DATA CENTER. The Soufan Center, which has spent a year monitoring anti-data-center discourse, notes almost as an aside that you now see these signs from the highway across large stretches of the country.

A sign is a low-cost, high-visibility declaration of the boundary. It says: there is a we, and you can tell who’s in it. It is also, crucially, an invitation. Two neighbors who have exchanged nothing but nods for eleven years now have a subject.

The grievances underneath are not manufactured. Water consumption and contamination, electricity costs shifted onto ratepayers, grid strain, noise, the loss of farmland, eminent domain for transmission lines that serve the facility rather than the town. A Gallup poll in May 2026 found roughly seven in ten Americans oppose a data center being built in their area — higher opposition than for a nuclear plant. Data Center Watch counted at least 75 projects worth around $130 billion blocked or delayed by local opposition in the first quarter of 2026 alone.

This is what functioning civic life looks like. People noticing an imposition and organizing against it. Nothing in what follows should be read as a claim that the grievance is fake.

The claim is narrower, and stranger: the grievance is not what does most of the bonding work. The enemy does.

---

Stage two: the twenty-seven-hour meeting

On the morning of December 12, 2023, the Prince William County Board of Supervisors in Virginia opened a hearing on the Digital Gateway — a 2,100-acre data center campus proposed for the corridor between the Manassas National Battlefield and Conway Robinson State Forest.

The meeting ran more than twenty-seven hours, ending in the late morning of December 13. More than two hundred people spoke, in person and online. The final vote was 4–3, with one abstention, in favor.

Twenty-seven hours is not a deliberative procedure. It is an initiation rite.

Consider what it does to the people in the room. Sleep deprivation. Shared physical discomfort. A visible out-group at the front of the room with the power to ignore you. Repeated public testimony in which each speaker restates the collective position in their own words — a mechanism social psychologists have studied since Stoner’s 1961 “risky shift” finding, generalized by Moscovici and Zavalloni in 1969 under the heading of group polarization: when like-minded people deliberate together, they don’t average toward the middle. They move further out. Cass Sunstein calls the specific case of self-selected like-minded groups enclave deliberation, and the pattern is robust — the enclave exits more extreme than any individual entered.

Twenty-seven hours of enclave deliberation, capped by a 4–3 loss, is close to an optimal recipe for converting a policy disagreement into an identity.

The Digital Gateway rezoning was later voided in Circuit Court, upheld unanimously by the Virginia Court of Appeals in March 2026, and the project finally died in July 2026 when the last developer withdrew its appeal. The opponents won. But by then the coalition they’d built had long outgrown the parcel it was built to defend.

---

Stage three: the enemy of my enemy sits down next to me

Here is where the bonding effect starts producing things that ought to be impossible.

The anti-data-center coalition in 2026 includes Democratic Socialists of America chapters and Steve Bannon. It includes Extinction Rebellion and Marjorie Taylor Greene. An activist group called Humans First, which organized a national day of protest, was reportedly seeded by AI-safety-motivated effective altruists and then handed off to America First conservatives — a lineage that makes no sense on any conventional political axis.

A DSA organizer in Corpus Christi, describing on a national call what she was hearing from self-described “MAGA mommies” in her area, relayed it about as plainly as the psychology allows:

“I’m not scared of the socialists. I have more in common with them than I do with any of the people making these decisions.”

That is a socialist’s account of what a conservative told her, which makes it a paraphrase filtered through an ally who was recently an opponent — and that fact is itself the evidence. The sentence had to travel across the old boundary to reach us.

Read that again as a technical statement. She is describing a re-categorization — Gaertner and Dovidio’s common in-group identity model, in which two previously antagonistic groups dissolve their boundary by discovering a superordinate one. It is one of the most reliable interventions in the prejudice-reduction literature. It is, in most contexts, a good thing.

The catch is that the superordinate identity here is defined negatively. The new “we” is not people who want X. It is people who are not the people making these decisions. And a group defined by what it is against has no internal mechanism for deciding when it has gotten what it wants.

Muzafer Sherif demonstrated both halves of this at Robbers Cave in 1954. Manufacture a competition between two groups of boys and you get instant, ferocious in-group cohesion — flags, names, raids, contempt. Then he showed you could dissolve it, but only with superordinate goals: tasks neither group could accomplish alone. Cooperation, not contact, was the solvent.

The data center coalition has the first half. It has no supply of the second.

---

Stage four: the moral upgrade

Composite scene, drawn from the recurring pattern:

By month eight the Facebook group has four thousand members and a moderator who did not exist as a public person a year ago. The early posts were about setback distances and decibel readings. The current posts are about what kind of person votes for this. Somebody has started making graphics. Somebody has found the county supervisor’s business address. The word “corruption” enters the vocabulary and does not leave, and it is not always wrong, and it is never again subject to evidentiary standards, because the group has already decided.

This is the transition that matters, and it is visible in the real record.

In May 2026, the progressive outlet More Perfect Union took Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Morgan County, Georgia, to meet residents who said a Meta data center’s construction had fouled their water. Days later she held up two jars of brown water while questioning an EPA water administrator at a House oversight hearing. The video went viral.

That jar is a masterpiece of moral communication, and I mean that without cynicism — the residents’ complaint appears to be real and it deserved the amplification. But notice what the jar does that a groundwater table cannot. It converts a regulatory dispute into a moral violation, and moral violations are the single most transmissible category of content in a networked information environment. Rathje, Van Bavel and van der Linden, analyzing 2.7 million posts from news outlets and members of Congress, found that content about the political out-group was by far the strongest predictor of sharing — stronger than emotional language, stronger than anything about one’s own side. The platforms are not neutral carriers of this material. They are selection pressure on it.

The Soufan Center’s own monitoring caught the compounding directly. Their dataset shows a baseline of anti-data-center discourse with a sharp surge beginning in April 2026 that then stayed elevated, and they describe the mechanism precisely: each new incident now “generates much greater secondary amplification than it did earlier in the year — meaning once a story breaks, they compound onto each other, feeding back into the information environment and causing secondhand outrage.”

Secondhand outrage. That is the load-bearing phrase. At this stage most of the anger in the system no longer belongs to anyone whose water it was.

---

Stage five: the official becomes the enemy

Saline Township, Michigan. Population about 2,300. Farmland. In 2025 a developer proposed a $16 billion data center campus tied to the Oracle–OpenAI Stargate build-out.

The township board denied the zoning change. The developer sued. Facing legal exposure that residents were told worked out to something like $29,000 per household over a decade, the board settled. Recall petitions went up against three members.

On May 13, 2026, at a packed board meeting, Treasurer Jennifer Zink announced her resignation in tears, citing death threats. Among them, she said, were wishes that she die of Lyme disease. The township clerk described similar harassment. Zink’s resignation took effect May 29.

A study published in April 2026 by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center identified the shift underneath this: grievance is migrating from tech executives to local officials, because data centers are what makes AI physical, and they concentrate its costs at the municipal level. The CEO is an abstraction three time zones away. The county treasurer shops at your grocery store.

Ballotpedia’s mid-year tally counted 58 local officials across seven states facing data-center-related recall petitions — roughly 17 percent of all recall efforts in 2026, a record year.

That is democracy working, and I want to be clear that recalls and elections are exactly the right instrument. But a woman crying at a folding table in a room of two thousand three hundred neighbors, resigning an unpaid-ish rural office because strangers wished disease on her, is not a policy outcome. It is what happens when a coalition that formed around an enemy runs out of enemy and finds a nearer one.

---

Stage six: the far end

The last stage is small in volume and impossible to unsee.

On April 10, 2026, prosecutors say Daniel Moreno-Gama threw a Molotov cocktail at the San Francisco home of OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman, then traveled to the company’s headquarters and threatened to burn it down and kill the people inside. Four days earlier, at around 12:45 a.m., Indianapolis City-County Councilman Ron Gibson found thirteen rounds had been fired into the front door of his home — he and his eight-year-old son were unhurt — after he publicly backed a data center in his district. A handwritten note reading “No Data Centers” was left on the doorstep. In June, a disrupted plot to kill senior government officials at a White House event was, per the charging documents, motivated by a grab-bag of grievances that included “water-guzzling data centers.” In July, Extinction Rebellion activists in Amsterdam threw balloons of hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid at a hyperscale construction site expected to house Microsoft.

The Soufan Center is careful, and their caveat deserves full weight: explicit, credible threat rhetoric remains a small fraction of anti-data-center content, most of which is ordinary, lawful, and often well-founded civic opposition. Most direct threats target infrastructure rather than people. Much of what looks violent online is posturing — fire GIFs, guillotine emojis, deliberate misspellings to dodge moderation, the verb “luigi-ed” deployed in a register that is clearly rhetorical.

But note the shape of the ladder. Lawn sign. Hearing. Coalition. Moral frame. Recall. Threat. At no point does anyone cross a line. Each rung is a small, locally reasonable step from the one below it, taken in the company of people who have become your friends because you took the previous one together.

That is the mechanism. Not radicalization as a leap — radicalization as a series of loyalty payments.

---

What the bond is actually made of

Swann, one of the co-authors of the negativity-bonding paper, later developed a theory called identity fusion: the state in which the boundary between personal self and group self becomes porous, so that a threat to the group is processed as a threat to the body. Fused individuals, in his research with Jetten, Gómez, Whitehouse and Bastian, show markedly elevated willingness to fight and to sacrifice for the group.

The path from sharing a negative attitude with a stranger to fusion is not long, and every stage above is a step along it. Which is the uncomfortable point of this essay:

The properties that make common-enemy bonding so good at building community are the same properties that make it bad at stopping.

It is fast, because contempt is high-information. It is cheap, because it requires no shared positive vision — only a shared negation. It is durable, because the enemy can always be found to be doing something new. It is portable, because when this data center is defeated the coalition does not disband; it looks for the next imposition, and it will find one, because there is always one. And it is self-concealing — Bosson’s participants had no idea it was happening to them.

None of this makes the coalition wrong. On the merits, a great deal of the anti-data-center case looks strong: ratepayers really are being asked to subsidize private compute, water really is being drawn from stressed aquifers, and the NAACP — represented by Earthjustice and the Southern Environmental Law Center — filed suit in April 2026 over twenty-seven methane turbines running without permits in Southaven, Mississippi, powering xAI’s Colossus 2 next to predominantly Black South Memphis neighborhoods carrying asthma burdens far above state and national norms. You do not need a psychological account of group dynamics to explain why people are angry about that. You need an air permit.

But being right is not protection. Sherif’s boys at Robbers Cave each had, from the inside, entirely adequate reasons to despise the other cabin.

---

What holds

If the diagnosis is right, the interventions are unromantic and mostly structural:

Keep the enemy institutional. A coalition aimed at a permitting process behaves differently from one aimed at a named treasurer. The moment the target acquires a face and an address, the escalation ceiling rises.

Insist on a positive ask. “No data center” has no completion condition. “Facility-funded grid upgrades, metered water disclosure, a 55-decibel property-line cap, and a decommissioning bond” does. Concrete demands can be met, and a coalition that can be satisfied is a coalition that can stand down.

Manufacture superordinate goals. Sherif’s actual finding, the one that gets forgotten in favor of the flashier half: cohesion built by conflict dissolves only under cooperation neither side can do alone. Genuine co-design — communities with real authority over siting, water and cost allocation, not consultation theater — is the only known solvent. It is also, notably, what several jurisdictions have started reaching for: New York’s statewide hyperscale moratorium, the Netherlands’ two-site restriction, Amsterdam’s freeze on new construction until 2030. Whatever else those are, they are attempts to put the decision somewhere a person can reach it.

Watch for the moment the meeting becomes the point. When attendance stays high after the vote is won — when the Facebook group’s engagement metrics are healthier than its policy agenda — the bond has decoupled from the grievance and is now sustaining itself.

The folding chair is not a trap. Some of the best civic energy in the country right now is being generated in exactly those rooms, and the neighbor you meet there may well become a real friend.

Just be honest about the introduction. You did not meet over a shared love of anything.

---

Sources

Reporting and data

• Gallup: Americans Oppose Data Centers in Their Area (May 2026)
• The Soufan Center: A Year of Monitoring — Anti-Data Center Narratives and Threats (July 21, 2026)
• The Soufan Center: Violent Threats and Data Center Resistance Accelerate (May 5, 2026)
• Data Center Watch: Q1 2026 report
• WTOP: Digital Gateway data center project dies after final developer withdraws appeal
• Virginia Lawyers Weekly: Court upholds block on Prince William Digital Gateway
• Data Center Dynamics: Prince William supervisors vote in favor of Digital Gateway rezoning
• 404 Media: Township leader resigns in tears over OpenAI data center death threats
• Planet Detroit: Saline Township treasurer resigns over data center death threats
• WFYI: Indy councilor Ron Gibson’s home targeted in shooting
• NPR: Molotov cocktail thrown at Sam Altman’s home
• Newsweek: Data Center Backlash Turns to Threats and Violence as Anger Spreads
• Ballotpedia: Recalls hit a record high this year, in part due to data center recall efforts
• CTC Sentinel, April 2026 (Combating Terrorism Center at West Point)
• Earthjustice: xAI sued for illegal power plant
• Rep. Ocasio-Cortez presses EPA Assistant Administrator Kramer
• Data Center Dynamics: Extinction Rebellion pelts data center site with acid-filled balloons
• The New Republic: And Now, MAGA Have Joined the Anti–Data Center Movement
• Democratic Left: How DSA Organizes Against Data Centers
• CMS Law-Now: Netherlands restricts hyperscale data centre siting

Research

• Bosson, J. K., Johnson, A. B., Niederhoffer, K., & Swann, W. B. (2006). Interpersonal chemistry through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others. Personal Relationships, 13, 135–150.
• Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. PNAS, 118(26).
• Swann, W. B., Jetten, J., Gómez, Á., Whitehouse, H., & Bastian, B. (2012). When group membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119(3), 441–456.
• Sherif, M. et al. (1961). Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment.
• Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model.
• Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 125–135.
• Sunstein, C. R. (1999/2002). The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195.

Composite scenes are marked as such in the text. All named incidents, figures and quotations are drawn from the sources above.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Austin ISD, the Texas Takeover Machine, and the Arithmetic Underneath It

Status as of July 29, 2026

---

Three middle schools in Austin — Burnet, Dobie, and Webb — are waiting on a letter grade.

Sometime in mid-August the Texas Education Agency will publish campus accountability ratings for the 2025-26 school year.

If any one of those three earns a fifth consecutive failing mark, state law stops being permissive and becomes mandatory.

The commissioner of education must then either order the campus closed or replace Austin ISD’s elected board of trustees with a board of managers of his own choosing.

There is no third option written into the statute. There is no discretion to wait another year.

That describes the fifth-largest school district in Texas, in the capital city, roughly a mile from the Capitol itself.

It is also, at this point, an unremarkable situation. Seven other districts have traveled this road in the last decade, four of them in the last nine months.

What makes Austin worth studying is not that the state might intervene.

It is that the intervention is arriving on top of a fiscal collapse that has nothing to do with test scores, and that the two problems are now feeding each other in ways the statute never anticipated.

The trigger, precisely

The mechanism dates to House Bill 1842 in 2015, now codified in Chapter 39A of the Education Code.

When a single campus receives five consecutive unacceptable annual ratings, the commissioner’s authority to intervene converts to an obligation.

An F counts. So do three consecutive D ratings, which the accountability system treats as equivalent.

One campus in a district of eighty thousand students is sufficient.

The trigger is not districtwide performance, though the commissioner routinely cites districtwide performance when explaining his decisions.

Burnet, Dobie, and Webb have each carried four consecutive unacceptable ratings dating to the 2018-19 school year.

Austin ISD spent the past eighteen months trying to interrupt that count.

The 1882 gambit and how it failed

Senate Bill 1882, passed in 2017, offers districts a bargain.

Hand a chronically failing campus to an approved external operator — a charter network, a nonprofit, a university, a governmental entity — and the district receives additional state funding plus a two-year pause on accountability consequences and state intervention at that campus.

It is the only reliable off-ramp in the accountability system, and districts facing the five-year cliff have used it repeatedly.

Beaumont ISD placed Fehl-Price Elementary with Third Future Schools under exactly this provision.

Austin ISD went looking for a partner and found one bidder.

The Texas Council for International Studies, a nonprofit, was the sole organization to submit a proposal to operate all three middle schools.

Trustees approved the partnership in March 2026, over objections about the speed and transparency of the process, and applied to TEA for 1882 benefits.

On May 28 the agency denied the application.

TEA’s letter held that an operating partner must satisfy three criteria: at least three years of operating experience before assuming a campus, a record of managing multiple campuses over multiple years, and demonstrated significant improvement in campus academic performance.

TCIS satisfied two of the three. The agency found no established track record of improvement, and concluded the organization did not qualify as a partner with the capacity to turn campuses around.

Austin ISD said it would submit additional evidence and seek reversal. It did not get one.

On July 20 the district announced that it and TCIS had jointly agreed to end the partnership altogether, effective July 31.

The partnership had been operational for roughly three weeks.

Whatever protection the district hoped to build is gone. The August ratings will land without a cushion.

The Paredes maneuver

Meanwhile a fourth campus entered the picture.

On July 22 the district announced the immediate closure of Paredes Middle School before the start of the 2026-27 school year, attributing the decision to slow academic progress.

Education Austin, the district’s labor organization, said district leaders had told them Paredes was expected to draw a fourth consecutive failing rating in August.

Read that sequence in statutory terms rather than press-release terms.

Closing a campus is one of the two remedies the commissioner may impose at year five. A district that closes a campus at year four removes the trigger before it can fire.

This is not cynicism on Austin’s part. It is the only unilateral tool the district has left.

It is also a tool with a known limitation.

Fort Worth ISD closed Leadership Academy at Forest Oak Sixth Grade before TEA released the campus’s fifth F, and district leaders initially believed the closure had resolved their exposure.

Commissioner Mike Morath’s letter said otherwise. The closure did not relieve the agency of its obligation to intervene, and did not address the systemic deficiencies underlying the chronic underperformance.

Fort Worth is now under a state-appointed board.

The statewide map

Houston ISD has been governed by an appointed board of managers since 2023, triggered by Wheatley High School.

Superintendent Mike Miles, installed by the commissioner, executed a sweeping academic overhaul: prescribed curriculum, rapid pacing, restructured staffing, revised testing calendars, concentrated in the New Education System campuses.

State exam results improved.

Enrollment fell by more than thirteen thousand students, which complicates any clean year-over-year comparison of performance.

Morath extended the intervention in June 2025 through June 1, 2027, citing progress but insufficient progress.

Houston is now recommending the closure and consolidation of twelve campuses for 2026-27, citing enrollment decline and facility costs.

Four more districts moved into state control across late 2025 and 2026.

Fort Worth ISD, nearly 68,000 students and the second-largest takeover in state history, received its notification letter in October 2025. A conservator, Christopher Ruszkowski, was installed in November.

On March 24, 2026, Morath appointed a nine-member board of managers, chaired by former congressman and Sid W. Richardson Foundation head Pete Geren.

He named Peter B. Licata, most recently superintendent of Broward County, Florida, as superintendent.

Karen Molinar, a thirty-year district veteran, applied for her own job and withdrew. More than 280 people applied for the board. The new board held its first meeting April 1.

Fort Worth is separately phasing in the closure of eighteen campuses through 2029, and carries a projected deficit of approximately $49,800,000 against $904,000,000 in expenditures.

Beaumont ISD received its letter in December 2025, triggered by two campuses.

Beaumont has been here before. The state intervened a decade ago over financial scandals, and the district regained local control only in 2020.

Connally ISD, also December 2025, triggered by Connally Elementary and Connally Junior High.

Lake Worth ISD, also December 2025, triggered by Marilyn Miller Language Arts Academy. Morath noted that every campus in the district had earned a D or an F in 2024-25.

Counting current and imminent interventions, eight districts sit under some form of state governance.

Over his decade as commissioner, Morath has ordered seven district takeovers on academic grounds and closed two campuses outright: Snyder Junior High in Snyder ISD, since reopened under a new framework, and Travis Elementary in Midland ISD, which Midland handed to a charter operator.

The demographic pattern in the trigger campuses has become a central argument in the policy debate.

Across the six campuses that triggered the four most recent takeovers, between 80 and 97 percent of students were economically disadvantaged, against a statewide figure near 60 percent.

Black and Hispanic students constituted the dominant majority at every one.

Critics read the geography — Houston, Fort Worth, Beaumont, now Austin — as intervention concentrated in large, Democratic-leaning cities serving low-income students of color.

Proponents read the same list as the state finally refusing to tolerate campuses where two-thirds of children cannot read or compute at grade level.

Morath has pointed to comparably sized and comparably situated districts producing better results.

Now the deficits, which are the larger story

Austin ISD’s accountability problem will be decided by one letter grade in August. Its financial problem is structural, and it is worse.

Trustees adopted an $887,000,000 general fund budget for 2026-27 on a 7-1 vote after a late-night session.

Closing the gap required $205,000,000 in gross cuts, or $192,000,000 net once teacher raises and other new costs were absorbed.

The reductions touch more than 580 positions, transportation, and library staffing, with a last-minute reversal preserving full-time librarians at every campus.

The district also expects to sell approximately $60,000,000 in property to reach balance.

It has said it must find roughly another $60,000,000 by the 2027-28 budget.

The trajectory of the estimate matters as much as the estimate.

District budget materials describe a projected 2026-27 gap of $181,000,000, and an expectation of closing 2025-26 with a $49,000,000 deficit despite roughly $54,000,000 in in-year cuts and efficiencies.

KUT reported in June that the projected deficit had grown to approximately $95,000,000, about five times what officials had forecast a year earlier.

Those figures describe different fiscal years and different measurement points, and the district has revised them repeatedly since February.

That kind of movement in a single budget cycle is itself a finding.

A district whose deficit estimate multiplies several times over within a year does not have a forecasting problem at the margin. It has one at the foundation.

The fund balance tells the same story more plainly.

Board policy calls for maintaining 20 percent of operating expenditures in reserve. Trustees temporarily lowered that floor to 15 percent for 2024 through 2027.

The current year is projected to close at roughly 10 percent.

Superintendent Matias Segura’s framing was blunt: without a budget that begins rebuilding reserves, the district’s capacity to serve students is at risk.

And Austin is a recapture district.

The adopted budget contemplates $1,480,000,000 in revenue from Austin taxpayers and $630,000,000 forwarded to the state under Chapter 49.

Roughly two of every five local property tax dollars leave the district.

Ten campuses were closed by trustee vote in November 2025. Paredes makes eleven.

A districtwide boundary and enrollment review, deferred in July, arrives in the spring. District leaders have not ruled out more closures.

The same condition, statewide

Austin is not an outlier. It is a large, well-documented instance of a statewide condition.

Dallas ISD adopted a deficit budget of approximately $104,000,000 for 2026-27 while forwarding an estimated $73,000,000 in recapture.

That is up from roughly $60,000,000 the prior year, and is projected to reach $100,000,000 by 2027-28.

Fort Worth adopted at a $49,800,000 deficit. Judson ISD closed four campuses against a $37,000,000 shortfall.

Clear Creek ISD stood up an accelerated budget sprint team against $27,000,000.

In San Antonio, a review of a dozen districts this summer found all but three cutting expenses for 2026-27.

In El Paso, a mid-course change in the state’s hold-harmless methodology cut that pool from $800,000,000 to $450,000,000, pushing districts that had expected balance into deficit.

District officials there identified roughly ten districts statewide disproportionately affected by the way the formula interacts with homestead exemptions.

Segura’s line about Austin — that it is happening everywhere in Texas — is not deflection. It is descriptively accurate.

Four forces, converging

First: a basic allotment that has not moved in real terms

House Bill 2 in 2025 appropriated $8,500,000,000, the largest single-session increase in recent memory.

It raised the basic allotment from $6,160 to $6,215 — the first increase since 2019, an adjustment of 0.89 percent against six years of accumulated inflation.

Roughly $4,200,000,000 went to teacher and staff retention allotments paid per qualifying employee rather than per student.

Another $1,300,000,000 went to a new fixed-cost allotment for utilities, insurance, transportation, and TRS contributions, with the balance to special education, pre-K, safety, and other categorical purposes.

HB 2 also stripped the 2019 requirement that 30 percent of any basic-allotment increase flow to teacher and staff pay, routing compensation through the new allotments instead.

The design decision is the story. The Legislature funded specified activities generously and the general-purpose formula almost not at all.

Districts received real money they could not redeploy against the deficits they actually have.

Second: enrollment

Texas public school enrollment fell 76,613 students, or 1.4 percent, in 2025-26.

That is the first non-pandemic decline in about four decades, and only the second recorded decline since 1987-88.

Hispanic students accounted for 81 percent of the loss.

Economically disadvantaged enrollment fell 2.3 percent and emergent bilingual enrollment fell 4.1 percent, both faster than the overall rate. Sixty percent of the loss came in kindergarten through sixth grade.

Texas 2036 projects the decline could reach 100,000 by 2030, and notes its own model may understate it.

State aid follows average daily attendance. Payroll follows signed contracts.

Enrollment loss therefore produces revenue loss immediately and cost relief slowly, if at all.

Austin ISD attributes part of its own enrollment decline to the current immigration enforcement environment.

Third: education savings accounts

The Texas Education Freedom Accounts program launches with the 2026-27 school year under a $1,000,000,000 appropriation administered by the comptroller.

More than 274,000 students applied for the first year and nearly 96,000 were invited to participate.

State data indicate at least 43 percent of approved students previously attended a Texas public school. How many convert is not yet known.

The 2025-26 enrollment decline predates the program entirely, which cuts both ways.

It means the decline cannot be blamed on ESAs. It also means ESA effects are additive to a decline already underway.

Fourth: the property tax side

This is where the picture becomes recognizable to anyone who works in Texas local finance.

The state has committed roughly $51,000,000,000 in the current biennium to buying down school M&O rates.

Senate Bill 4 raised the mandatory school homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000, effective with the 2026 tax year.

SB 23 raised the additional over-65 and disabled exemption from $10,000 to $60,000, producing a combined $200,000 school exemption for those homeowners.

A separate HB 8 delivered a one-year additional maximum compression rate reduction of $0.0331 per $100 for 2025.

SB 10 lowered the voter-approval multiplier from 1.035 to 1.025 for most taxing units beginning in 2026.

Every one of those actions is a defensible tax policy choice on its own terms.

Cumulatively, they narrow the local revenue base while the state’s replacement funding flows through formulas that have themselves become more prescriptive.

They also arrive in a year when some districts are absorbing declining taxable values.

The interim charges now pending in both chambers, and Governor Abbott’s proposal to lower the homestead appraisal cap from 10 percent to 3 percent with five-year reappraisal cycles, point toward further compression rather than less.

Where the two problems meet

The connection between the deficits and the takeovers is not thematic. It is operational, and it runs through school closures.

Closing campuses is the primary lever a large district has for structural savings, because the savings sit in facilities and staffing.

Austin closed ten schools in November 2025 for fiscal reasons, and closed Paredes in July for accountability reasons — three weeks after ending the partnership that was supposed to protect three other campuses.

Fort Worth is closing eighteen campuses on a phased schedule driven by a deficit, while operating under a takeover triggered by a campus it had already closed.

Houston, five years into state governance, is consolidating twelve. Judson closed four.

The same instrument is being used to balance budgets and to manage accountability exposure at the same time.

The campuses that qualify on both counts tend to be the same campuses: small enrollment, aging plant, high-poverty attendance zones, low ratings.

This produces an uncomfortable loop.

Fiscal pressure concentrates the highest-need students into fewer, larger campuses. Concentration and disruption do not typically improve near-term ratings.

Ratings drive intervention. Intervention, at least in the Houston case, accelerates enrollment loss, which worsens the fiscal position of the district the state now runs.

Nobody designed this.

It is what happens when an accountability statute written in 2015 and a school finance structure reshaped in 2019, 2023, and 2025 operate on the same districts at the same time without reference to each other.

What to watch

Mid-August: campus ratings for 2025-26.

STAAR results released in June showed Burnet, Dobie, and Webb gaining four to five percentage points in on-level math — real improvement that still leaves passing rates low enough that a fifth failing rating remains the likely outcome.

Fall: appeals. Ratings are not final until appeals are resolved, and districts have used this window aggressively. Fort Worth appealed.

After the appeals: the notification letter, if the trigger fires. Fort Worth’s came in October 2025. Beaumont, Connally, and Lake Worth received theirs in December.

Late 2026 into early 2027: conservator, board of managers, superintendent.

TEA rarely changes governance mid-year, and the Fort Worth sequence — October letter, November conservator, March board and superintendent — is the most likely template.

Opponents organizing under the Keep Austin Schools Local banner are telling supporters an announcement could come as early as November 2026, with control transferring as early as January 2027.

Houston’s takeover was delayed by litigation. Austin would likely face a shorter path, because the courts have already upheld the state’s authority.

Longer term, an accountability discontinuity is coming.

HB 8 from the 2025 second called session eliminates STAAR and replaces it with three shorter assessments at the beginning, middle, and end of the year, effective 2027-28. Only the end-of-year instrument counts toward ratings.

The same bill requires annual A-F ratings, bans Not Rated designations, requires TEA to announce accountability changes by July 15 each year, refreshes cut scores every five years, expands the agency’s intervention authority, and directs that challenges to accountability decisions be resolved promptly.

TEA will write the assessment on which its own intervention authority depends. Representative Gina Hinojosa of Austin raised that objection during debate and lost.

What a five-year consecutive-failure count means across an instrument change is a question the statute answers less clearly than one would like.

A closing assessment

The fair summary is that both sides of this argument are describing something real.

Roughly half of Texas public school students read and do math at grade level.

At the campuses that have triggered these interventions the figures are far worse, and they have been worse for five consecutive years, through multiple locally designed turnaround plans.

Adults holding elected office have had a decade to fix Burnet, Dobie, and Webb and have not.

The state’s position — that indefinite local patience is itself a decision, made at the expense of children who get one shot at eighth grade — is not a bad-faith position.

At the same time, the state is removing elected boards in districts whose fiscal capacity the state has itself substantially constrained.

A basic allotment frozen in real terms for seven years. Replacement revenue routed through allotments districts cannot redeploy.

A local tax base narrowed by four rounds of exemption increases and rate compression. Recapture obligations that rise as local values rise.

And a new ESA program drawing students, and their ADA revenue, out of the system beginning this fall.

Austin ISD is sending $630,000,000 to Austin and cutting $205,000,000 at home in the same fiscal year.

Telling a district to produce better outcomes under those conditions, and replacing its board when it fails to, is a coherent policy only if one believes governance was the binding constraint.

That is an empirical claim, and after five years of Houston it remains contested: test scores up, enrollment down thirteen thousand, community trust unresolved.

What is not contested is the direction of travel. Eight districts, one commissioner, a mandatory trigger, and a mid-August rating release.

Austin’s turn is likely next. The district will meet it with a 10 percent fund balance, eleven closed campuses, 580 fewer positions, and no partnership.

Sources

Reporting and documents consulted include: Austin Current (May 28, June 15, July 15, and July 20, 2026, plus the budget explainer of April 20, 2026); KUT News (May 28, July 21, and July 22, 2026); The Texas Tribune (May 28, 2026; January 27, 2026; August 15, 2025; June 2, 2025; March 15, 2023); The Austin Chronicle (June 4, 2026); KVUE (May 28, 2026); The Texan (May 29, 2026, and July 2026 on statewide deficit budgets); Axios Austin (June 10, 2026); Community Impact (July 2026 on adopted budgets, May 12, 2026 on enrollment).

Also: Austin ISD budget and TEA update pages; the Fort Worth ISD budget presentation of June 2026; TEA news releases and letters on Fort Worth ISD governance dated March 24, 2026; TEA correspondence on HB 2 retention allotments; Fort Worth Report, KERA, NBC 5, and CBS Texas on the Fort Worth intervention; Spectrum News (December 12, 2025 and January 27, 2026); KFDM on Beaumont ISD; San Antonio Report (July 2026); El Paso Matters (April 27, 2026); the Texas 2036 enrollment report of May 2026; IDRA and Raise Your Hand Texas analyses of House Bill 2; Bracewell and Linebarger summaries of 89th Legislature tax changes; Office of the Governor special session materials; and the Keep Austin Schools Local campaign site.

Caveat on one figure: the Dallas ISD deficit and recapture numbers were cited in June 2026 by state Representative Gina Hinojosa. Treat them as advocacy-sourced pending confirmation against the district’s adopted budget.

United States Economic Report — July 2026 | Public-source data via FRED

I’m going to have AI update this link no less than once per week.

Do you find it helpful?

Any suggestions?

Many thanks!

Lewis

What if the Worst Drought Metric is Wrong?

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Texas is about to spend $174 billion on a bet about the weather. The bet is priced against seven dry years from the Eisenhower administration. What happens if that is the wrong benchmark—in either direction?

Every five years, Texas produces one of the most ambitious infrastructure documents in America: the State Water Plan. The Draft 2027 State Water Plan, released for public comment in April 2026, recommends roughly 6,700 water management strategies and 3,000 projects at a capital cost of $174 billion—more than double the $80 billion price tag of the 2022 plan. Voters have already begun writing the checks: in November 2025, Proposition 4 passed, dedicating up to $1 billion a year in sales tax revenue—as much as $20 billion over two decades—to the Texas Water Fund.

Nearly every number in that plan rests on a single foundational assumption, written into the state’s planning rules: the future will be no drier than the past. Specifically, no drier than the worst drought in the roughly 130-year instrumental record—the “drought of record.”

It is worth asking a question the plan itself never asks out loud:

What if that metric is wrong?

It could be wrong in two directions. It could be too strict—an expensive over-preparation for a freak event that may never repeat, in which case Texans are overpaying by tens of billions of dollars. Or it could be too lenient—a benchmark that tree-ring scientists, the state climatologist, and one very thirsty coastal city all suggest is already obsolete.

The interesting thing is that we can put rough numbers on both possibilities. This essay tries to do that.

The Metric: Planning for the Worst Thing That Ever Happened

Texas water planning law requires the state’s 16 regional planning groups to calculate how much water every city, utility, irrigator, and factory would have “during drought of record conditions”—and then to find strategies to close any gap.

The planning rules in 31 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 357 require regions to evaluate existing supplies that are “legally and physically available” for use during the drought of record, using the state’s official water availability models.

For most of Texas, the drought of record is the monster of 1950–1957—seven consecutive years of failed rains that, as the Texas Water Development Board puts it, remains the worst statewide drought in Texas history in both duration and intensity. It is the drought that killed farms, emptied small towns, and prompted the creation of the modern water-planning system in the first place.

The mechanics matter here.

The drought of record is not merely a historical reference. It is the input to a specific calculation called firm yield: the maximum amount of water a reservoir could have delivered every year, without fail, through a repeat of that drought.

Firm yield is what a water supply is “worth” in the plan. Change the benchmark drought, and every reservoir in Texas is suddenly worth a different amount of water—on paper, overnight, without a drop of rain falling or failing to fall.

As Matt Nelson, the Texas Water Development Board’s deputy executive administrator of planning, described the design philosophy to the Texas Tribune, the plan contemplates supplying enough water during the worst drought that has ever occurred in each region of the state, without restricting water use to the public—even if every region experienced its worst drought simultaneously.

Under that standard, the Draft 2027 State Water Plan finds Texas short 3.6 million acre-feet per year in 2030, growing to 5.8 million acre-feet per year by 2080 if nothing is built.

The 2022 plan described the equivalent 2070 shortfall as more water than Lake Livingston, Amistad Reservoir, and Lake Travis can hold combined when full.

The stakes of doing nothing are stated plainly. The Texas Water Development Board estimates that a severe drought without new supplies could leave about one in four Texans without enough water, with economic losses of as much as $177 billion a year within 50 years.

The drought of record, therefore, is not a trivia answer.

It is the denominator of the entire $174 billion program.

Direction One: What if the Standard Is Too Strict?

Here is the version of the question a skeptical taxpayer might ask:

The 1950s drought was, by definition, an outlier—the single worst stretch in the recorded history of the state. Why size a permanent, multi-hundred-billion-dollar infrastructure program to the outlier?

What would happen if Texas planned to the second-worst drought instead? Or the third?

For most of the state, the rankings are approximately these:

1. The drought of 1950–1957.
2. The drought of 2011, the driest twelve consecutive months ever measured statewide, within the broader 2010–2015 dry period.
3. The drought that ended in 1918, which held second place for nearly a century until 2011 surpassed it.

The Texas Water Development Board has never published this counterfactual, so the following figures are the author’s estimates, built from the plan’s own arithmetic.

The benchmark drought mainly governs surface water—the firm yields of the state’s nearly 200 major reservoirs and the reliability of river diversions. Together, those sources account for roughly 7 million acre-feet per year of drought-rated supply.

Groundwater availability, which provides about half of the state’s supply, is governed primarily by aquifer depletion, desired future conditions, permits, and regulatory limits. It would change much less under a different drought benchmark.

Shorter, sharper droughts such as 2011 or 1917–1918 place less stress on multi-year reservoir storage than seven consecutive dry years. Firm yields calculated against those shorter events would therefore be meaningfully higher.

We also have a real-world calibration for how much one “rank step” between droughts may be worth.

When the 2008–2016 drought surpassed the 1950s drought on the lower Colorado River, the Lower Colorado River Authority reduced the firm yield of the Highland Lakes from approximately 600,000 acre-feet per year to about 500,000 acre-feet per year.

One step in the drought rankings changed the yield of a single reservoir system by roughly 17 percent.

Apply that scale statewide, and the estimates look something like this:

Benchmark	Reduction in Identified Need	Approximate Gallons	Estimated Capital Avoided
Second-worst drought, 2011	0.7–1.5 million acre-feet per year, or 12–26% of the 5.8 million acre-foot gap	230–490 billion gallons per year	$16–$34 billion, plausibly as much as $45 billion
Third-worst drought, 1917–1918	1.0–2.2 million acre-feet per year, or 17–38% of the gap	330–720 billion gallons per year	$23–$50 billion, possibly more

The dollar figures scale from the draft plan’s own average of roughly $23,000 in capital cost for each acre-foot per year of new supply: $174 billion buying approximately 7.6 million acre-feet per year of strategies by 2080.

The upper ends reflect the likelihood that the projects eliminated by a relaxed standard would be the most expensive marginal projects—new reservoirs, long-haul pipelines, and seawater desalination facilities.

The honest answer to the skeptic, therefore, is yes.

The drought-of-record standard is plausibly “costing” Texas somewhere between $20 billion and $50 billion in infrastructure that a second- or third-worst benchmark might deem unnecessary. It may also be responsible for roughly one-quarter to one-third of the identified water gap—a few hundred billion gallons a year.

But notice what that framing conceals.

Those billions would not truly be saved. They would be wagered.

A plan sized to the second-worst drought delivers exactly its promised reliability until the day a 1950s-scale drought returns—an event that has already happened once in the instrumental record and, as the evidence suggests, many times before it.

At that point, the unbuilt gap reappears not as a line item in a state plan but as empty intake pipes.

The relevant number would stop being $30 billion in avoided capital and become as much as $177 billion per year in economic damages.

The drought-of-record standard is, in effect, an insurance policy. Arguing that it is too strict is arguing that Texas should self-insure against a catastrophe it has already experienced.

That might still be a defensible argument—if the evidence suggested that the 1950s represented a freak upper boundary.

The evidence points in the opposite direction.

Direction Two: What if the Standard Is Too Lenient?

The Tree Rings Say the Record Is Too Short

The instrumental rainfall record in Texas extends only to the 1890s.

To see further into the past, scientists read tree rings—and what they find is uncomfortable.

In a landmark 2011 study published in the Texas Water Journal, Malcolm Cleaveland, Thomas Votteler, David Stahle, Richard Casteel, and Jay Banner reconstructed drought conditions across Texas back to the year 1500 using baldcypress, Douglas-fir, and post oak chronologies.

Their conclusion was direct: several extended droughts of the past were longer or more intense than the 1950s drought. Severe, decadal-scale droughts had occurred in Texas at least once a century since the 1500s.

They concluded that the continued use of the 1950s drought as a worst-case planning scenario was questionable.

The deeper paleoclimate record is worse.

Tree-ring networks across North America document a 16th-century megadrought described by researchers as the most severe and sustained drought event of the last 500 years—and perhaps the last 1,000 years when looking back to A.D. 1200.

That drought persisted for roughly 40 years in some locations. It extended from Mexico across the American Southwest and into Texas. It coincided with catastrophic epidemics and the failure of early European colonies.

The drought of the 1950s lasted seven years.

The paleoclimate record contains droughts four and five times that long.

In statistical terms, the “drought of record” is the worst draw from a sample of only about 130 years. The full distribution, visible in tree rings, contains substantially worse outcomes.

Planning to the sample maximum and calling it the worst case is not necessarily conservatism.

It may simply be an artifact of a record that is too short.

One River Basin Has Already Lived It

This is not merely hypothetical.

On the lower Colorado River, the drought that began in 2008 surpassed the 1950s event and became the new drought of record for the basin. Six of the ten lowest inflow years into the Highland Lakes occurred after 2008.

The Lower Colorado River Authority responded by reducing the firm yield of the Highland Lakes by about 100,000 acre-feet per year—from approximately 600,000 to 500,000 acre-feet.

Every downstream plan based on the older number had, in hindsight, been planning against the second-worst drought without knowing it.

Texas planning rules now explicitly recognize this possibility. When updated hydrological models identify a new regional drought of record, future plans must absorb it.

The benchmark is therefore not a fixed constant of nature.

It is a low-water mark that keeps getting broken.

The 2011 drought displaced 1917–1918 as the second-worst statewide event. The 2008–2016 drought surpassed the 1950s in the Colorado River basin.

Each new record reveals that the previous “worst case” was not the worst.

Corpus Christi Is the Case Study Nobody Wanted

Then there is Corpus Christi.

During 2025 and 2026, the city came closer to an outright water-supply failure than almost any large American city in recent memory.

Inside Climate News summarized the problem bluntly: unrealistic assessments of the region’s reservoir system helped turn drought conditions into an emergency.

The region’s own 2026 water plan acknowledged that a repeat of the drought of record would already produce an immediate shortage for the City of Corpus Christi, the area’s major water provider.

That shortage could grow if a new drought of record occurred.

That is exactly what began to happen.

The city’s water officials watched reality outrun the model. The region was rapidly approaching drought-of-record conditions. The reservoirs were declining faster than prior calculations had predicted, during a period of intense heat and prolonged dryness.

Robert Mace, executive director of the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment at Texas State University, drew the broader lesson.

Beginning in the 1990s, something appeared to change in the weather of South Texas. Droughts became hotter and longer. In addition, the tree-ring record showed periods drier than anything in the instrumental record.

His conclusion was simple:

Communities should plan for droughts worse than the drought of record.

The Physics Have Changed Beneath the Benchmark

Even a perfect repeat of the rainfall totals from the 1950s would no longer produce the same amount of usable water.

That is one of the most important weaknesses in the current metric.

It may hold rainfall constant while failing to hold temperature constant.

Higher temperatures dry soils more quickly. As soils become hotter and drier, a smaller share of rainfall reaches rivers, streams, and reservoirs as runoff.

Hotter and longer summers also remove more water from reservoir surfaces through evaporation.

The state climatologist’s Extreme Weather in Texas report, produced with Texas 2036, projects that by 2036 Texas will average about 3 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the late-20th-century norm. The state may experience approximately twice as many 100-degree days as the 2000–2018 average, along with roughly 7 percent more summer evaporation.

On broad, shallow Texas reservoirs, evaporation is not a rounding error.

It is one of the largest uses—or losses—of stored water in the state.

Yet the state’s planning models remain heavily backward-looking.

Surface water is among the water supplies most vulnerable to climate change. But incorporating explicit climate projections into the official planning framework has proven politically and technically difficult.

The institutional response is that the five-year planning cycle continually updates the models as conditions change.

That defense has merit—but it also carries a dark implication.

A benchmark that updates only after a catastrophic drought breaks the old record is a system that learns by failing.

Lake Travis had to fall toward historic lows before the Highland Lakes were repriced.

Corpus Christi had to approach a day-zero emergency before its yield assumptions were publicly described as unrealistic.

The metric may be self-correcting, but it is self-correcting in the way a smoke alarm that sounds only after the fire has spread is self-correcting.

Meanwhile, demand is not waiting politely.

Texas data centers already consume an estimated 25 billion gallons of water annually. Some projections suggest consumption could rise dramatically over the next several years.

Whether that growth is fully reflected in long-term regional demand forecasts remains uncertain.

The Nonlinearity Trap

Why “25 Percent Worse” Does Not Mean 25 Percent Less Water

Suppose the tree rings and climatologists are right and Texas eventually faces a drought meaningfully worse than the 1950s—perhaps one with inflows 25 percent lower.

The natural intuition is that available supplies would decline by about 25 percent.

That intuition is wrong.

Reservoir yield can fall faster than inflow.

Evaporation does not decline when inflows decline. During a hotter drought, evaporation may increase.

Multi-year carryover storage—the entire purpose of a major reservoir—is precisely what a longer drought exhausts.

Junior water rights on fully appropriated rivers may not decline gradually. In the most severe conditions, they may be reduced to zero.

On the Rio Grande, researchers have estimated that legal water rights may total as much as twice the volume of water physically available in the river.

As Samuel Sandoval Solís of the University of California, Davis, has observed, dams do not create water. A reservoir without sufficient rainfall and runoff can become an expensive monument to assumptions that no longer hold.

Using the plan’s own figures, a drought with inflows approximately 25 percent worse than the benchmark could plausibly reduce firm yields by 35 to 50 percent.

That would remove approximately 2.5 million to 3.5 million acre-feet per year from the state’s drought-rated surface-water supply.

That is roughly 800 billion to 1.1 trillion gallons every year.

The projected 2080 gap would grow from 5.8 million acre-feet per year to somewhere between approximately 8 million and 9.3 million acre-feet per year.

Here is the detail worth sitting with:

Because the $174 billion program is sized to the 1950s benchmark, even if every one of its approximately 3,000 projects were built on schedule, Texas could still be 2.5 million to 3.5 million acre-feet per year short during such a drought.

Closing that residual gap from the expensive end of the supply curve—using seawater desalination, long-distance pipelines, and other high-cost strategies—might cost approximately $25,000 to $40,000 for each acre-foot per year of additional capacity.

That implies another $60 billion to $140 billion in construction.

The real program cost could rise from $174 billion to somewhere between approximately $235 billion and $315 billion.

The asymmetry between the two kinds of error is now visible.

If the metric is too strict, Texas may overspend by $20 billion to $50 billion on projects that provide real, though potentially redundant, reliability.

If the metric is too lenient, Texas may face shortages measured in trillions of gallons, economic damages of as much as $177 billion per year, and a supplemental construction bill larger than the estimated cost of over-preparation.

When the consequences of being wrong are that lopsided, the rational bias runs toward a stricter benchmark—not a weaker one.

What Would a Better Metric Look Like?

None of this means the drought-of-record standard was a mistake.

For the Texas of 1957, it represented a triumph of empiricism:

Plan for the worst event ever observed.

The problem is that “ever observed” turned out to be a moving target, viewed through a narrow historical keyhole, in a climate that no longer sits still.

Hydrologists call the broken assumption stationarity—the idea that the statistical characteristics of the past will continue to describe the future.

The field’s verdict was summarized in the title of a famous 2008 Science paper:

“Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management?”

Several possible replacements are already emerging within the Texas planning system.

Safe Yield

Plan to the drought of record plus a margin—perhaps one or two years of additional demand held in reserve.

Region C, which includes the Dallas–Fort Worth area, has long incorporated a version of this approach. Some Texas regions already plan for conditions worse than the official drought of record.

Corpus Christi also nominally adopted a safe-yield approach. Its crisis demonstrates that a safety margin works only when the underlying firm-yield numbers are realistic.

Drought-Worse-Than-Record Scenarios

Since rule changes adopted after the 2011 drought, regional planning groups may examine how their plans would perform under droughts worse than the historical record.

At present, this is often treated as a narrative or sensitivity exercise.

It could instead become a sizing requirement.

The state could require each region to demonstrate which supplies would fail, when they would fail, and how much additional capacity would be required under defined worse-than-record conditions.

Paleo-Informed Benchmarks

The tree-ring reconstructions already exist.

They are peer-reviewed, date-specific, and directly relevant to the question of long-duration drought.

Instead of planning to the worst drought since approximately 1895, Texas could establish a benchmark based on the worst reconstructed drought since 1500.

Such a standard would capture the once-a-century, decadal-scale droughts that the instrumental record misses.

The Cleaveland team’s evidence has been available in the Texas Water Journal since 2011.

Climate-Adjusted Hydrology

Texas could take the historical drought of record and rerun it at projected future temperatures.

The state could model the 1950s rainfall pattern using the evaporation rates, soil-moisture conditions, and runoff relationships expected in 2036, 2050, or 2080.

This approach would preserve the political simplicity of a historical benchmark:

“We are planning for something that already happened.”

At the same time, it would correct the physical dishonesty of pretending that the same rainfall would produce the same water supply under a warmer climate.

Probabilistic Planning

The most ambitious option would be to abandon the single-scenario benchmark entirely.

Texas could instead size its infrastructure around an explicit reliability target—perhaps a 1-in-100 annual probability of system failure.

Flood planners, engineers, insurers, and some western water agencies already use probability-based approaches.

This would make the insurance-policy nature of water planning explicit.

Legislators and citizens could debate how much reliability they are willing to purchase rather than inheriting the answer from a drought that occurred during the Eisenhower administration.

The Metric Is Not a Fact. It Is a Bet.

Here is the strange truth at the bottom of the question:

The drought of record was never merely a measurement.

It is a policy choice wearing a measurement’s clothes.

It is a decision about how much catastrophe insurance Texas should purchase, expressed as a historical statistic so that no one has to defend the policy choice directly.

Asked plainly—what if the metric is wrong?—the numbers provide a reasonably clear answer.

If it is wrong because it is too strict, Texas might spend $20 billion to $50 billion on projects that later appear redundant.

That is real money. It is roughly comparable to the entire amount Proposition 4 could dedicate to water infrastructure over two decades. It deserves serious scrutiny.

But the infrastructure would still exist. It would still provide redundancy, flexibility, and reliability.

If the metric is wrong because it is too lenient, Texas could face shortages measured in trillions of gallons, economic losses measured in hundreds of billions of dollars, and the discovery that a city’s water mathematics was fiction at precisely the moment those calculations were needed most.

Zapata County, the Highland Lakes, and Corpus Christi have each provided a preview.

The tree rings, the thermometers, and a repriced river basin all suggest that the second kind of error is not a remote tail risk.

Severe, long-duration droughts have occurred in Texas at least once a century for approximately five hundred years.

And the current century is still young.

The drought of the 1950s earned its title honestly.

But “the worst drought on record” was always a statement about the length of the record—not necessarily about the limits of drought.

Texas is betting $174 billion that the record is long enough.

The safest thing that can be said about that bet is the same thing the scientists said fifteen years ago:

It is questionable—and the direction of the error, if there is one, is unlikely to be in Texas’s favor.

References

Primary Planning Documents and Data

• Texas Water Development Board, Draft 2027 State Water Plan—Water for Texas, Phase 1, April 2026.
• Texas Water Development Board, 2027 State Water Plan portal.
• Texas Water Development Board, 2022 State Water Plan—Water Supply Needs chapter.
• Texas Water Development Board, Regional and State Water Planning Rules, 31 TAC Chapter 357 reference pamphlet.
• Texas Water Development Board, Regional Water Planning Frequently Asked Questions.
• Texas Water Development Board, Drought in Texas: A Comparison of the 1950–1957 and 2010–2015 Droughts.

Paleoclimate and Drought Science

• Cleaveland, Malcolm K.; Votteler, Thomas H.; Stahle, David K.; Casteel, Richard C.; and Banner, Jay L. “Extended Chronology of Drought in South Central, Southeastern, and West Texas.” Texas Water Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 54–96, 2011.
• Stahle, David W., et al. “Tree-Ring Data Document 16th Century Megadrought Over North America.” Eos, Vol. 81, No. 12, 2000.
• Milly, P.C.D., et al. “Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management?” Science, Vol. 319, pp. 573–574, 2008.
• U.S. Geological Survey, A Historical Perspective on Precipitation, Drought Severity, and Streamflow in Texas During 1951–1956 and 2011, 2013.
• Archfield, Stacey A., and Vogel, Richard M. “Reliability of Reservoir Firm Yield Determined from the Historical Drought of Record,” 2005.
• Nielsen-Gammon, John, et al., and Texas 2036, Extreme Weather in Texas, 1900–2036.

Reporting and Analysis

• Erin Douglas, “Texas’ Plan to Provide Water for a Growing Population Virtually Ignores Climate Change,” Texas Tribune, October 31, 2022.
• Dylan Baddour, “Texas’ Refusal to Plan for Climate Change Created a Crisis in Corpus Christi,” Inside Climate News, June 25, 2026.
• Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter, “It’s Official: The Draft 2027 State Water Plan Is Out for Public Comment,” April 28, 2026.
• Community Impact, “Cost to Prevent a Texas Water Crisis Has More Than Doubled to $174B, State Says,” May 20, 2026.
• Texas Water Newsroom, “What to Know About the Texas Drought” and “Planning for Enough Water Supply During Drought.”
• Lower Colorado River Basin Coalition, “LCRA: Current Drought Worst on Record for Central Texas,” February 25, 2015.
• Texas Tribune, “What to Know About Texas’ Looming Water Crisis,” March 13, 2025.
• Texas Water Foundation, “Voters Approve Prop 4—Dedicating $20B to Water Infrastructure,” November 2025.
• Texas+Water, Texas State University, “outlook+water: 89% of Texas Is in Drought,” April 7, 2026.
• Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas’ Water Demands Could Outpace Supply in Parts of Texas by 2070,” September 2023.

Note on the Counterfactual Estimates

The figures in the second-worst and third-worst drought benchmark table, along with the 25-percent-worse drought scenario, are the author’s estimates.

They are derived from published Texas Water Development Board totals, including the projected 5.8 million acre-foot 2080 shortage and the approximately $174 billion cost of strategies producing about 7.6 million acre-feet per year of supply.

They also incorporate the Lower Colorado River Authority’s approximately 17 percent firm-yield reduction following the repricing of the Highland Lakes and the standard nonlinear behavior of reservoir firm yield under reduced inflows, extended drought duration, and higher evaporation.

The Texas Water Development Board has not published an official statewide sensitivity analysis showing how the identified water-supply gap would change under second-worst, third-worst, paleo-drought, or climate-adjusted benchmarks.

One acre-foot equals approximately 325,851 gallons.

Open or save the painting separately⁠

A collaboration between Lewis Mclain & AI

“The secret is in the diction.”
—A lesson often associated with Morgan Freeman

I have a simple request.

Please… slow down.

And please… enunciate.

If you’re speaking to a room that includes senior citizens, understand that many of us are not asking you to speak louder. We’re asking you to finish your words.

There is a world of difference.

As we grow older, many of us develop hearing loss. Ironically, we often hear voices well enough. What we lose first are the higher frequencies—the crisp consonants that distinguish one word from another. We hear the vowels. We miss the endings.

When a speaker races through a sentence, lowers the volume on the final words, or swallows the last consonants, the message becomes a puzzle.

We’re not hearing less.

We’re hearing less clearly.

That distinction matters.

The Vanishing Last Word

One of the greatest frustrations is what I call “the disappearing sentence.”

A speaker begins with confidence and volume. Then, somewhere near the end, the voice fades away until the final word simply evaporates.

That last word often carries the meaning of the entire sentence.

It is the difference between singular and plural.

Present and past.

Affirmation and negation.

One missed consonant can force the listener to reconstruct the entire sentence from context.

After doing this for thirty or forty minutes, listening becomes exhausting.

Morgan Freeman Was Right

Morgan Freeman possesses one of the most recognizable voices in the world.

People often assume the secret is his deep voice.

It isn’t.

Freeman has explained that one of the greatest lessons he learned was diction.

He was taught to speak distinctly and to hit his final consonants.

That is wonderful advice—not only for actors, but for pastors, teachers, professors, broadcasters, politicians, and anyone who speaks to groups.

The authority of a voice doesn’t come from how deep it is.

It comes from how clearly it communicates.

Faster Is Not Better

Somewhere along the way, we’ve mistaken speed for enthusiasm.

We have speakers who talk at auctioneer speed.

Podcasters who never pause.

Preachers who sprint through Scripture.

Teachers who finish one sentence before the previous one has landed.

Communication isn’t a race.

The purpose of speaking isn’t to finish.

The purpose is to be understood.

A thoughtful pause is not dead air.

It is a gift to the listener.

Churches Need to Hear This

Perhaps nowhere is this more important than in the church.

Many congregations include people in their seventies, eighties, and nineties.

These faithful members have spent decades supporting the church, teaching Sunday school, serving on committees, raising families, and praying for the congregation.

Now they simply want to hear the sermon.

Yet too often the microphone is excellent while the diction is poor.

The preacher rushes.

Scripture is read at breakneck speed.

The last syllables disappear.

The congregation misses words—not because they aren’t listening, but because they cannot distinguish the sounds.

The tragedy is that a sermon may be full of wisdom while parts of it never reach the ears that long to hear it.

Finish the Sentence

One habit would improve almost every public speaker.

Finish every sentence as strongly as you began it.

Don’t let your voice drift downward.

Don’t mumble the ending.

Don’t swallow the final consonant.

Complete the thought.

Complete the word.

Complete the message.

Your audience will thank you.

Never Make the Audience Work Harder Than the Speaker

That may be the greatest rule of public speaking.

If listeners spend their energy trying to decode your words, they have little energy left to absorb your ideas.

The responsibility belongs to the speaker.

Not the audience.

A Gift to Every Generation

Although I write this as a senior citizen, this isn’t only about seniors.

Young people benefit from clear speech.

Children benefit.

Those learning English benefit.

People joining by livestream benefit.

Anyone sitting in the back row benefits.

Good diction is an act of courtesy.

It says, “Your understanding matters to me.”

My Plea

So, if you stand behind a pulpit…

If you teach a classroom…

If you lead a meeting…

If you host a podcast…

If you speak from a stage…

Please remember those of us whose hearing is not what it once was.

Slow down just a little.

Pause between thoughts.

Pronounce every word.

Hit the final consonants.

Finish the last syllable.

Because sometimes the most important word in the sentence…

…is the last one.

And we’d really like to hear it.

I think this would resonate with many readers, especially if published in a church newsletter, denominational magazine, or senior adults’ publication. It makes a practical point without sounding bitter, and it closes with a memorable appeal.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Deciding when to say goodbye to a beloved pet is one of the hardest choices a person can face. Pets become family. They share our homes, our routines, and often our deepest affections for years or even decades. When age or illness begins to take a visible toll, the question arises with painful clarity: Is it time?

There is no universal calendar date or single medical threshold that answers this for every animal and every owner. The decision is intensely personal, shaped by the individual pet’s condition, the quality of the life that remains, the resources available for care, and the owner’s values. The same core principles apply across species—dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, horses, and others—though the specific signs and care needs differ. What follows is a framework grounded in veterinary perspectives, quality-of-life considerations, and the lived experience of countless pet owners—not a set of rigid rules.

Understanding the Shift from Living to Enduring

Healthy aging in dogs and cats often includes slower movement, cloudier eyes, graying muzzles, and a preference for softer surfaces. These changes alone rarely signal that life has become unlivable. Many senior pets continue to enjoy short walks, favorite toys, sunny windowsills, and the simple pleasure of their person’s company well into advanced age.

The critical transition occurs when the animal’s days consist more of enduring discomfort, confusion, or isolation than of experiencing the things that once defined its happiness. Chronic pain that no longer responds adequately to medication, progressive neurological decline that leaves a pet anxious or disoriented, organ failure that produces relentless nausea or labored breathing, or cancers that cause continuous suffering despite treatment—all of these can tip the balance.

Cognitive dysfunction (sometimes called “doggy dementia” or feline cognitive decline) can add another layer: nighttime restlessness, disorientation, loss of housetraining, or a vacant expression that replaces former recognition and engagement.

Veterinarians frequently emphasize that animals live in the present. They do not contemplate future recovery or past vitality the way humans do. Their world is the immediate experience of comfort or distress. When distress dominates most of their waking hours, the ethical question becomes whether continued life is a kindness or an extension of suffering.

Practical Signs That Quality of Life Is Declining

Owners are usually the first to notice subtle changes. Useful markers include:

• Appetite and hydration: Persistent refusal of food, even favorite treats, or an inability to drink without assistance. Weight loss that continues despite caloric efforts.
• Mobility and elimination: Inability to rise without help, frequent falls, or loss of bladder and bowel control that leaves the animal soiled and distressed. Some pets can manage with ramps, harnesses, or diapers for a time; others find these interventions themselves stressful.
• Pain and restlessness: Panting, pacing, vocalizing, or withdrawing when touched in previously comfortable ways. Difficulty finding a position that allows restful sleep.
• Engagement and joy: Loss of interest in people, other pets, toys, or previously loved activities. A flat, withdrawn expression that replaces curiosity or contentment.
• Breathing and awareness: Labored or open-mouth breathing at rest, frequent coughing, or periods of confusion and anxiety that cannot be soothed.
• Hygiene and dignity: The pet’s inability to keep itself clean, leading to skin issues, matting, or infection that cause additional discomfort.

Subtle and species-specific signs are easy to miss. Cats are especially skilled at hiding pain; they may simply stop jumping onto favorite surfaces, groom less (or over-groom one area), hide more, or become unusually irritable or clingy.

Dogs are often described as “just slowing down” when stiffness after rest, reluctance to climb stairs or enter the car, a hunched posture, or reduced playfulness actually signal chronic discomfort. Night-time restlessness, slower eating, or changes in posture can be quieter indicators in both species.

Gradual decline is particularly hard to perceive day by day. Looking at recent photos or videos of the pet when it was healthier, or keeping a simple calendar that marks good days versus difficult ones, often reveals a pattern that daily life has blurred.

A practical companion to formal scales is the “five favorite things” test. List the five activities or experiences your pet has always loved most—greeting you at the door, a short walk, a particular toy, a sunny windowsill, a specific treat. If most of those are no longer possible or no longer bring visible pleasure, quality of life has usually shifted in a meaningful way.

Many veterinarians recommend structured quality-of-life scales (such as those developed by Dr. Alice Villalobos or similar tools used in hospice practices). These assign scores to categories like pain, hunger, hydration, hygiene, happiness, mobility, and “more good days than bad.” Tracking scores over days or weeks can make an otherwise vague sense of decline more concrete.

A single bad day does not equal a decision. Patterns matter. A pet that has more difficult days than good ones, or whose good moments are brief and overshadowed by ongoing struggle, is often approaching the point where intervention should be seriously considered.

The Role of Veterinary Guidance and Palliative Options

No owner should feel they must decide in isolation. A trusted veterinarian who knows the animal can offer objective assessment of pain levels, prognosis, and realistic treatment options.

Diagnostics may clarify whether a condition is reversible, manageable for a meaningful period, or progressive and terminal. Seeking a second opinion from a specialist or another trusted clinician is reasonable when the path forward feels unclear.

Palliative and hospice care for pets has expanded significantly. Pain management protocols, anti-nausea medications, appetite stimulants, physical therapy, acupuncture, and environmental modifications can extend comfortable time for many animals.

Some owners choose this path deliberately, focusing on comfort rather than cure. The goal in these cases is not to prolong life at any cost but to ensure remaining time is free of unnecessary suffering.

Hospice also raises a distinct choice: allowing a natural death under close supportive care versus planned euthanasia. Natural death can be peaceful for some animals, especially when pain and anxiety are well controlled. For others it may involve a final period of labored breathing, restlessness, or sudden crisis.

Planned euthanasia offers a controlled, typically serene ending, often performed at home so the animal remains in familiar surroundings. Neither path is inherently superior; the better choice is the one that best matches the individual animal’s condition and the family’s values, made with clear eyes about what each option realistically entails.

There are limits. When medications no longer control pain adequately, when the animal requires constant intensive nursing that itself causes distress, or when secondary complications (pressure sores, recurrent infections, severe anxiety) multiply, the conversation often shifts toward euthanasia as a final act of mercy.

Timing: Chronos, Kairos, Caregiver Capacity, and the Right Moment

The ancient Greeks used two distinct words for time, and the difference between them speaks directly to this decision.

Chronos is the time we measure with clocks and calendars—the sequential, quantitative march of days, months, and years. It is the time of “my dog is fourteen,” “the cancer diagnosis was three months ago,” or “the bloodwork shows the kidneys are declining at this rate.”

Chronos gives us medical timelines, projected survival statistics, and the steady accumulation of birthdays. It is useful, even necessary, because it anchors us in facts. Yet chronos alone can mislead. An animal of advanced chronological age may still greet each morning with interest and comfort; a younger pet with aggressive disease may already be living far outside any meaningful enjoyment.

Kairos is different. It is the qualitative, opportune moment—the right time, the fitting season, the window when action aligns with reality rather than with hope or habit. Kairos is not measured in weeks remaining; it is recognized in the texture of the pet’s days. It arrives when the balance of experience has shifted, when the animal’s present is dominated by struggle rather than by the small pleasures that once defined its life. Kairos is the moment you realize that continuing is no longer an act of love but an act of postponement.

Most owners live for a time in the tension between the two. Chronos keeps offering another week, another treatment trial, another reason to wait. Kairos quietly insists that the animal’s current reality has already changed. Learning to listen for kairos—while still respecting the information chronos provides—is one of the deeper skills of companion-animal guardianship.

A related and often overlooked factor is caregiver capacity. Providing intensive home care for a declining pet requires physical strength, time, emotional resilience, and sometimes significant financial resources. When an owner’s own health, work demands, or ability to meet the animal’s needs safely begins to erode, that reality belongs in the decision. Continuing care that can no longer be delivered humanely does not serve the pet. Acknowledging limits is not failure; it is part of responsible stewardship.

There is rarely a perfect instant. There is often a recognizable window in which the decision can be made with relative calm rather than in crisis. Within that window, choosing a peaceful end becomes less an interruption of life and more a completion of care.

After the Decision

Grief following the loss of a pet is real and legitimate. It does not require justification. Support can come from understanding friends and family, pet-loss hotlines, online communities, or counselors familiar with animal bereavement. Some people find meaning in memorials, photo books, or charitable donations in the pet’s name. Others simply need time and permission to feel the absence fully.

When children are part of the household, honest, age-appropriate conversation helps more than vague reassurances or sudden silence. Many families find it helpful to explain that the pet’s body was worn out or in pain and that the kindest choice was to help it rest. If it fits within your family’s belief system, you may also tell children that the pet has gone to heaven, or that you hope or believe the animal is at peace in a good place. Children often take comfort from the idea that love continues in some form. Allow them to ask questions, to say goodbye if they wish, and to express sadness without pressure to “be strong.” Other household members, including remaining pets, may also need time and gentle attention as routines change.

Dr. Alice Villalobos, a veterinary oncologist and pioneer in pet hospice (sometimes called “Pawspice”), developed a practical scoring tool known as the HHHHHMM Scale. It is widely used by veterinarians and owners to bring structure to an otherwise subjective assessment.

The relationship does not end with the physical presence. The years of care, the shared routines, and the mutual affection remain part of the owner’s life. Choosing a peaceful end, when the time has come, is often the final expression of that care.

A Closing Perspective

The time to let go is not defined by a number of years, a specific diagnosis, or the opinions of well-meaning outsiders. It arrives when the balance of the pet’s experience has shifted decisively toward suffering, when medical and supportive measures can no longer restore a life the animal finds worth living, and when the owner can face the decision with as much honesty and compassion as the relationship itself has deserved.

No one makes this choice lightly. Those who have walked through it often describe it afterward as both the most painful and the most loving act they performed for their companion. In that paradox lies the depth of the bond: the willingness to prioritize the animal’s peace over one’s own desire to hold on.

If you are currently facing this question with a pet, speak with your veterinarian. Track the days honestly. Trust the knowledge you have gained from years of attentive companionship. And know that seeking a gentle end, when the time has come, is not abandonment. It is the last, quiet gift of a life shared well.

---

Appendix A: The Villalobos HHHHHMM Quality of Life Scale

The seven categories are:

• Hurt — Adequate pain control and the ability to breathe comfortably are the top priorities. Trouble breathing outweighs nearly every other concern.
• Hunger — Is the pet eating enough on its own, or is force-feeding or tube feeding required? Appetite stimulants and preferred foods are considered.
• Hydration — Is the animal drinking sufficiently, or are subcutaneous fluids needed to maintain comfort?
• Hygiene — Can the pet keep itself reasonably clean, or is it soiled by urine or feces, leading to skin irritation or infection?
• Happiness — Does the pet still show interest in family, favorite resting spots, or small pleasures? Or has it become withdrawn, anxious, or flat?
• Mobility — Can the animal rise, walk a short distance, and position itself for rest without extreme difficulty or assistance that causes distress?
• More good days than bad — Over a stretch of time, do the better days still outnumber the difficult ones?

Each category is typically scored from 0 (or 1) to 10, with 10 representing ideal quality. A total score of roughly 35 or higher is often interpreted as acceptable quality of life under supportive care; scores that consistently fall well below this threshold prompt serious discussion about whether continued life remains a kindness. The scale is not a rigid formula. It is a shared language that helps owners and veterinarians track trends rather than rely on a single day’s impression.

Appendix B: Pet Hospice Services

Pet hospice (also called veterinary palliative or end-of-life care) is a philosophy and set of services focused on comfort rather than cure for animals with terminal or advanced chronic conditions. It does not aim to prolong life at any cost; it aims to make remaining time as free of unnecessary suffering as possible.

Typical elements include:

• Education about the expected course of the disease so families know what changes to watch for.
• Aggressive but carefully balanced pain and symptom management (medications for pain, nausea, anxiety, and breathing comfort).
• Nutritional support, including preferred foods, appetite stimulants, or assisted feeding when appropriate.
• Management of incontinence, mobility aids, and environmental adjustments (ramps, soft bedding, easy-access litter boxes or outdoor access).
• Guidance on subcutaneous fluids, wound care, and other home-care techniques when needed.
• Regular quality-of-life check-ins, often using tools like the Villalobos scale.
• Emotional support and decision-making counseling for the family.
• Options for natural death under close monitoring or for planned, peaceful euthanasia—frequently offered in the home so the animal remains in familiar surroundings.

Hospice is not the same as simply “waiting.” It is active, medically supervised comfort care. Many families find that a period of hospice allows them to say goodbye without the abruptness of an emergency crisis and without the guilt of having done nothing.

Organizations and mobile veterinary practices specializing in this work have grown in recent years; resources such as the International Association for Animal Hospice and Palliative Care (IAAHPC) maintain directories of trained providers.

Appendix C: Illustrative Examples

These composite scenarios draw from common clinical patterns. They are not individual case histories, but they illustrate how the principles above can appear in real life.

Example 1 — Gradual decline with preserved joy
A 15-year-old mixed-breed dog with mild arthritis and early kidney changes still wags her tail at the sound of the leash, eats with enthusiasm, and seeks out sunny spots on the floor. Mobility is slower and she needs help on stairs, but pain is well controlled with medication and her days contain clear moments of contentment. Quality-of-life scores remain comfortably above the threshold. The family continues supportive care and regular veterinary monitoring, recognizing that chronos is advancing while kairos has not yet arrived.

Example 2 — The tipping point after a good run of hospice
A 12-year-old cat with advanced intestinal lymphoma responds initially to palliative chemotherapy and anti-nausea medication. For several weeks he still seeks laps, uses the litter box, and shows interest in treats. Then appetite collapses, he begins hiding, and breathing becomes labored even at rest. Scores on Hurt, Hunger, Happiness, and More Good Days fall sharply. The family, guided by their veterinarian and the pattern of the preceding days, chooses in-home euthanasia while the cat is still able to be held without distress. They later describe the timing as the moment they stopped extending his struggle and began protecting his remaining dignity.

Example 3 — Crisis avoided through earlier recognition
An older Labrador with laryngeal paralysis and progressive weakness has more bad days than good. He pants heavily, struggles to rise, and shows little interest in people or food. The owners had hoped to “wait until he tells us.” After scoring the HHHHHMM categories honestly for a week and speaking with a hospice-trained veterinarian, they recognize that the animal is already communicating through his body language and declining engagement. They schedule a peaceful home goodbye rather than risk an emergency collapse. The decision, though painful, is remembered as aligned with the dog’s actual experience rather than with the calendar.

These examples underscore a consistent theme: the decision is less about a single number or diagnosis and more about whether the animal’s present life still contains enough of what made it worth living. Tracking, conversation with professionals, and attention to both chronos and kairos help families find that answer with as much clarity and compassion as the bond itself deserves.

Appendix D: Supporting Yourself Through Pet Loss

The grief that follows the loss of a companion animal is often underestimated by those who have never experienced it. It can arrive as sharp waves of sorrow, unexpected anger, numbness, or a lingering sense of emptiness in the ordinary places the pet once occupied. Because the relationship was daily and physical—shared walks, feeding routines, the weight of a head on a lap—the absence is felt in the body as well as the heart.

Helpful approaches include:

• Allowing the feelings without ranking them against other losses. Pet grief is valid on its own terms.
• Creating small rituals: a photo in a quiet corner, a written letter to the animal, planting something in the garden, or keeping a collar or favorite blanket for a time.
• Talking with people who understand—friends who have lost pets, online communities moderated for support rather than debate, or counselors trained in animal-related bereavement.
• Pet-loss hotlines and resources offered by many veterinary schools, humane societies, and specialty practices. These exist because the need is common and legitimate.
• Recognizing that other family members, including children, may grieve differently and on different timelines. Open conversation helps more than forced cheerfulness.

Some people find that formal memorial options (cremation with ashes returned, a paw-print keepsake, a donation in the pet’s name) provide a sense of closure. Others prefer simplicity. There is no required script. What matters is giving the relationship the respect it earned while it was alive.

Appendix E: Preparing for the Conversation and the Day

Once the decision begins to take shape, practical preparation can reduce last-minute distress for both the family and the animal.

Conversations with the veterinary team
Ask clear questions: What is the realistic prognosis with and without further treatment? How will pain and anxiety be managed if we choose hospice? What will the euthanasia process look like, step by step? Can it happen at home? What aftercare options exist (cremation, burial, communal vs. private)? Write the answers down. Many clinics will schedule a dedicated quality-of-life or end-of-life consultation so the discussion is not rushed between other appointments.

Practical arrangements
If home euthanasia is chosen, clear a quiet space the pet already finds comfortable. Have favorite treats, a soft blanket, and any calming aids ready. Confirm the arrival window with the veterinarian or mobile service. Decide in advance who will be present and whether children or other pets will be involved. Some families prefer a private moment afterward; others want the support of a friend.

The process itself
Most modern euthanasia protocols begin with a sedative so the animal becomes deeply relaxed or asleep before the final injection. The veterinarian will explain each step. Owners are usually invited to stay, hold, and speak to the pet throughout. The moment is quiet. Afterward there is time to say goodbye before aftercare begins.

Emotional readiness
It is normal to feel uncertain even after the decision is made. Many people experience a final surge of doubt on the day itself. Having already tracked quality-of-life scores, spoken with the veterinarian, and chosen a setting that prioritizes the animal’s calm can serve as an anchor. The goal is not to eliminate sadness but to ensure the ending itself is as free of fear and pain as possible.

Preparation does not remove the weight of the choice. It simply allows the final act of care to unfold with as much dignity and gentleness as the years of companionship that preceded it.

Selected Resources

• International Association for Animal Hospice and Palliative Care (IAAHPC) — provider directory and educational materials
• Veterinary school pet-loss support programs and hotlines (many university teaching hospitals maintain them)
• Quality-of-life tools and guidance from organizations such as the American Animal Hospital Association and various specialty oncology and hospice practices

These resources exist because the questions you are asking are both common and important. You do not have to navigate them alone.