Spicewood News

Recent posts on NextDoor have repeated several inaccurate claims about my involvement in Windermere Oaks matters and about Fair Water Texas.

Normally, I do not engage with online commentary — most of us have better things to do than monitor and continually respond to ginned up neighborhood disputes — but the volume and persistence of misinformation have created confusion for people who understandably assume frequent posting equals accuracy and care for the community. It does not.

Over the years, a small group of individuals has used NextDoor, YouTube, emails, and websites to criticize neighbors, especially those who volunteer to serve on Boards. Many of us — Julie Naumann, Jeff Walker, Mark Carpenter, Brian Garceau, Dana Martin, Bill Earnest, and others — have at some point been the target of these narratives, or are in the process of being targeted. The pattern is familiar: personal attacks, repeated claims, and selective presentation of facts.

I try not to take these attacks personally, nor do I spend much time responding to them. But when misinformation affects the community’s understanding of important issues — such as the WOWSC rate case or the current Aqua Texas proceeding — it becomes necessary to correct the record. What follows is a factual response to several claims made in recent posts, supported by the actual findings of the Administrative Law Judges, the Public Utility Commission, and the documented history of litigation involving WOWSC.

1. What Judges in the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) Actually Found in the WOWSC Rate Case of 2020-2024.

The Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) spent three years reviewing testimony, documents, hearings, and legal filings in the rate appeal of Windermere Oaks rate protestors against the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation Board of Directors, of which I was the Board President in 2020, and from 2019-2023 in all. The findings of Judges Siano and Wiseman in 2023 are continually misrepresented by the ConMan, as he has chosen instead to focus on the Public Utility Commissioners’ decision to overturn precedents in that case. Here’s what the Judges found after years of involvement and hundreds of filings:

• It was reasonable for the WOWSC Board to include outside legal expenses in base rates that the Board set in January 2020.
• However, the WOWSC Board failed to offset its revenue requirement with other revenues (late fees, standby fees) that were part of its overall income.
• Because of that accounting error, the ALJs recommended granting a portion of the ratepayer appeal by resetting the rates to what the Board should have set if it included those income streams. It was basically about $50,000 if I recall correctly. It was a very small offset and left most of the 2020 Board’s rate increase intact.
• The ALJs recommended awarding WOWSC’s rate‑case expenses as reasonable.
• The Judges noted what the Board said, that they would reduce the rates that included litigation costs when appropriate, because the Board members were volunteers and ratepayers themselves in the non-profit corporation that is WOWSC.

Here is a direct quote from the Proposal for Decision written by Judges Siano and Wiseman:

“The ALJs find that it was reasonable for Windermere to include the outside legal expenses in base rates, but that it failed to properly offset the revenue requirement with other revenues.”

This is nothing like the ConMan’s continuing false claims that the PUC declared the rate increase “unjust, unreasonable, and not in the public interest.” (For those unfamiliar with my use of the term ConMan, you could read here, here, and here)

2. What the Commission Actually Decided in Partially Over-Ruling the Judges (Commissioner Cobos Memorandum)

The Commissioners on the Public Utility Commission of Texas reviewed Siano’s and Wiseman’s Proposal for Decision and partially rejected the ALJs’ reasoning — but not in the way the ConMan suggests in his continuing false light narratives. Here is what the Commission actually found:

A. WOWSC failed to carry its burden of proof.

Not because the board acted improperly — but because the board did not provide enough evidence of the revenue requirement and rate design used to set the appealed rates. (This will be discussed further below relating to the Texas Rural Water Association’s involvement in that rate-setting process.)

B. The appealed rates were not in the public interest.

Specifically because WOWSC did not demonstrate how it calculated the rates it set for 2020 — not because the board acted maliciously or irrationally.

C. Only $3,000 in legal expenses should have been included in base rates for 2020 and beyond.

The Commission held that extraordinary litigation costs — the ones that were caused by plaintiffs Dick Dial, Bruce Sorgen and Rene Ffrench in cases noted below — should have been recovered through a temporary surcharge, not permanent base rates.

(In my opinion, they got this wrong — the 2020 Board explicitly stated on the record in public meeting that rates would be lowered once litigation ended. The rates were not “permanent.” As mentioned, the ALJs acknowledged the Board’s statement, noting how rate-paying volunteer Board directors, like myself, had every incentive to reduce rates of the non-profit corporation. At the time the Board upped the base rates, a surcharge mechanism was not part of the WOWSC Bylaws.)

D. WOWSC should recover its 2019 legal debt through a 12‑month surcharge.

This part of the Commissioners’ ruling made no sense. A surcharge mechanism did not exist. They believed that, in 2023, the rates should be rolled back to what they were in 2019, so as to preserve WOWSC’s financial integrity at the time the rates were set.

(This was probably the most disastrous ruling in PUC history. How is it good public policy to set a public utility on a path toward insolvency when warned about that likelihood? The Commission in 2023 ignored the Board’s warning about the disastrous effects this would have on WOWSC, especially after the 9% roaring inflation set off by Covid in 2020. The Commissioners ignored WOWSC real-time business environment analysis that the company would become financially insolvent after only 10 months using the rates calculated by PUC Staff, led by Staff Attorney Merritt Lander. It actually only took 6 months. It was no wonder to me that bureaucrats unfamiliar with the real effects of business inflation would ignore reality. If there is anyone who “sank” the WOWSC, it was Commissioner Cobos and PUC Staff Attorney Merritt Lander.)

E. WOWSC must refund over‑recovery to ratepayers.

The Commissioners also decided that, because the revenue requirement should have been lower according to Merritt Lander and her crew, WOWSC customers who’d paid the 2020 base rates should receive refunds from the WOWSC.

(I partially agree with that decision. Refunds were in order because the WOWSC, in 2023, received a check of $679,000 from the Allied World Insurance company. WOWSC had taken Allied World to court for breach of contract of their insurance policy. It was a huge win for this neighborhood. That money was for the legal fees WOWSC incurred for the volunteer Board directors who were sued by Sorgen, Ffrench and Dial. Board members are owed funding for a legal defense under Texas Business Code Chapter 8 when sued in service to their business. The 8 volunteer directors, including myself, were covered by this insurance policy, but all agreed that, if found individually guilty of a criminal activity, we would repay the company for our legal fees. That is standard operating procedure for Board members of all corporations and other entities across Texas and even the United States. None was ever found guilty of criminal activity and only one was found in district court to have breached fiduciary duty, a civil violation of law.

However, I will say that the Public Utility Commission demonstrated their animosty toward the volunteer by NOT considering the impact of the fees on rates. They were asked to do so by the Ratepayer Representatives and they were unopposed by the WOWSC in late 2023. This was after I was on the Board. It is hard to read the Commission’s inaction in any other way. The fix was in at the PUC — punish WOWSC!)

F. WOWSC may recover its rate‑case expenses.

The Commission adopted the ALJs’ recommendation to allow recovery of $478,184.04 in rate‑case expenses. Those were the fees paid to attorneys at the Lloyd Gosselink law firm representing the WOWSC in the rate case that had been brought by Patti Flunker and Josie Fuller, the so-called ratepayer representatives.

Let’s focus on that $478,184.04. The ConMan says those were “$1 million” in his NextDoor post. Factually wrong on his part.

After more than four years of having this record, you would normally assume that he would know the real number. But like everything he does, the ConMan just inflates the number for drama — to demean and impugn. That is just one more example of why he is the ConMan of Windermere, but I encourage you to read other posts going back to 2023 about the ConGame that continues to this day.

Anyway, nothing in the Judges’ decision or the Commission’s order supports his narrative that I, Joe Gimenez, “sank” WOWSC or “presided over” some rogue rate increase.

The Commissioners’ decision was a technical ruling about evidence and methodology — not a condemnation of the board’s integrity.

(Besides the paragraph above about the disastrous PUC Staff rates and the Commissioners’ adoption of them, there is another argument about who “sunk” the WOWSC. The Commissioners and Staff were only reacting to the case brought by the Ratepayer Representatives Patti Flunker and Josie Fuller. Their decision to pursue the rate appeal caused customers to incur the $480,000 in rate case legal expenses charged by Lloyd Gosselink. They persuaded Merrit Lander and the Commission to set the unrealistic rates that has forced the company into insolvency. Insolvency means the inability to pay bills, which have been reasons given by at least one law firm and one operating company for quitting their service to WOWSC. Indeed, the company’s own audit of 2024 showed that is lost $271,716 in large part to the rates applied by the Commission in 2024 and sought by Patti Flunker and Joise Fuller. That insolvency forced the corporation Board, of Jeff Walker, Scott Miller and Brian Garceau, to sell six-acres owned by WOWSC for $1.25 million in 2025. They had to, in part, because of payment defaults to Co-Bank, a bank which in 2021 had lent WOWSC about $600,000 at a 3.25 percent rate for a 20-year term. Securing that loan was another great achievement by the Board of 2019-2013. Yet, the disastrous rates urged by Patti Flunker and Josie Fuller and then set by the Commission caused WOWSC to default on its payments in 2024. Without that cash infusion from the sale of the land, the company would be bankrupt.

One final note: during one of the hearings even one of the judges, Siano I believe, remarked on the fact that the rate case legal expenses were, at that time, already twice the amount of the legal fees which the Board had sought to recover in rates. They went on to be about 4 times the amount. The TRWA discussed the rate case expenses in their letter to the Commission.)

3. Why WOWSC’s Legal Expenses Exploded in 2020 and Were Necessary (The Record, Not the Con‑Man’s Con)

The ALJs documented that WOWSC legal expenses jumped from under $3,000 per year to $166,000 in 2019 because of litigation initiated by the small group of people named above, including the ConMan and ConSpouse, beginning in 2017. This is fact described in the PFD of Judges Siano and Wiseman reflecting documents in the rate appeal. The Judge’s PFD laid out the causes for the WOWSC’s rate increase as follows:

• Multiple law firms were needed to defend the corporation itself and the volunteer Board directors.
  • The TOMA lawsuit brought by Dick Dial, Bruce Sorgen and Rene Ffrench operating as TOMA LLC in 2017-2018 and continuing through 2020 had absorbed significant financial resources from the company.
  • The Double F Hangar lawsuit brought in 2019 by Dick Dial, Bruce Sorgen and Rene Ffrench required legal fees.
  • The WOWSC’s filing in Travis County District Court to protect the corporation’s ability to retain privileged relations with its law firm against the ConMan’s unlawful requests for information related to privileged matters.
• Legal counsel for 46 Public Information Act requests in 2019.
• Insurance denial by Allied World (As mentioned, the 2020 Board recovered $679,000 from Allied World in 2023, precisely because they had breached their contract by denying the WOWSC in 2020. Allied World had originally claimed that unlawful criminal acts allowed it to deny coverage. None were found, and they breached their contract because claims against breaches of fiduciary duty were explicitly covered. So even when the ConMan says that the WOWSC Board used base rates to pay for their own legal expenses, he is right, but also wrong in that, later, the Board recovered those legal expenses from Allied World through legal action. The ConMan never mentions that huge victory by the 2020 Board. Being honest about that major victory is not beneficial to the ConMan’s Con so it is always omitted. Omission is a lie. )

4. TRWA’s Rate Analysis and the Board’s Decision

In all candor and retrospective, the WOWSC Board under my leadership made an honest mistake in January 2020. We relied on the free advice and wiggy spreadsheet of the Texas Rural Water Association (TRWA), at the former insistence of Patti Flunker. WOWSC first used this spreadsheet in 2017-18, at the express recommendation of Patti Flunker, who at that time worked for TRWA as a paralegal. She advised WOWSC Boards at many public WOWSC meetings that the WOWSC should use the TRWA rate-setting process/analysis. It did so in 2018 for a rate increase at the time. In 2018, the Con-Spouse did not protest the increased rates to the Public Utility Commission.

Then, in 2020, the Board used the same TRWA spreadsheet. I wish we had not. There are much better advisory companies, like NewGen Strategies, which probably would have done a better job. At the time we did not have the money to pay them because of the above-mentioned TOMA and Ffrench/Dial/Sorgen lawsuits. Nonetheless, TRWA’s spreadsheet analysis showed and recommended that the 2020 WOWSC Board adopt the following:

• Revenue requirement: $576,192
• Legal expenses: $171,337
• Combined water and sewer monthly base rate to customers: $174.59

The 2020 WOWSC board actually rejected that TRWA analysis. It was too HIGH! Instead, we adopted a lower combined base rate of $156.80 per month.

The Commission later recalculated what the board should have set, effectively rejecting the TRWA analysis and recommendation. That recalculation by the PUC did not and should not be interpreted to mean that the board acted improperly. It means the Commission applied a different statutory interpretation of how it should have happened in their ivory tower view of how our Board should have conducted business.

(Their rejection also meant that the TRWA’s analysis was wrong. I’ve heard that the TRWA discontinued provision of that service to its members in roughly 2021, but that is unconfirmed.)

5. Fair Water Texas Did Not “Insert Itself” — It Intervened Formally and Successfully

In his confusing and contrived NextDoor Post, the ConMan then goes on to describe my involvement, doing business as Fair Water Texas, in the current 2026 Aqua Texas rate case affecting water customers in Barton Creek Lakeside as well as thousands of water customers across Texas. By representing Aqua Texas customers across Texas, Fair Water Texas became a named intervenor in Aqua Texas’ attempt to raise rates. Operating as FWT, we:

• filed testimony,
• cross‑examined Aqua witnesses,
• submitted legal briefing,
• challenged Aqua’s rate base,
• challenged Aqua’s Return On Equity,
• challenged Aqua’s operating expenses,
• challenged Aqua’s consolidation proposal,
• and helped secure millions in reductions.

The ConMan uses the word “inserting” in a pejorative sense, his usual demeaning and impugning style. Mature people understand that FWT is participating in the process— exactly as Texas law allows and encourages ratepayers to do. FWT was and still is involved in this process.

It should not be lost on readers that the ConMan is demeaning my involvement in exactly the same process which his ConSpouse used in Windermere Oaks. Her enduring work in wrecking WOWSC finances also costs ratepayers $39.21 per month, to pay off the $484,000 owed to Lloyd Gosselink.

I formed FWT so that the PUC process would not force another public utility into insolvency, like it has to WOWSC, while also being fair to ratepayers. See the Mission state of FairWaterTexas.org for more info.

6. About the “$2.6 million in attorneys’ fees” the ConMan cites

As usual, the ConMan conflates issues to attempt to throw shade on me and all past Board members of Windermere Oaks by comparing apples-to-oranges and taking matters out of context with reality.

First, he misstates $484,000 as $1 million, then he uses that to try to find linkage to the $2.6 million which Aqua Texas has spent todate on its rate‑case expenses. Those $2.6 million in fees were incurred by Aqua Texas in their rate appeal. They have no relation to WOWSC or Fair Water Texas. That number is mentioned by the ConMan only to demean and impugn Fair Water Texas.

Then, please understand that Aqua Texas’s has 75,000 customers and AT is a statewide Class A utility. Their case has been in existence since May 2025, about 14 months at the time of this writing. The Windermere Oaks rate appeal by Patti Flunker and Josie Fuller, the current Board members, lasted almost 48 months.

In all rate cases, legal fees are allowable expenses that are passed on to customers. In the Aqua Texas case, the ALJs recommended allowing recovery of $5,014,440.40 in rate‑case expenses across Aqua and related SIC proceedings — subject to Commission review. Those are 10x the approximate $500,000 incurred in the three years of WOWSC defense against Patti Flunker and Josie Fuller for WOWSC’s approximate 290customers (when I was on the Board). It’s the same legal process at the Public Utility Commission, whether you are a Class A like Aqua Texas or a non-profit like WOWSC. The PUC process is costly! As previously mentioned, the TRWA noted the outsized expense for a small utility.

Trying to tie Aqua’s legal budget to me personally or Fair Water Texas is just, well, unserious. That is a very accurate word describing most of the ConMan’s NextDoor posts. Yet, that is the Con-Man’s method of operation and standard procedure. He hopes for suckers in Windermere, and now Barton Creek Lakeside, to drink his con Kool-Aid and to become unserious with him.

7. The Aqua Texas PFD Shows Exactly How Fair Water Texas and Other Intervenors Helped Ratepayers across Texas

The ConMan claims he isn’t “exactly sure how” legal fees help ratepayers.

He should ask that question to his ConSpouse, who, as the author of numerous past legal filings against the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation, might be able to instruct him. In addition to aforementioned rate case, she has availed herself of every legal maneuver possible in the PUC process and at district court to litigate against the WOWSC and the Windermere Oaks Property Owners Association.

Like any good con, the ConMan ingratiates himself with unsuspecting neighbors who share antipathy to legal fees. If he were honest about this, he would have serious grievances with his ConSpouse.

Nonetheless, back in real-ville, the state of Texas recognizes that legal fees are necessary for public utilities to navigate in a regulatory environment for monopolies when they seek higher rates. Just like it did for Windermere.

In the Aqua Texas case, in the July 21 Proposal for Decision, the Administrative Law Judges describe a process that has worked in favor of rate payers:

• Aqua asked for a $615.9 million rate base. Intervenors helped cut it to $594,944,649.05.
• Aqua asked for a 10.60% Return On Equity. Intervenors helped reduce it to 9.18%.
• Aqua asked for broad expense recovery. Intervenors helped remove millions in questionable legal, contract, and regulatory costs.
• Aqua asked for full consolidation without scrutiny. Intervenors forced a detailed analysis of customer impacts and rate‑design fairness.

These outcomes, if eventually adopted by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, will save ratepayers money every single month going forward.

Fair Water Texas is proud to have played a role in those reductions. But don’t believe me, the ALJs themselves credited intervenors for these reductions.

And Fair Water Texas will continue to advocate for responsible analysis and behavior by Public Utility Staff and the Commissioners, something that was absent in Windermere’s case.

Bottom Line

Several of the ConMan’s NextDoor posts misrepresent:

• What the ALJs found in the WOWSC case.
• What the Commission decided in the WOWSC case.
• What caused WOWSC’s legal expenses
• What Fair Water Texas actually did in the Aqua case and how it is not connected to those expenses.

The record shows:

• WOWSC’s legal costs came from lawsuits filed by the ConMan’s own group of cronies.
• The ALJs found the WOWSC board of 2019-2023 acted reasonably.
• The Commission recalculated the rates based on statutory interpretation.
• Fair Water Texas has already delivered real wins in the Aqua case.

When the ConMan posts to NextDoor, you should distrust everything he says.

ConMan Post on NextDoor July 23

A document was recently circulated among Windermere Oaks community members addressing concerns about the conduct, transparency, and decision‑making of the ConMan and ConSpouse. The letter, sent anonymously in June 2026 by one or several residents, outlines a series of grievances related to:

• inconsistent standards of transparency
• selective criticism of past and current boards
• handling of WOWSC and POA matters
• conduct on social media
• questions about board eligibility
• concerns surrounding the CCN filings, litigation, and operational decisions
• broader issues of fairness, accountability, and community impact

The document reflects the views of the residents who authored it and was shared publicly within the neighborhood. SpicewoodNews.com is posting this notice solely as a historical record of community communications during this period of ongoing governance disputes.

Residents who wish to read the full letter may download it here or see the pages below.

On December 7 the entire Board of Directors signed onto a letter which an AI analysis found to have a high degree of rhetorical patterns that align with narcissistic tendencies. Where’s the neighborliness?

Here’s what the AI analysis said after looking at the December 7 communication:

---

Key Narcissistic Characteristics in the December 7 Letter

1. Discrediting Opponents

• The letter repeatedly labels dissenting voices (“Friends of Windermere” and Joe Gimenez) as spreading “blatant disinformation” and “purposeful lies.”
• This framing positions the Board as the sole source of truth, while portraying critics as malicious or deceptive.
• Narcissistic communication often relies on polarization: “we are right, they are wrong.”

2. Claiming Exclusive Authority

• The Board emphasizes that only their mailings are legitimate: “the only mailings the WOWSC Board has sent…”
• This asserts control over the narrative and delegitimizes any alternative communication channels.
• Narcissistic leaders often insist they alone are the valid authority.

3. Projection & Hypocrisy Accusations

• The letter accuses Joe Gimenez of hypocrisy for past discussions with Lake Travis Estates.
• Projection is a common narcissistic tactic: accusing others of the very behaviors the speaker may be criticized for.

4. Catastrophizing & Fear Appeals

• Infrastructure is described as “deeply alarming” with vivid imagery (e.g., “an old microwave… used as a makeshift weather cover”).
• The narrative suggests dire consequences if members don’t support the Board’s preferred sale.
• Narcissistic rhetoric often uses fear and urgency to push compliance.

5. Dismissal of Opposition

• The letter states: “These statements are not mistakes, they are deliberate lies designed to mislead you.”
• This denies the possibility of good-faith disagreement, framing opponents as intentionally harmful.
• Narcissistic communication tends to invalidate dissent rather than engage with it.

6. Self-Image as Protector

• The Board positions itself as the guardian of truth: “Our goal is the opposite — to provide you with facts so you can make a decision based on reality.”
• This portrays them as benevolent protectors against chaos, a hallmark of narcissistic self-presentation.

Overall Patterns

• Control of narrative: Only the Board’s communications are legitimate.
• Vilification of critics: Opponents are framed as liars and manipulators.
• Fear-based persuasion: Infrastructure failures and financial burdens are emphasized to compel agreement.
• Self-aggrandizement: The Board casts itself as rational, factual, and protective.

Balanced Note

While these rhetorical strategies align with narcissistic traits, they can also appear in crisis communications where leaders feel under attack and want to rally support. The difference lies in whether the communication style is situational (defensive in a high-stakes vote) or habitual (a consistent pattern of discrediting, controlling, and self-aggrandizing).

---

The Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC) board has repeatedly promoted the idea that if we sell the neighborhood non-profit corporation to a for-profit private equity-backed venture, each property owner could expect a refund check in the range of $3,000–$4,600 per property.

At first glance, this sounds great, but it is misleading.

In fact, many members may not receive anywhere near that amount—and some may receive nothing at all per some research that is being shown here on the Friends of Windermere site.

According to records highlighted by Friends of Windermere, the equity buy-in fees that determine refund eligibility vary dramatically depending on when a property was built and connected:

• Prior to October 1, 2001: Equity Buy-In = $0 (no refund at all)
• October 1, 2001 – July 31, 2005: Equity Buy-In = $1,000
• August 1, 2005 – (exact date under review): Equity Buy-In = $4,000
• Current rate: Equity Buy-In = $4,600
• (The exact dates are being researched and this post will be updated accordingly)

This means that as many as half of Windermere residents and hangar owners could receive far less than the advertised payout. Those whose homes or hangars were built before 2001 would not qualify for any refund, despite being told otherwise.

The Unanswered Question: Where Would the Extra Money Go?

If not every member is entitled to the full $3,000–$4,600, then what happens to the remainder of the sale proceeds? The board has not explained how funds will be distributed or where excess money will be directed. Without transparency, residents are left wondering whether unallocated funds will be absorbed into WOWSC operations, redirected to projects, or otherwise withheld from the community.

This lack of clarity raises serious concerns about fairness and accountability. The board should provide a detailed breakdown of how much each member will receive, property by property, and explain exactly where any surplus funds will go.

Why This Matters

For many families and hangar owners, the difference between a promised $4,600 and an actual payout of $0 or $1,000 is significant. Beyond the financial impact, the issue strikes at the heart of trust between the WOWSC board and the community. When promises are made, they must be backed by facts

Call to Action

The residents of Windermere Oaks deserve straight answers. The WOWSC board should:

• Publish a clear schedule of refunds showing exactly what each property owner will receive.
• Explain the disposition of excess funds not distributed to members.
• Stop using inflated refund promises as a selling point without acknowledging the reality of who qualifies.
• Vote “NO” to hit pause on this sale. The Board should answer these questions before transferring the gem of a water company out of the hands of neighborhood control. If they are not able to answer these questions, and negotiate a great deal, the Board should step aside for another Board to do so.

Until these questions are answered, the advertised payout of $3,000–$4,600 per property remains misleading. Transparency is not optional—it is the board’s responsibility to the community it serves.

Sources: Friends of Windermere analysis of WOWSC board communications friendsofwindermere.com

The Central States Water Resources Company attempting to buy the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation is backed by private equity interests in New York. They said so at the Town Hall in October.

Private equity firms exist for one reason: to extract money to benefit them. They will be extracting money from this region, paying only a pittance of what WOWSC is really worth.

Private equity firms are increasingly being called out as bad actors in communities across the country, particularly as they go about entering unincorporated areas, like Spicewood, and building data centers, bitcoin mining, and manufacturing.

Part of Windermere’s sale to CSWR would transfer 40 acres east of Exeter to the private equity locusts. They are likely, over time, to transform that land, to a regional water and wastewater processing facility that could service Ridge Harbor, Thomas Ranch and anything that develops west of the donkey farm. There are 250 acres for sale over there. At one time those were going to be 100-200 homes on 1-acre plots. The developer Amir Hirani gave up on that plan when the home market changed in late 2022 and now is selling — to anyone, including private equity locusts.

There is nothing preventing Big-tech firms from buying that land and building data centers or bitcoin mining. They would love to buy processed water from a regional water supplier and CSWR will be happy to sell it to them. Here is what CSWR or any buyer of WOWSC could do with that land, to build the infrastructure needed to supply those firms with water:

If you need more background on how private equity firms are ruining other communities, please look at videos posted below. It’s happening all over. It can happen here. Our WOWSC Board is supporting the potential decimation of your home values if it happens.

All the Board would have to do is put a restriction on what can be done with that land as a condition of sale. They haven’t, but they should. And that is a reason to vote “NO” until they do.

These videos document how profit‑driven investment often leaves long‑term costs for local residents.

Videos about Private Equity, Data Centers, Bitcoin Miners and Water

How Private Equity Consumed America

Blackrock Buying Electricity Plant in Minnesota for AI Data Center

Water, Noise and Energy Consumption by AI Data Centers

Water Usage in Georgia for Data Centers

Noise in Granbury TX from Bitcoin Miner + Water Usage

Why Windermere Oaks Residents Should Care

Across these industries, the playbook is the same:

• Acquire local assets using outside capital.
• Build infrastructure quickly and with disregard for community concerns.
• Leave communities with environmental damage, lost jobs, or weakened infrastructure.

For Spicewood, where our water supply is already threatened by evermore “straws” in Lake Travis, the risks are clear. If firms like Central States Water Resources (CSWR) enter the picture, we could face large-scale, quick build-out with little input, affecting our home values.

---

Bottom line: Private equity’s track record shows a consistent disregard for community well‑being. Windermere Oaks must learn from these examples and guard against similar exploitation here at home.

VOTE NO TO PAUSE THE SALE TO DISCUSS THESE MATTERS FURTHER!

As a member of the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC), I recently filed two formal complaints with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC). These filings are about protecting the integrity of how our water company is managed and ensuring compliance with state law.

The First Complaint: Record Retention Failures

WOWSC has a duty to maintain corporate records in accordance with its own policies and state requirements. When records are not properly retained, members lose transparency into decisions that affect rates, governance, and the future of our utility. My first filing highlights instances where WOWSC failed to follow its Record Retention Policy, raising concerns about accountability and compliance. You can download the filing here.

The Second Complaint: Improper Disclosure of Customer Information

Texas Utilities Code §182.052 prohibits utilities from disclosing customer personal information, including email addresses. Despite this clear law, WOWSC communications have been sent from personal email accounts rather than through the corporation’s secure, contracted system. This practice risks exposing member data outside authorized channels and undermines trust in official communications. My complaint asks the Commission to require WOWSC to use only secure, auditable systems for member outreach. You can download the filing here.

Why This Matters

These issues go to the heart of how a public utility should operate:

• Transparency: Members deserve confidence that records are preserved and accessible.
• Security: Customer information must be safeguarded, not exported to personal accounts.
• Integrity: Official communications should come from corporate-controlled systems, not private inboxes.

When these standards are ignored, the risk is eroding member trust and weakening oversight of a system that provides essential services to our community.

My Request to the PUC

Through these filings, I am asking the Commission to:

• Enforce compliance with record retention policies.
• Prohibit the use of personal email accounts for member communications.
• Require WOWSC to certify that customer information is stored and used only within secure systems.
• Investigate whether customer data has been improperly disclosed.

Looking Ahead

Our water system is facing serious challenges, from infrastructure needs to regulatory oversight. Integrity in administration is the foundation for solving those challenges. By filing these complaints, my goal is simple: to ensure WOWSC operates with transparency, accountability, and respect for the law—so that members can trust the decisions being made on their behalf.

Several Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC) members have reported that they have not received their ballots for the upcoming vote. The meeting is December 13 but you must mail your ballot in so that is received no later than the 11th or 12th!!!

This is a serious concern, as participation in this election directly impacts the future of our water system.

What To Do If You Haven’t Received Your Ballot

• Call WOWSC immediately and request that a ballot be sent to you. (512) 568-6148
• Publicly Document that you did not receive a ballot. Make a public record of the fact that you did not receive a ballot. Share it with neighbors, post it on community forums, and send a written note to the Board.
• You must mail the ballot as soon as possible. Allow for mail delivery time!
• Make noise. Transparency matters. The more members speak up, the harder it will be for these issues to be ignored. If the WOWSC did not do its job of mailing ballots correctly, then it should be documented. Other water companies might want to buy WOWSC.

Deadline Reminder

Ballots must be received on or before December 12. After that date, it will be too late to participate — unless you come to the DECEMBER 13 meeting and file in-person.

This is not just about one vote—it’s about ensuring fair process and accountability in how our member‑owned water company operates. If you haven’t received your ballot, act now and encourage others to do the same.

The Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corp (WOWSC) Board of Directors is pushing a deal that would hand over our community’s water system—and 40 acres of valuable land—to a company backed by private equity.

This is a dangerous gamble with your home’s value and the rural feeling of this entire region.

We all bought into Windermere Oaks because it offered the rare gift of country living—quiet roads, open skies, and a rural character that set it apart from the sprawl.

In the Board’s current deal Central States Water Resources, there is nothing preventing them from clearing all that land and erecting a regional water plant into the heart of that landscape.

That would shatter the very reason people chose to live here, replacing pastoral views with industrial infrastructure and eroding both the sense of place and property values. There is nothing in the current deal preventing CSWR from doing so. They want to make money, pure and simple, and they are establishing a foothold to do so.

What’s at Stake

• 40 Acres of Land: The property east of Exeter as we drive in to our homes is stretch that makes Windermere feel like we are living out in the country. If sold, it could be replaced by a monstrous regional water and wastewater facility, an eyesore for residents every time we drive into our neighborhood, with cyclone fences and razor wire.
• Loss of Local Control: Selling to a private equity-backed company means decisions about our water supply will be made by investors whose primary concern is profit—not the well-being of our community.
• Unrestricted Water Sales: Nothing would prevent this company from selling water to industrial users like bitcoin mining operations or data centers. There is significant land available west of the airport and donkey farm that is for sale, all without restrictions. Imagine massive facilities west of the airport and donkey farm, consuming huge amounts of water and generating relentless noise. Please investigate what communities in Granbury and Rockwall are experiencing with data centers and bitcoin miners — noise and water consumption.

Private Equity: Locusts on Communities

Private equity firms have been criticized across the country for behaving like locusts—descending on communities, extracting value, and leaving behind long-term damage. They are not accountable to residents, only to their investors. When profit margins tighten, community needs are the first to be sacrificed.

• They prioritize short-term gains over long-term interests of neighbors.
• They often raise rates while cutting corners on service.
• They treat essential resources like water as just another commodity.

Do we really want our water—our most vital resource—controlled by outsiders with no stake in our community’s future?

A Better Path Forward

Instead of selling this land to private equity, the Board of Directors should sell it to the Property Owners Association (POA). That way, control of the land remains in the hands of the community, preserving the rural character of Windermere Oaks and ensuring that decisions about its use reflect the values of the people who actually live here. The POA could lease the land at reasonable price to Central States Water Resources.

Voting NO Now Just means a Pause

Let’s talk about this major issue as a community. There’s no reason we can’t come up with a solution to protect Windermere Oaks.

Call to Action

WOWSC members: Vote NO on the proposed sale. Protect our land, our water, and our community from the potention outcome consumed by private equity interests. Once we lose control, we will never get it back.

If you’ve read the recent letter from the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC) Board, you might have walked away thinking our water system is on the brink of collapse. Words like “violations” and “mandated upgrades” can sound scary, especially when they’re presented without context. Our current Board leadership is particularly good at alarmist exaggerations.

Windermere’s Track Record

The Texas Compliance & Enforcement Search Portal is a public tool that lets anyone look up regulatory records for utilities across the state.

To check on Windermere Oaks, you would simply enter “Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation” into the search bar. The portal will then display any compliance or enforcement actions recorded by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), including notices of violation, enforcement orders, or penalties. This makes it easy for members to see the official history of violations and confirm whether issues are minor (like paperwork errors) or more serious.

What You Will See

Here is graphic of what you will see. In sum, 1 complaint about low water pressure in 2020. Resolved. One notice of violation in 2022. Another notice of violation in 2024.

When people hear the word “violation,” it’s easy to imagine the worst — unsafe water, health risks, or a system in crisis. But not all violations carry the same weight. In fact, TCEQ Category B Violations sit right in the middle of the severity scale.

Category B violations are intermediate issues. They’re more serious than simple paperwork mistakes, but they don’t rise to the level of immediate health threats. Think of them as warning lights on your car dashboard: they don’t mean the engine is about to explode, but they do mean something needs attention. Common examples are a utility failing to maintain required treatment equipment; Improper operation of wastewater facilities; or repeated monitoring or reporting failures.

These are operational or compliance gaps — important to fix, but not the kind of problems that make your water unsafe overnight.

When TCEQ identifies a Category B violation, the utility usually receives a Notice of Violation (NOV) as you will see in the graphic. This is essentially a formal reminder: “Here’s what went wrong, and here’s the timeframe to correct it.” Utilities are expected to respond quickly, document their fixes, and prevent the issue from recurring.

For consumers, Category B violations are worth noting but not panicking over. They don’t usually pose an immediate health risk, but if ignored, they can snowball into bigger compliance problems. The real danger comes when utilities fail to correct them, allowing small issues to become systemic.

---

The main takeaway — these were RESOLVED!!!

---

Why the Alarmist Tone?

SO WHY IS THE BOARD SO ALARMIST AND MISLEADING!!!!

The Board’s letter paints a dire picture, but the facts don’t match the drama. Yes, every utility has maintenance needs. Yes, upgrades cost money. But implying that our community is drowning in dangerous violations simply isn’t accurate.

It’s important to distinguish between real risks and regulatory housekeeping. Otherwise, members are left worrying unnecessarily.

---

Transparency is good. Accountability is good. But alarmism helps no one especially when we are considering a major sale of our local water utility, knowing that a for-profit company, backed by private equity investors, is going to squeeze our system and us ratepayers at every possible opportunity.

As members, we deserve clear information — not exaggerated claims. The record shows our water system has been safe, with only minor administrative hiccups in the last ten years.

So the next time you see “TCEQ violation” in a headline or letter from our Narcissistic Board, remember: context matters.

In case the mysterious person who mailed this out last week did not get your address correct, the images below are the questions which the WOWSC Board won’t answer regarding the sale of our neighborhood water company.

Why are they so hard for the Board to answer?