Residents urge study of water, energy impacts of proposed Yukon data center

Several Yukon residents told the City Council on Sept. 9 they are concerned about a proposed data center’s demands on local water and electricity and urged the city to publish environmental and fiscal analyses before moving forward. At the council’s visitor comment period, Donovan Furr, of 738 Woodlawn, said the data center “could have significant impact to most of, if not all of our residents” and pressed the council for details on water use, power costs and how revenues would benefit schools and taxpayers. Furr said Yukon currently imports water from Oklahoma City and that municipal usage is “about 2.5 millions of gallons of water per day,” citing a wastewater treatment plant rated for a maximum of 3,000,000 gallons per day. He contrasted that to a Google data center in Mesa, Arizona, which he said sought up to 4,000,000 gallons per day. “I’m concerned with how this data center could impact even those modernizations and if we would have our residents impacted by that,” he said. Another speaker, Stephanie Burdine of 515 Maple, urged residents to attend the Oklahoma Corporation Commission hearing about utility rate requests and data-center impacts, and she listed recent publicly reported profits for large technology firms to argue they can afford to pay more to avoid burdening ratepayers. A third resident identified in the meeting as Mrs. Singh said she had found emails indicating the developer and a firm called BeltLine Energy had been discussing assembling about 500 acres for an “energy campus” that could include clean-energy components and multiple data center buildings developed over several years. She told the council she and other residents felt information about the project was not shared before a planning commission rezoning vote. Speakers asked the council three specific questions: when an environmental impact survey would be done and posted, how any revenue from the project would be allocated, and whether the council would improve transparency after some residents said discussions and votes occurred before public notice. “I urge you to look into the possibility of the AI bubble popping and the rapid obsolescence of data center equipment,” Furr said. Council members did not take formal action on the data center during the meeting. The questions from residents were heard during the visitor comment period; city staff did not present a response or a timeline for environmental review during the Sept. 9 session. The council did not adopt or refer a motion about the project at that time. The speakers asked that any future discussions include published analyses of (1) projected water withdrawals and wastewater return flows, (2) effects on potable supply and nearby well users, (3) expected electrical load and contractual arrangements with OG&E, and (4) an itemized accounting of any payments, tax agreements or incentives the city might receive and how those revenues would be used. The council made no specific commitments at the meeting to conduct or publish an environmental impact study, or to hold an additional public hearing on the data center; residents asked the council to provide those items in follow-up communications.