Residents urge supervisors to block proposed data center over water, traffic and noise concerns

Dozens of residents from Mineral and surrounding districts urged the Louisa County Board of Supervisors on July 7 to reject a proposed Amazon Web Services data campus, citing water supply, traffic and environmental risks.

The public comment period drew repeated requests that supervisors vote no on the project, with speakers citing figures provided by the applicant and raising additional concerns about heavy construction traffic and diesel generators.

Why it matters: Speakers said the campus would increase demand for local water and electricity and could affect the town's only reservoir and the safety of local roads. Several residents asked the board to stop further approvals until the county can confirm water capacity, traffic mitigation and how generator and construction impacts would be managed.

At the public microphone, Carrie Pizon of the Mineral District cited modelled and applicant-provided numbers: "We're also told that the safe field is 3,200,000 gallons a day," and she said the AWS campus was "expected to use 660,000 gallons a day, double the current average usage with a peak draw of 7,000,000 gallons a day." Pizon and other speakers urged supervisors not to approve another campus while multiple data complexes are already planned in the county.

Several speakers pressed practical consequences. Roy Waters said he had not seen a backup plan for the county if reservoir infrastructure or pipes failed and warned against granting an open conditional use permit (CUP) that would let a developer build without returning for additional approvals. Howard Loudon and other Mineral residents said the proposed site has multiple tributaries feeding the reservoir and described heavy grading and construction risks to water quality.

Environmental and equity concerns were raised as well. Christian Miller said large data-center operators have in some cases underreported emissions and relied on renewable energy credits rather than on-site generation, and argued the pattern amounts to environmental harm for host communities.

Speakers also raised operational details they said remain unclear: the number of buildings and cooling/generator units, final electricity sourcing and whether the reservoir and aquifer would meet sustained demand. Kevin Cave said he had seen references to 175 diesel generators for campus builds in industry presentations and urged supervisors to "educate yourself" before approving another campus.

County staff described the regulatory pathway. A county staff member explained that a CUP application must be deemed complete before the planning commission will schedule a public hearing and that adjacent property owners receive certified notice; she said staff had requested additional information from the applicant and that the application had not yet been scheduled for planning commission review. She also noted that religious assemblies are exempt from planning fees and that the CUP process includes neighborhood meetings and multiple public notices.

Board reaction and next steps: Several speakers thanked Supervisor Adams for publicly opposing the project; members of the public asked whether a referendum was possible, and the board said it would record the question and respond later. No formal board action on the data center was taken at the July 7 meeting; staff said the application remains incomplete and will proceed through the county's normal CUP review once all required materials are submitted.

The board did not vote on the project at the meeting. Officials and staff encouraged residents to follow the planning commission and board agendas for future public hearings on any CUP application.