Residents sharply divided over proposed Balaco data center and on‑site gas plant in Pittsylvania County

At the Feb. 18 Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors meeting, dozens of residents and local representatives testified for and against a proposed Balaco LLC data‑center campus and on‑site gas‑fired power facility that company materials describe as a multi‑phase project occupying roughly 747–750 acres and ultimately capable of producing very large amounts of electricity.

The proposals’ opponents said the project would strain local water supplies, harm river and wetland ecology and generate air and noise pollution. Supporters said the project would bring tax revenue, infrastructure and new municipal water service to parts of U.S. 29 corridor. The developer’s team told the board it had delayed its formal rezoning hearing to revise plans and provide more information to county staff and the public before the hearing is held March 18.

The debate centered on three sets of concerns: the project’s scale and energy output, which several speakers described in gigawatts; the project’s daily water demand, repeatedly cited as 2,000,000 gallons per day in public remarks; and environmental and permitting questions raised by state regulators.

“3.5 gigawatts. That is over 6 times more than Smith Mountain Dam will put out full blast, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,” said Chuck Angier, a resident, describing the project’s scale and urging caution. Cole Poindexter, speaking for Stanton River Watch, said the proposed water use “would consume 2,000,000 gallons a day,” and called for scrutiny of how such withdrawals would affect downstream lakes, fisheries and recreation.

Several speakers pointed to possible local benefits. “Balaco has agreed... they will put a $3 surcharge on the 2,000,000 gallons worth of water that they’ll buy every day from the town of Hurt. $1 of that goes to every single EMS and firefighting house in Pittsylvania County,” said Paul Johnson, who identified himself as a Stanton River District resident, adding Balaco had offered other local contributions and that the project would not seek tax breaks.

Developers’ representative Tim Reynolds said the team postponed the public hearing to refine its submittal and allow staff adequate review time. “Our team decided…to delay the hearing so that we could refine our proposal based on feedback from county staff and citizens,” Reynolds said, and he told the board the company plans to provide updated maps, a new website and continued community outreach ahead of the March 18 public hearing.

Technical and regulatory questions were raised repeatedly. Jennifer East Cole, a geologist who said she specializes in hydrology, asked, “How is the water initially treated to cool the data center?…What is the percentage and composition of the residual water left over after cooling? Nobody will tell us.” Amanda C. Widener read a July 2024 communication she said came from Paul Jenkins at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality saying, in her words, that “a single turbine…will have nitrous oxide emissions that would require a state major air permit,” and that multiple turbines could push emissions above prevention‑of‑significant‑deterioration thresholds.

Other speakers questioned tax incentives, traffic, the size and visual impact of a campus they said could extend for miles, and whether local officials had enough independent data to judge environmental impacts. Supporters urged the board to consider long‑term economic benefits and infrastructure improvements, including extension of municipal water along the U.S. 29 corridor.

No formal zoning decision or board vote on the Balaco proposal occurred at the Feb. 18 meeting. The company’s representatives told the board they will submit additional materials and that the public hearing is scheduled for March 18, when the Planning Commission and board will consider rezoning requests and environmental information.

Why this matters: The campus and on‑site generation would require rezoning to heavy industrial and state permits for water use and air emissions if built. The county’s decision on rezoning and any local incentive package would shape water allocation, land use and local tax revenues for years.

Ending: The board did not act on the proposal at the Feb. 18 meeting. Balaco’s team and dozens of residents are expected to return to a March 18 public hearing where staff reports, updated maps and further testimony will be considered.