Jackson County zoning commission advances draft regulating data centers and crypto mining, debates farmland protections and noise limits

Jackson County zoning commissioners on an unspecified date completed a full work session on a draft ordinance for high‑density computing facilities — a category the draft defines to include data centers and cryptocurrency mining operations — and directed staff to tighten language on agricultural protections, enforcement and technical standards.

Speaker 2 summarized changes in the revised draft, saying, "Cooling systems now require air cooled or closed loop," and listing added structural standards, deferral of sanitary systems to the health department, clarified board of adjustment language, and newly drafted sections on road use, decommissioning, enforcement and penalties. The draft requires a decommissioning plan "prepared and sealed by a licensed professional engineer" that must include a step‑by‑step dismantling sequence, estimated decommissioning cost (excluding salvage value) and erosion control and site restoration methods.

Why it matters: county officials said the ordinance is intended to allow scrutiny of large computing‑intensive uses while protecting public health, farm resources and infrastructure. Commissioners repeatedly raised farmland impacts: Speaker 1 said, "I have an issue with taking good ground out of production," and asked staff to propose explicit CSR (crop‑suitability/prime‑land) thresholds to guide siting decisions.

Key provisions under discussion include setbacks and noise controls. The draft sets setbacks of 1,000 feet from any occupied structure or cemetery and a 500‑foot property‑line buffer in several places; commissioners compared those numbers to the county's wind ordinance setbacks (discussed previously) and considered recorded waivers for neighboring properties. For noise the draft limits operations to no more than 50 dBA measured at the property line of any nonparticipating person. Commissioners debated whether to tighten the decibel limit or increase separation distances; Speaker 3 argued noise is the principal worry and suggested lowering the dBA if setbacks remain close, while other members warned of legal risk and cited past lawsuits against county noise ordinances.

Monitoring and enforcement language requires baseline noise measurements before construction and post‑operation testing, the use of an independent acoustical engineer for testing, and additional testing in response to complaints. Commissioners discussed testing frequency (for example, every three years) and whether to give the zoning administrator discretion to prioritize investigative resources against persistent, unsubstantiated complaints — a point some members framed as "trust but verify."

The draft also addresses operator and landowner responsibilities: operators must meet performance standards for noise, vibration, water use, waste management and fire safety; landowners may be held jointly and severally liable for failure to decommission or restore a site and the county may recover abatement costs via decommissioning bonds, letters of credit or liens citing "Iowa code section 331.384" and county code chapter 11. Commissioners asked the county attorney to review liability wording and whether zoning can compel certain contract terms, noting that private contracts may limit what zoning can enforce.

Commissioners questioned whether some proposed items (for example, limits on electrical service quality or routine backup generator testing) fall inside the zoning commission's land‑use authority or belong to utility regulators or other county offices. Speaker 5 and others recommended seeking legal guidance and consulting the Iowa Department of Natural Resources on e‑waste and state environmental preemption.

Several technical and formatting issues remain: inconsistent terminology across the draft (references to "data processing and crypto mining" in some places and "high density computing facilities" in others), unshaded or misformatted bullets in the visual‑screening section, and cross‑references to sections that staff said they will correct.

Next steps: staff will research CSR thresholds used by other counties, noise standard alternatives and relevant case law; consult the county attorney about liability and enforceability; and integrate any DNR or utility input. The commission set its next meeting for Jan. 19, 2026, at 6 p.m. Speaker 1 also noted supervisors had signed a separate ordinance (design audits) that will be published and take effect 30 days after publication.

The commission approved minutes from the Nov. 7 meeting earlier in the session (motion by "Monica," second by "Chris"), and later moved to adjourn. The zoning commission did not adopt the high‑density computing ordinance at this meeting; staff returns the draft for revision and legal review.