Proposed 48‑MW AI data center draws mixed reaction from Miller County quorum court

Jacques Davidson, who said he and partners own land north of town, told the Miller County quorum court that he is pursuing a 48‑megawatt AI data center on the site and described utilities and infrastructure already in place.

"We have 48 megawatts of power out there," Davidson said, and he listed water availability, communications and natural gas among site resources. He estimated the development would create about 200 construction jobs and "at least 30" permanent positions after buildout, and he told the court the project team expects the county could receive roughly $1,100,000 in tax revenue.

Why it matters: the proposal touches on county economic development, land‑use and public‑safety considerations. Several court members and residents urged more information before the court or public endorse or promote the project.

Opponents focused on floodplain and insurance consequences. One justice warned the proposed site is in a floodplain and said the county ordinance does not require finished floor elevations that insurers commonly seek. A resident told the court the area has been under as much as 10 feet of water at times and asked what effect a major flood would have on local insurance rates and downstream liabilities.

Davidson and his partners addressed engineering and mitigation in broad terms. He said the design includes a "skimmer pond" and a closed water loop to cool equipment, and that the project would not create runoff but would rely on evaporation. Davidson also said Arkansas Electric Cooperatives and other power partners have reviewed the site and that a $16,000,000 substation is in the project budget.

Anthony Grady, who identified himself as a partner and local businessperson, argued the project could bring substantial long‑term economic benefits and said developers and investors are interested in the site because it can pull power from both sides of the state line and access fiber. "It's coming whether we want it or not," Grady said, urging the county to consider potential job and tax benefits.

Court members asked for clearer, balanced analysis. One justice recommended the court arrange a presentation representing technical or regulatory objections so the public and justices could compare pros and cons. Court staff said they would "line someone up" to give the opposing view.

What the court can do: several participants noted the quorum court does not currently have ordinances that would regulate a data‑center project of this sort, and one member said the court may have limited authority over the private project. The presenter acknowledged permits and utility approvals remain necessary and said some elements — including the final offtaker for compute hours and bond financing — are not yet finalized.

Next steps: no formal county action was taken on the data‑center proposal at this meeting. The court agreed to request an opposing presentation and to continue receiving information as the project develops.