Residents urge Doña Ana County to halt ‘Project Jupiter,’ citing water and transparency concerns
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters pressed Doña Ana County commissioners to reconsider Project Jupiter, an AI data-center proposal, raising claims about water use, inadequate public notice and disputed economic promises; callers asked for enforceable environmental protections and more public engagement.
Doña Ana County residents used the commission’s public-input period on Jan. 27 to demand more information and stronger safeguards related to Project Jupiter, a proposed AI data‑center project that speakers said would consume local water and deliver uncertain local benefits.
Abigail Saluk Segun, who said she has lived in Doña Ana County for more than 17 years, urged commissioners to “stop Project Jupiter,” calling the proposal an “extractive project” that prioritizes profit over people and saying, “The water belongs to the people.” Patricia Vaughn read a letter accusing the board of offering insufficient notice and inadequate technical data ahead of a prior vote, saying constituents had only “three weeks” to review the project before an Aug. 2025 vote and alleging the county accepted what the letter described as a “$228,000,000 annual tax break” without strong, enforceable environmental commitments.
Environmental concerns were reinforced by Nisha Micanowitz, a restoration ecologist who cited a December 2025 paper estimating the Rio Grande at roughly 15% capacity and reservoir storage near 13%. She said the basin faces severe groundwater depletion and warned that permitting Project Jupiter would divert water from local agriculture, including pecan orchards, and could increase air‑pollution health risks for nearby communities such as Santa Teresa. “We don't have any more water to give,” Micanowitz told commissioners.
Speakers also raised procedural objections. Patricia Vaughn said county negotiations had been underway since November 2024 and questioned why construction permits and pollution data were not publicly available during the decision window. Several commenters called for the county to meet with affected communities and to provide clearer environmental analysis and enforceable mitigation measures.
The commission did not take formal action on Project Jupiter during the meeting. Commissioners heard the comments but did not respond with new commitments on record; the public speakers asked for future meetings and greater transparency about water use, pollution estimates, hiring projections and the terms of any tax incentives. The county clerk recorded public‑comment speakers in the meeting minutes.
