Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
San Angelo residents urge council to pause data-center approvals, citing water and health risks
Loading...
Summary
Multiple residents called on the San Angelo City Council to halt or study proposed data-center projects, arguing the facilities could strain water supplies, introduce contaminants through "blow down" discharges and produce limited local benefits.
Public commenters at the San Angelo City Council's April meeting urged the council to pause consideration of data-center projects and demanded clearer information about water use, waste discharge and long-term community impacts.
Amber Armendariz, who identified herself as a District 6 resident, told the council she opposed any data center in the city limits and asked council members to encourage neighboring counties to do the same. "When the used containment contaminated water goes through their blow down process, it flows back into aquifers, wells, rivers, and reservoirs full of forever chemicals," she said, arguing Skybox and other companies seek local water supplies. Armendariz called local farming and ranching livelihoods at risk and asked the council to block proposals that trade short-term gains for lasting harm.
Douglas Long of Single Member District 3 asked the council to place a moratorium on data-center approvals and to give San Angelo voters a chance to weigh in. "Please allow San Angeloans the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to share their water, air and infrastructure with such large consumers of these resources," Long said.
Other speakers echoed concerns about overstated benefits. Jennifer Dindy told the council that massive federal funding programs appear to be driving interest from companies seeking water, energy and cheap land; she urged the council to negotiate stronger local terms. Steve Alanias, president and CEO of the San Angelo Chamber of Commerce, urged the council to continue developing guardrails for such projects and said data centers are essential infrastructure for modern services, but acknowledged community questions about impacts.
Council members did not take immediate action on the comments during the public-comment period. Several council members and staff later said they are reviewing technical questions and policy options as proposals advance through notification and permitting steps.
The council's formal agenda proceeded with consent and regular items; councilors repeatedly reminded the public that the tax-abatement reauthorization on the agenda was an administrative step required by state law and not an approval of any specific data-center agreement.
