Calvert County residents press commissioners to pause data center approvals as water and planning concerns mount

Several speakers at a Calvert County commissioners meeting urged elected officials to pause approvals of proposed data center projects over water, noise and notice concerns.

A public commenter warned that data center cooling is "consumptive," saying developers’ figures show a "peak use of 1,000,000 gallons per day," and requested "a full independent hydrological and financial audit" before the board makes commitments, saying the project could force developers to tap the Lusby aquifer and threaten residents’ domestic water supply.

The call for a pause gained support during public comment. Pamela Warner of Huntingtown told the board she was asking it to "reconsider its decision and adopt a moratorium on data center projects," citing planning and environmental commission recommendations on setbacks, tree barriers, noise measurement, decommissioning plans and construction traffic. She also noted that SMECO plans to file a large-load tariff with the Public Service Commission by Sept. 1 and said the tariff’s impact on residents remains unknown.

At least one speaker pressed the board on procurement and priorities. Joe Cormier, speaking for himself, criticized what he described as a no-bid lobbyist contract that he said costs $12,000 a month and questioned a perceived rush toward data center approvals.

In commissioner comments, Commissioner Grasso moved to place a six-month moratorium on data center projects; the motion was seconded and put to a voice vote but did not carry. Later, another commissioner moved to set a public hearing and impose a year moratorium; county legal counsel advised on the definition of a "dilatory" motion and the presiding officer’s discretion, and that motion likewise failed on a mixed voice vote. The transcript does not record a full roll-call tally for either failed moratorium motion.

The board did approve a separate motion to invite the Calvert County Environmental Commission to a future meeting to present its concerns about data centers; that motion passed on a voice vote. Near the end of the meeting Commissioner Cox moved to recess into executive session under General Provisions Article §3-305(b)(1) to discuss personnel matters and a proposal by a potential business to locate or expand in the county; the motion was seconded and carried.

Why this matters: speakers said the projects could pose a local public-safety and infrastructure risk if wastewater effluent is insufficient during peak demand — which proponents say is managed through permitting — and residents and commissioners asked for more technical study, planning safeguards and public notice before approvals move forward.

Claims and exchanges: Cassie Turner, who identified herself, accused the board of "betray[ing]" residents and asked whether commissioners had been bribed or threatened; Pamela Warner and others pushed for technical safeguards and a moratorium; a commenter cited a developer estimate of 1,000,000 gallons per day. County legal counsel described the limits on repetitive motions and squarely framed the presiding officer’s authority to rule motions dilatory.

The board did not adopt a moratorium during the meeting. The Environmental Commission was directed to appear at a future meeting, and the board recessed into executive session to discuss personnel and business-location matters. The timing of the Environmental Commission presentation was left to scheduling at a future meeting.