Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Jupiter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents demand earlier public meeting, press county for data on Project Jupiter
Summary
At Do—na Ana County's March 24 meeting, many residents urged commissioners to hold an earlier, substantive public meeting on Project Jupiter, citing conflicting job claims, water and air concerns, and lack of developer transparency.
Do—na Ana County residents filled the public-comment period at the March 24 Board of County Commissioners meeting to press for more information and an earlier public meeting on Project Jupiter, a proposed AI/data-center development.
"You have to use them as a crutch at this point because you don't even have all the information yourselves," said Annie Ersing House during the public-comment portion, accusing project developers of providing inconsistent or misleading data and warning of potential air and water harms. Several other speakers echoed those concerns, citing discrepancies in the number of permanent jobs public materials have claimed—figures that commenters said range from 750 to 1,500—and arguing those claims should not be taken at face value.
Commissioner Trao told the body she has been pressing to schedule a meeting with Project Jupiter developers and said she received a county-manager response suggesting June was the target date. "I requested this meeting last commission meeting," she said, "and I am hoping that we can move forward to a meeting no later than the end of April." Trao said the months-long delay is unacceptable given ongoing constituent questions.
County Manager Andrews and staff said they are coordinating among multiple agencies and private partners, and that the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) air-permit process is a key gating item. Andrews explained the county is waiting to learn whether NMED will require additional public input on air permits and that the timeline depends partly on those regulatory steps.
Speakers asked that an independent, county-led briefing be produced rather than relying solely on developer-provided materials. "You don't even have all the information yourselves and it's your job to have your own information and make your own decisions and not rely on the industry to give that to you," Ersing House said.
Other public-commenters requested technical detail: which water table will be affected, what emissions or brackish-water definitions were being used, and how long-term operation would be monitored. Lamaya Vaughn, a 30-year resident, asked for an educational event tailored to older residents and others who have not had easy access to technical materials.
Next steps described to the commissioners included continued coordination with NMED on air permits, outreach to the project's multiple private entities and community partners, and a county-led public meeting. Commissioners said they want clearer timelines and more frequent updates; Commissioner Trao pressed again for a meeting by the end of April rather than waiting until June.
No formal action was taken on Project Jupiter at the March 24 meeting; commissioners directed staff to continue coordination and return with scheduling options and more detailed information for a public meeting.
