Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge San Angelo council to pause data‑center decisions, citing heat, water and health worries
Summary
Multiple residents told the City Council they want more transparency and study before approvals for data centers, citing a single‑night PIT count context, alleged local heat increases and potential water and health impacts that speakers said require council attention.
Multiple San Angelo residents urged the City Council on Monday to slow or better explain decisions about proposed data centers, raising concerns about local heat effects, water use and possible health impacts.
Heather Wiley, a District 3 resident, told the council she is troubled by studies she said show data centers can raise temperatures in surrounding areas and called for greater transparency from developers and the council. “Too many questions remain unanswered for us…to feel confident that any data center is the right choice for San Angelo,” she said.
Antonio Martinez, a resident of single‑member district 4, warned council members that rising electricity demand related to data centers could increase costs for residents and local businesses. Martinez cited projections that, in his telling, could raise electricity costs “from 25% to over 70% in the next 5 years” and said those increases would strain households living paycheck to paycheck.
Other speakers raised water‑use and environmental concerns. Nancy Treadwell, a long‑time resident, said San Angelo’s history of drought raises questions about who would get priority for limited water supplies if large industrial users arrive nearby. “Is it going to be the citizens who need the water, or is it going to be the data center?” she asked.
Speakers also reported health worries tied to the industry. Martinez described infrasound and other low‑frequency emissions and said they can cause headaches, dizziness and sleep disruption; Heather Wiley referenced broader health and environmental risks raised in other communities. Those claims were presented as community concerns; no technical study or city staff finding was cited during public comment to confirm the health or climate effects described.
Council members did not take formal action on the data‑center proposals during the meeting. Several speakers asked the council to ensure full public notice and to provide empirical evidence about environmental, economic and health impacts before any approval is granted.
Why it matters: Residents framed the debate as one of local priorities and long‑term stewardship — balancing new economic investment against potential costs to neighborhoods, utilities and public health. Several speakers tied their concerns to family health and generational ties to their homes.
What’s next: The comments were part of the public‑comment period; the council did not adopt a moratorium or vote on a data‑center ordinance at the meeting. Speakers urged staff and council members to provide more studies and transparent information at future meetings.
