Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Energy Risk topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press developers on water, energy and data‑center risks at Elbert County meeting
Summary
At a May 11 community meeting on the Colorado Plains Ranch PUD, residents and technical commenters pressed the project team on aquifer depth, water sourcing and reuse, power, noise and oversight; the developer said studies and PUD standards will address many concerns.
Residents at an Elbert County community meeting pressed the Colorado Plains Ranch development team for details about water sourcing, reuse, power and oversight on May 11.
Kermit Witherby, a local registered professional geologist, disputed the project team’s general characterization of the Laramie Fox Hills aquifer in the presentation and said the aquifer may be much shallower in places near the site. “I will take exception to your comment that... the Laramie Fox Hills is deep in the western part of the county, but it's less than 500 feet to 600 feet in this project area,” Witherby said. Keefer acknowledged he was not a water expert and invited Witherby to provide additional information to the team.
Why it matters: water use and recharge were a recurring theme. Keefer said the team is preparing a water budget and a water‑reclamation plan and described closed‑loop options and well injection/aquifer recharge as potential approaches for industrial nonpotable uses such as data‑center cooling. He told the meeting the team’s intent is to avoid relying on shallow domestic wells used by neighbors.
Residents raised additional concerns about the potential scale of data‑center power and water use, the possible later arrival of hyperscale tenants after land purchase, noise from cooling systems and generator emissions, and the transparency of investor identities and financial backers. A resident with data‑center experience warned that large users can generate sustained emissions and high water and power demands and urged enforceable limits and strong county oversight.
Keefer responded that the PUD process and required studies (water budget, traffic study, economic impact) are intended to document likely impacts, and that Elbert County regulations, referral agency reviews and public hearings provide oversight. He said the development team is preparing an economic impact study and noted local use taxes on on‑site improvements would generate revenue for the county.
The meeting produced no formal commitments on water permits, power contracts, investor identities or enforceable operational caps; those details remain to be supplied in technical studies and public filings to the county.
