Champaign County task force hears concerns over proposed data centers' water, noise and grid impacts

Champaign County — At a meeting of the Champaign County Board Data Center Task Force on 2026-04-20, residents and advocates urged the county to adopt strict reporting and siting rules before allowing large data centers to locate in the county, citing potential impacts to the Mahomet Aquifer, continuous noise from cooling equipment and diesel backup generation, and large, concentrated electricity demand.

The most direct concerns came during public comment. Scott Sheltra, who said he lives within roughly two miles of a potential site in southeast Urbana, told the task force that a proposed data center’s footprint and ongoing operation would alter neighborhood life. "You're talking about 100 to 110 ambient noise 24 hours a day," Sheltra said, adding his estimate that that noise could extend "out to 2 miles." He also presented lay estimates comparing jobs and tax revenue: he said a large data center might create roughly 75 ongoing community jobs and about $5 million in annual tax revenue versus roughly 150 jobs and $2 million a year for a hardware supercenter; those figures were presented as his estimates and were not independently verified at the meeting.

Advocates framed the issue as regional. Elizabeth Kirby, a Champaign resident, said the county shares the Mahomet Aquifer with neighboring jurisdictions and urged broader regional planning: "Water is important," she said, pressing the task force to consider impacts beyond county lines.

Prairie Rivers Network’s Andrew Rain gave a detailed presentation on data center scale and impacts. "A data center is a warehouse full of computers and servers," Rain said, and he described how recent AI-driven demand is producing proposals many times larger than historically typical facilities. Rain cited published examples showing proposals in the hundreds to thousands of megawatts and said larger facilities can require both substantial on-site water for cooling and additional off-site water tied to expanded generation. He told the panel that, depending on cooling technology, a large site could use very large volumes of makeup water and that heat rejection methods matter for both local environmental impacts and county policy choices.

Rain summarized elements of a proposed state-level "Power Act" his coalition supports, including: public posting of permitting and water-use documentation; a requirement that applicants evaluate cooling alternatives and meet a water-efficiency floor; limits on when diesel backup generation may be used (restricted to true emergencies rather than economic dispatch); communal impact assessments for environmental-justice areas; bans on nondisclosure agreements with local governments; and funds paid by large centers to support low-income bill assistance and weatherization. Rain cautioned that the bill's provisions would be negotiated and may not become law, but he urged the task force to use the ideas as a guide for stronger local permits.

Committee members pressed staff and presenters on thresholds and enforceable metrics. Staff reviewed the county’s 2022 rules (which allowed data centers in certain districts) and presented options for new triggers, noting that some jurisdictions use a processing-area threshold (commonly described in outside material as 10,000 square feet of processing area) while the Power Act and other proposals focus on power thresholds (for example, 50 megawatts) because megawatts correlate more directly with heat, water and noise impacts. Several members said a combined trigger tied to both processing area and power delivery would better capture true operational impact.

Water reporting, permitting and disposal were recurring operational questions. Members asked whether closed-loop cooling actually eliminates meaningful groundwater withdrawals; staff and committee members noted that closed-loop systems require make-up water, occasional purging or treatment, and that discharge routes (wastewater plant pretreatment, off-site disposal, or NPDES permits for surface discharge) must be clear in permit conditions.

The task force agreed to continue topic-focused meetings and to collect model ordinances and practice from other jurisdictions. Staff was asked to circulate Aurora’s ordinance and to prepare draft language the task force could use as a starting point. The group set its next meeting for May 4, 2026, and prioritized future sessions on water withdrawals and reporting, grid and energy impacts, environmental effects such as noise and light, and economic/community benefit agreements.

What happens next: the task force will request examples (including Aurora’s ordinance), draft possible thresholds and reporting requirements, and invite technical experts (noise, water, utility planning) to future meetings. No final permits or binding county regulations were adopted at this meeting.