Residents press Missoula County officials on water, noise and oversight for proposed Bonner data center

Robert “Bob” Morris, a Montana Tech energy expert, told the Bonner Mill Community Council on May 11 that data centers can be designed to use little water depending on cooling choices and that Montana’s cool climate favors low‑water designs. “Evaporative cooling systems use a lot of water and air cooled use zero water,” he said, explaining tradeoffs between energy and water when choosing cooling systems.

Why it matters: The 29‑megawatt‑scale site under review sits in a part of Missoula County with existing industrial and commercial water rights, and the county must decide whether the applicant’s construction and operations would affect adjacent residential neighborhoods, traffic, noise and utilities. Residents and environmental advocates pressed for clearer, enforceable limits on water consumption, noise and independent monitoring.

What county staff said: Jenny Dixon, the county case planner on the project, told the council the application was certified complete and will be circulated to agencies for comment. “We did certify the application as complete today, ready for review by our agencies,” she said. Dixon said the county’s review will focus on impacts to adjacent residential uses — traffic, pedestrian safety, natural resources, utilities, noise, lighting and landscaping — and that staff will verify compliance as part of the zoning‑compliance permit process.

Water and water rights: Benjamin Thomas of the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation said DNRC had not received an application from the data‑center provider at the time of the meeting and noted the site already carries industrial/commercial water rights. DNRC staff described existing permitted diverted and consumed volumes on the parcel that could supply substantial annual volumes, but said actual use will depend on the cooling technology chosen and on what the applicant proposes.

What the company has said and questions raised: The applicant has described a hybrid cooling approach and provided a low annual water‑use figure in some public materials. Council members and residents challenged that figure as inconsistent with typical cooling‑tower use and asked the applicant to provide a water‑use effectiveness (WUE) metric and a power‑use effectiveness (PUE) target so reviewers can run consistent calculations. Morris said modern adiabatic and dry cooling systems can reduce or eliminate routine water consumption in Montana’s climate, but the council and the public pressed for concrete, verifiable numbers.

Noise, heat and wastewater: Residents focused on 24/7 noise from external chillers and on where cooling‑tower flushes and other process flows would be discharged. County staff noted Missoula County zoning standards limit noise to 50 dB at residential property lines at night and 55 dB during the day and said a permit cannot be issued if those thresholds are exceeded. Health‑department approval will be required for any waste‑water handling systems.

Rate and transmission questions: Morris said data centers can be sited three ways — buy power from the local utility and enter the rate base, contract in the wholesale market and bypass the utility, or bring on‑site generation — and that the choice affects how costs and transmission upgrades are allocated. Some residents and an environmental group representative questioned utility studies and warned that large loads elsewhere in the state increase the stakes for ratepayer protections.

Public input and oversight demands: Dozens of residents spoke or submitted comments. Paul, who is organizing a petition against permits for the project, told the council “we currently have 4,000 signatures.” Environmental advocates urged statewide standards and independent verification; Ben Caden of the Montana Environmental Information Center said local requirements are useful but insufficient without stronger statewide rules and more scrutiny of utility tariffs.

Next steps: Dixon said the certified application will undergo agency review, public notice and a staff report and is currently scheduled for a hearing at the local board on July 1. The county will review noise, lighting, landscaping and other conditions at the zoning‑compliance stage and said it can re‑inspect or require monitoring if complaints arise. Residents urged the county to require independent monitoring and enforceable performance metrics rather than accept company goals alone.

Ending: The council heard additional administrative business and closed the meeting; the next regular meeting is scheduled for June 8, 2026.