Lincoln County refers data‑center rules to planners after hours of public comment

Commissioners in Lincoln County referred proposals for regulating hyperscale AI data centers to the county planning and zoning commission on Feb. 24, 2026, after an extended public hearing during which residents raised concerns about water use, electricity demand, environmental impacts and a lack of transparency.

Commissioner Erens, who introduced the idea of a one‑year moratorium under SDCL 11‑2‑10, framed the proposal as a chance for residents to help set rules before developers file applications. "I want residents to play a role in the decision making on the front end for these projects," Commissioner Erens said, adding that a pause would allow the county to develop "common sense regulations before permits are filed, not after the fact." (Commissioner Erens)

More than two dozen speakers addressed the commission. Supporters repeatedly pointed to water and environmental risks, the potential for increased electricity costs, and perceived secrecy in some projects. Susie Pratt of Lincoln County asked how facilities would source and treat water and whether independent decommissioning plans exist, saying, "When it comes to water, we all share the same aquifers." (Susie Pratt)

Scott Montgomery, a Fairview resident, cited figures for large facilities and said the indirect water use associated with power generation is the biggest concern. Several speakers said they had organized petitions and large public turnouts in Sioux Falls and surrounding communities opposing construction without stronger local rules.

Opponents — including industry professionals and local residents — questioned whether a moratorium would accomplish the goals proponents described and urged feasibility studies and community education instead. Scott Sando, who described himself as a longtime data‑center industry professional, said a moratorium would not lower taxes or necessarily answer local infrastructure questions and described alternative approaches the city of Lennox is pursuing, including student‑led feasibility work.

After debate among commissioners about whether existing plan‑development district rules and the county comprehensive plan already give the board sufficient authority to regulate projects case by case, a motion to place a one‑year moratorium failed for lack of a second. The commission instead approved a motion to "refer the matter of data regulation to our planning and zoning commission for review and recommendations, which would include examination of our comprehensive plan, our zoning ordinances, our plan development district standards, our infrastructure impacts, and maybe a licensing mechanism for utilities." The referral passed 3–2; Commissioners Schmidt, Uton and Landine voted yes; Commissioners Putnham and Arens voted no.

The referral instructs planning and zoning to study zoning definitions, plan‑development district standards and infrastructure impacts and to return with recommended ordinance language or other tools the commission could use. Commission staff and legal counsel said the study may require outside consultants and that any regulatory changes would follow the county's normal public‑hearing and notice process.

The referral does not adopt a moratorium or change current permits. Commissioners and staff emphasized that plan‑development district procedures already require a public process and project‑specific conditions, and that any future regulatory changes would have to be publicly noticed and adopted through the established land‑use process.

The planning and zoning commission is expected to take up the referral and report back with findings and recommended changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning code. No timeline or budget for outside studies was specified at the meeting.