Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Leavenworth County to pause data-center plans, citing water, noise and health risks
Summary
Multiple residents told the Board of County Commissioners the proposed hyperscale data center would strain local water supplies, generate persistent tonal noise and risk public-health and environmental harms; commenters urged independent studies and a longer moratorium and cited concerns about SB 98 tax incentives.
Leavenworth County residents pressed commissioners to slow consideration of a proposed hyperscale data center and to require independent environmental, water and public-health studies before approving any permits or incentives.
"There's not gonna be enough water," Ed Irvin said, telling the board the project would have to either pump from the Tonganoxie Sands aquifer or build about 30 miles of pipeline. Irvin said the city already uses roughly 30% of its allotment and argued a large data facility could require tens of millions of gallons of water a month, a demand that would stress local wells used by many rural households.
Other commenters raised complementary concerns. Bridal Morley warned the development could create a localized "heat bubble" and asserted that changes in ambient temperature and other impacts could harm children, elderly residents and wildlife. Dee Carlson focused on noise, citing World Health Organization guidance on tonal and infrasound effects and warning that fans, chillers and backup generators produce low-frequency noise she said could travel through structures and harm people and animals. Jim Carlskin urged an 18-month moratorium and outlined five studies he said the county should require: an environmental impact study, an aquifer and water-sustainability study, a power-grid reliability study, an independent fiscal analysis and a noise/public-health study.
Commenters repeatedly referenced SB 98, the recent state law creating tax incentives they said would subsidize large projects; Jim Carlskin and others called it "corporate welfare" and urged fuller legislative review. Several speakers said major tech companies vary in their public reporting of water use, and that transparency about actual daily and annual water demand is limited.
County staff and commissioners acknowledged gaps in state regulation for data-center water use and said they were working to gather answers. The board previously placed a 90-day pause on consideration of this project; speakers asked for a longer moratorium and for evening meeting times so more residents can participate.
The meeting record shows the board opened the public-comment period to let residents present materials and to request copies be left with staff. Commissioners did not take a final action on permitting during the meeting; the board later recessed for an executive session on unrelated legal and contract matters.
