Residents press DeKalb commissioners for stricter data-center rules, enforcement

Dozens of residents told the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners on May 26 that the county’s proposed data‑center text amendment lacks enforceable standards and would put strained water and sewer systems at risk.

At the start of public comment, Emily Diffenderfer, who said she lives in District 7, called for revisiting the amendment and for requiring that data centers “prove their partnership” by meeting tests and penalties. “TLDR, we have to revisit this amendment,” she said, urging the board to prohibit data centers larger than 20,000 square feet or those that require a substation.

Rosalyn McIntyre, representing herself, said the draft ordinance contains “no clear, enforceable, and defensible compliance standards” and pushed planning staff to write objective, legally binding parameters into zoning text — from contact points and escalation logs to performance bonds and occupancy certificates that can be withheld or revoked.

Gina Mangum said the text amendment appears written for developers and not residents, warning that category definitions such as “major,” “medium” and “minor” were unclear and could enable campus‑scale clustering. “We don’t want large scale, hyperscale data centers or campuses in DeKalb,” she said, and urged restrictions on location and clustering.

Other commenters focused on water‑system capacity and environmental risk. Jan Dunaway noted DeKalb’s 2011 consent order with the EPA, Georgia EPD and the Department of Justice over broken water and sewer systems and asked whether the county can safely support chemically infused cooling water and the extra demand data centers bring. “Should something happen to the Scott Candler water treatment plant … can our broken water and sewer system handle that amount?” she asked.

Some speakers framed the debate as a test of local control and fairness. Several asked for an immediate moratorium until infrastructure and consent‑decree conditions are met, and asked that the county include binding testing requirements, resource caps, and penalties in the ordinance text rather than leaving such safeguards to later rulemaking.

Commissioners heard the comments but did not take additional policy action on the text amendment during the meeting. Central staff and planning officials have previously said they are drafting revised language; residents and commissioners requested more detailed compliance mechanisms and stronger public‑facing reporting and enforcement before any zoning changes are finalized.

Next steps: the planning and sustainability department will continue rule drafting and present details at committee stops; commenters urged the board to require enforceable standards, specify testing and penalties in the ordinance language, and consider a moratorium until water‑system obligations are addressed.

This article is based on public comments beginning with Emily Diffenderfer (public commenter) and continuing through a series of speakers who raised concerns about the proposed data‑center text amendment.