Osage County planning commission asks county commission to hold public hearing on prohibiting industrial-scale data centers

The Osage County Planning Commission on May 25 voted to request that the Board of County Commissioners hold a public hearing on prohibiting industrial-scale data centers in the county, following a multi-hour workshop that highlighted concerns about water use, grid capacity and local economic effects.

Planning staff member Russ, who led the presentation, told the commission that data-center technology is evolving rapidly — from open-air to closed-loop cooling and newer chip-cooling methods — and that the most immediate local concerns are water consumption and impacts on electricity rates. "The technology itself is evolving almost at the speed at which we can change our regulations," he said, and asked commissioners the central policy question: "Do we want them?"

Commission discussion and public comment repeatedly returned to three issues: (1) local water supplies and drought conditions, (2) the capacity and rate impacts on rural electric cooperatives and other customers, and (3) whether regulation or an outright ban is the better approach. Several speakers cited experiences in other counties (Jones County, Lynn County, Sumner County) and described local consequences reported elsewhere, including increased energy rates and road or service agreements required by host counties.

Some commissioners expressed a preference for prohibiting industrial-scale data centers rather than writing lengthy regulations that could become obsolete as technology changes. Staff recommended using the existing moratorium to buy time and suggested that the planning commission forward a formal, nonbinding recommendation and memo to the county commission so that a public hearing can be scheduled and the community can provide input.

A motion that "the planning commission recommends that [the county commission] hold a public hearing on prohibiting industrial-scale data centers within Osage County, Kansas" was made, seconded and approved by voice vote. The commission agreed the recommendation should be accompanied by staff materials—including studies and jurisdictional examples—to be provided to the county commission in support of any proposed prohibition.

Planning staff said the next administrative steps would be drafting the one-page memo requested by commissioners and coordinating a public hearing notice timeline; commissioners noted that state legislative action could supersede local authority and that the process will move slowly because of notice requirements and the county’s meeting schedule.

The vote was advisory: it asks the county commission to consider holding a public hearing and does not itself amend zoning regulations.