Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Franklin County to reject hyperscale data centers, citing water, noise, health and process concerns
Summary
More than two dozen residents told the Franklin County Commission they oppose proposed hyperscale data centers over concerns about water use, noise and light pollution, health risks, lack of transparency and a rushed public process; petition counts and calls for a moratorium were submitted during an extended public comment period.
Hundreds of minutes of public comment at the Franklin County Commission meeting focused on proposed hyperscale data centers and on the county’s process for considering them. Dozens of residents told the commission they oppose siting large data centers in agricultural and rural areas, raising environmental, health and procedural objections.
Speakers repeatedly asked for further study, transparency and either rejection or a moratorium on approvals. Common complaints included the length and scheduling of prior hearings (several speakers said a May 18 hearing lasted about 13 hours, making participation difficult), the use of confidentiality agreements or closed-door meetings with developers, and a perception that officials were not responsive to requests for town halls or additional engagement.
On technical and environmental points, commenters cited risks to groundwater and wells, claiming the facilities could use substantial water and asking for aquifer studies; they raised concerns about diesel generator emissions and permitting, persistent ‘hum’ noise and low-frequency vibration, and continuous lighting that would affect dark-sky conditions. One commenter referenced experts who suggested an upper bound of about 5 million gallons of water per day for some facilities; the county did not provide a technical rebuttal in the meeting record.
Residents also presented petition figures and signature counts opposing industrial placement of data centers in specific sites and requested that files be reopened and hearings continued so more citizens could speak. Several commenters warned of litigation if the commission proceeds without additional public input and asked the commission to table decisions or to send rezoning questions to a public vote.
The meeting record contains forceful accusations from some speakers alleging improper influence by state actors or developers; those allegations were not substantiated during the meeting and no formal responses from county staff were recorded in the transcript.
What happens next: petitioners asked the commission to reopen files and to consider a moratorium; the transcript does not record a commission response to those specific requests during this meeting.
Representative quotes from public speakers: "No impact — that's not even possible in construction," and "Say no to the data centers."
The article avoids technical validation of environmental and health claims; speakers cited external experts and documents and requested formal studies.
