Franklin County workgroup seeks strict water protections for proposed data centers

Moderator opened the Jan. 30 workgroup meeting and read a draft water‑resource section that frames the ordinance goal "to ensure the large‑scale industrial data processing does not jeopardize the sustainability of the local aquifer, interfere with residential drinking water wells, or place undue stress on municipal water infrastructure." The draft would require closed‑loop cooling, prohibit evaporative cooling as a primary method, and demand a certified hydrological impact assessment before approval of a conditional use or final development plan.

The draft requires applicants to identify alternate water sources — municipal water, stormwater reuse or treated gray water — if on‑site withdrawal would exceed a state threshold referenced in the draft as 100,000 gallons per day. It also calls for a water‑conservation plan to recycle at least "90% of its cooling water," continuous monitoring of discharge conductivity, pH and temperature, and county authority to require monitoring wells and an automatic switch to secondary supplies if groundwater levels drop below a DNR or county‑engineer‑defined threshold.

Steve Romer of the Franklin County Water Association, who described the association’s routine monitoring practices, said static water levels are stable in his service area: "the static level is 21.5 feet," he said, and that the association conducts flow tests roughly every six months. Romer told the group the association does not routinely monitor wells outside its installed network and that installing and monitoring additional wells would likely fall to the applicant or be supervised by the DNR.

Brookville Lake Regional Waste District and Brookville Wastewater Utilities representatives discussed how closed‑loop systems require periodic bleed‑offs containing glycol, which they treat as hazardous material to be hauled and processed rather than discharged to groundwater. Utility representatives said wastewater discharge plans should be operationally coordinated with the applicable sewage board, and they supported leaving detailed monitoring specifications to utilities while requiring evidence that they are in place.

During public comment, resident Mark Zanger said he worries about private wells and livestock: "What will I do someday when my county well goes dry?" he asked, and also raised questions about stormwater runoff from increased impervious surfaces and responsibility for leaks from cooling equipment.

Workgroup members agreed on several drafting actions: add a defined "letter of availability" or utility certification requirement (to show water/sewer capacity), require a static water level test report and water‑quality monitoring (the group discussed semiannual or quarterly schedules), and include a notification requirement in the discharge plan for scheduled peak‑demand flushing or maintenance events. The group also agreed applicants must disclose total campus water and electrical demands so cumulative impacts can be evaluated.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft to add the agreed language and definitions, mark text already vetted by attorneys and engineers, and return with more precise monitoring and reporting language at the next workgroup meeting, ahead of the APC agenda.