Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Resource Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Work group seeks strict water protections, monitoring for proposed data centers
Summary
Franklin County staff proposed requiring closed‑loop cooling, on‑site monitoring wells and hydrological impact assessments; the group urged DNR consultation on authority over withdrawals above 100,000 gallons/day and asked applicants to identify alternate supplies.
The Franklin County data center work group on Feb. 2 moved to tighten local controls on water use for proposed data centers, backing a package of measures intended to detect and limit groundwater impacts while coordinating with state regulators.
Presenter (staff member) told the group the draft ordinance would require closed‑loop water cooling or air‑cooled systems and prohibit once‑through evaporative cooling as the primary method because of excessive water loss. The draft also asks developers to install on‑site monitoring wells at the developer’s expense to track aquifer levels in real time and generate automated data rather than paper reports.
Why it matters: data centers can withdraw large volumes of water for cooling. Presenter said the county needs to balance local zoning authority with what the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates. He noted that facilities withdrawing 100,000 gallons a day or more fall within DNR jurisdiction and that county requirements must be harmonized with state rules.
Key provisions discussed included a requirement that, if groundwater levels fall below a critical threshold defined by the Indiana DNR, the facility must cease on‑site pumping and transition to an identified secondary water source until levels recover. Presenter acknowledged that “that’s not technically what the law says, but it’s something we can ask for,” and said staff will consult DNR and the county attorney to test legal limits.
The draft would also make a facility’s stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) an input to DNR review, require quarterly flow‑metered water volume reports to the county and applicable utilities, and require a certified hydrological impact assessment (HIA) prepared by a licensed hydrogeologist that models impacts on nearby wells. Presenter said the draft currently requires modeling to show withdrawals will not lower static water levels of residential or agricultural wells within a two‑mile radius — a distance staff said may be legally vulnerable and could be revised to a wellhead protection overlay if challenged.
Public concerns and follow‑up: remote participant Victoria Mart asked whether the ordinance should define acceptable secondary water sources specifically to prevent a developer from shifting depletion to another local well. Presenter replied the ordinance asks applicants to identify a secondary source but that the county must confirm the extent of its authority with DNR. The work group directed staff to consult the DNR and the county attorney and to return with clarified draft language before the APC update.
What’s next: staff will contact DNR for clarity on jurisdictional thresholds and refine the ordinance language on monitoring, secondary sources and the hydrological assessment before the APC presentation.
