Jackson County commissioners move to ban data centers after packed public hearing

Jackson County commissioners voted to advance a proposed ban on new data centers after a packed public hearing in which residents raised water‑use, environmental and economic concerns.

The board heard more than an hour of public comment from local residents, business owners and at least three remote participants. Elijah Simmons, an eco‑tour guide, told commissioners that even smaller AI data centers ‘‘require cooling . . . most of that is in an open‑loop system’’ and that such projects ‘‘use up to the equivalent of a thousand households a day’’ of water in some cases. Shauna Easterling said a single large facility could consume as much as ‘‘5 million gallons of water per day’’ and warned of chemical and heavy‑metal contamination risks from cooling‑system biocides.

Supporters of immediate action said the county needs strong language. Alan Barber and other commenters urged narrowing definitions and removing exceptions that could allow projects to proceed during a moratorium. Several speakers recommended requiring disclosure of beneficial owners and preventing shell‑company tactics used elsewhere to avoid local scrutiny.

A different set of voices urged caution. Chuck Theo, identifying himself as a longtime lender, backed a temporary moratorium to allow the county to gather data and said a permanent ban could send a signal that Jackson County is ‘‘not open for business,’’ potentially harming broader economic development goals.

After discussion on legal timing and scope, commissioners voted in favor of advancing a permanent ban motion that will return for a second reading with clarified language, an effective date to be set after that reading, and staff direction to prepare comprehensive‑plan and land‑development‑code amendments. County staff and the county attorney advised that July 1 is a practical effective date because it aligns with state statutory changes (SB 484) that take effect then, but commissioners asked staff to explore earlier effective dates and to include provisions requiring disclosure of ownership, exceptions removal and precise definitions of ‘‘large load’’ facilities.

The board’s action was procedural: the ordinance must return for a second reading before taking effect. Commissioners agreed to draft implementing regulations to define thresholds (several speakers recommended reducing the state 50‑megawatt threshold to a lower local cutoff), require disclosure of beneficial owners above set percentages, and limit non‑disclosure agreements that could hide backers. The county also asked staff to identify whether smaller, closed‑loop systems are materially different and how permitting should treat them.

The board’s vote came after repeated appeals from residents who said protecting springs, ponds and local aquifers outweighs the limited number of local jobs offered by such facilities. Commissioners flagged the need to balance those concerns with economic development goals and retained authority to extend or amend the policy after the county’s planning review.

The next step is for staff to return a revised ordinance and accompanying comp‑plan/code amendments for review and a second reading; only after that second reading would any ban become effective on a date specified in the final ordinance.