Dunn County committee begins review of modular data centers after public concerns on water, power and expansion

Dunn County officials and residents opened a broad, exploratory conversation about so‑called modular data centers at a meeting that combined public comment, staff briefing and technical input from the local electric cooperative.

The committee held an 8:30 a.m. informational item (no regulatory decision was made) after a public‑hearing slot. Dozens of residents and stakeholders used the three‑minute public‑comment period to press officials to gather more information. Terry Seabold urged the committee to "do your due diligence" and find out what a modular data center would mean for Dunn County — location, jobs, and community effects. Mike Cooper and others raised water‑quality and electricity‑supply concerns, and several commenters warned that modular units can be a toehold for future expansion.

Tammy, a county planner, reviewed jurisdictional and zoning basics: 16 of Dunn County’s 22 townships are under county zoning; unzoned townships remain under township authority. Tammy said small modular units could potentially be permitted as conditional uses within existing zones if the committee treats them as similar in footprint to other allowed utility structures; larger, intensive facilities would likely require rezoning to an intensive/industrial district. She also noted that conditional‑use permits can set explicit caps on parameters such as physical footprint and hours of operation.

Jesse Singer House, CEO of Dunn Energy Cooperative, told the committee that developers commonly contact the cooperative first to determine whether local infrastructure can serve the proposed load. He said typical rural modular proposals that have approached the co‑op are small — on the order of 1–3 megawatts — and that developers are expected to pay 100% of interconnection and line‑extension costs; co‑ops in some cases recover a portion of infrastructure cost when there is longer‑term system benefit. He added that there is limited rural capacity for large‑scale expansion without transmission upgrades; one corridor could be increased to about 25 MW with additional substation and transmission work.

On water and cooling, Tammy said technology varies: some small modular units use closed‑loop coolant systems that require only periodic makeup water (equivalent to filling roughly a 10,000‑gallon pool), while other configurations can have different demands or use chemical additives; those details, she said, must come from the vendors. Supervisor Bower asked whether coolant systems can include antifreeze or other additives and whether leaks could affect groundwater; Tammy advised the committee to request vendors’ technical specifications and to involve environmental and health staff in follow up.

Committee members agreed to collect questions from members and the public and forward them to staff; staff will compile queries for the next meeting and attempt to invite the company (Nodiac) and other technical experts (energy providers, water‑resource specialists) to respond. No formal zoning or permit decisions were made at this meeting — the discussion was explicitly informational, intended to determine what additional information the committee and community need before taking regulatory steps.

"We're just getting started," the chair said; the committee set a follow‑up date and asked staff to prepare a consolidated question list and technical briefing for the next meeting.