Residents urge Wythe County supervisors to block or limit new data centers, citing drought and health concerns

Dozens of residents told the Wythe County Board of Supervisors on June 9 that the county should stop or tightly restrict data-center development amid drought and health concerns.

Several speakers cited local drought data and agricultural impacts while urging supervisors to use zoning and temporary ordinances to protect farms, wells and community resources. Denise Davis pointed to the National Integrated Drought Information System and USDA agriculture counts and asked, "Who gets first dibs on the water? Who makes the decision as to who gets the water first?" She warned that farmers could be forced to reduce herds if demand rises.

Other commenters pressed health and environmental questions. Miranda Edwards, who said she holds a master's in public health and global environmental health, criticized the board for relying on developers' assurances and closed-door meetings, asking specifically about "massive electric demand, hazardous chemical leaks, noise pollution" and heat-island effects. Hannah Ainsworth, referencing technical differences between older facilities and modern AI "hyperscale" centers, told the board these newer facilities have "much greater water and energy needs than a regular data center."

Several speakers also highlighted local organizing: Miranda Edwards said a petition started five days earlier had more than 1,300 verified signatures; Stacy Beamer told the board petition totals doubled in two days, and multiple commenters urged supervisors to be more transparent about developers' commitments and any nondisclosure agreements.

Opposition framed the issue as one of local stewardship and representation. "You should admit to your mistakes and take away your decision in welcoming data centers to Wythe County," Katherine Clemens said. Dr. Eric Camden argued supervisors should move quickly on land-use or zoning changes to prevent what he called "extraction" of county resources for outside financial gain.

Several commenters acknowledged trade-offs. Jeff McCquory, who described himself as a transplant, noted projects can bring "tens of millions of tax revenue dollars" but questioned how many campuses the county would accept and warned of proxy purchases by shell companies. Speakers repeatedly demanded legally binding commitments rather than developer "indications."

Board members acknowledged the community's concerns. Some members expressed support for the Progress Park site but opposition to large conversions of agricultural land elsewhere; others said they were still weighing the issues. Several supervisors urged residents to engage in the upcoming planning commission process and public hearings.

The board set a planning commission work session for June 22 to review public input on a proposed land-use ordinance and scheduled further public hearings thereafter. Several residents asked the board to consider temporary emergency ordinances while the county completes deliberations.

The board did not reverse any previously approved Progress Park actions during the meeting; it heard public comment and signaled additional public engagement and forthcoming planning-commission review.