Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge stricter review of proposed data center, citing aquifer, PFAS and water‑use risks
Summary
Multiple residents raised environmental and public‑health concerns during public comment, urging the commission to require extensive technical review before any data‑center approvals. Speakers cited the Ocala Limestone, sinkholes, potential PFAS refrigerant/fire‑suppression releases and high water and power demands.
A string of public commenters urged county leaders to require detailed technical review before allowing a proposed data center near local waterways and neighborhoods.
George Fiser said the area’s Ocala Limestone is highly porous and that sinkholes and underground conduits can transmit surface contaminants rapidly into the aquifer. "Anything that's spilled there, anything any contaminant is going to go right into the drinking water," he said, warning contaminants could travel downstream to the state line.
Industrial chemist Jimmy Leiles told commissioners that many of the refrigerants and fire‑suppression foams under consideration are PFAS‑class chemicals (he referred to them as "forever chemicals") and said municipal treatment plants cannot currently remove PFAS. He urged commissioners not to rush and to require detailed disclosures of exact chemicals, volumes on site, handling procedures and fire‑suppression systems, saying even tens of pounds could affect drinking‑water concentrations: "If you do the math, 50 pounds of a PFAS in the Georgia aquifer would pollute a year's worth of water above the current EPA drinking standard," he said.
Other speakers raised related worries: John Smith highlighted electricity and backup‑generator demands, water consumption and e‑waste; Sarah Wgles asked about regional water compacts and whether the county has capacity to supply a facility that could use millions of gallons per day; John Quarterman and others cautioned against assuming the project is a done deal and urged scrutiny of permits when formal applications arrive.
The board did not take action on the data center at the meeting; comments were part of the citizens‑wishing‑to‑be‑heard period. Commissioners and staff heard repeated requests for deeper hydrological study, chemical inventories, water‑use permits or commitments on closed‑loop cooling, and specific mitigation or permit conditions including firefighter training, permeable surfacing and local hiring contingencies.
Next steps: No application hearing was listed on the agenda; the transportation and planning staff and county attorney will be the likely first reviewers when a formal permit application arrives. Commenters asked the commission to require a full technical review, disclose vendor agreements (if any) with utilities and to ensure any permit addresses PFAS, groundwater vulnerability and water‑consumption plans.
