Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press county over proposed Prometheus project; commissioners say more details needed before any industrial‑park action
Summary
Dozens of residents from east‑county neighborhoods urged commissioners to block or more tightly review a proposed Prometheus data‑center footprint, raising water, noise, light, property‑value and emergency‑service concerns. County staff said the industrial‑siting and PUD processes are options but more factual detail is needed before the commission commits to a path.
A wave of public comment and an initial county staff briefing on June 16 pushed the Natrona County commission to put more information at the center of its review of early Prometheus proposals linked to a potential industrial park or PUD.
County staff noted that state statute allows counties with zoning to create industrial parks or use planned‑unit‑development (PUD) overlays as part of the siting process. Staff said the Prometheus proposal discussed with county planners so far envisions the data center in a neighboring county with related infrastructure (power plant and man camp) potentially in Natrona County, but staff emphasized they have not received definitive siting plans and are awaiting more concrete information from the developer.
Residents from Glenrock and Big Muddy Creek described the area as an agricultural and residential landscape and urged the commission to slow the review. Speakers raised multiple concerns: effects on wells and groundwater, large continuous water consumption, risks from man‑camp sewage or temporary generators, increased traffic, noise and continuous low‑frequency hum, deleterious effects on livestock and wildlife, and potential long‑term property devaluation. “There are so many unanswered questions about these facilities here,” one resident said. Another told the commission the proposed footprint could “raise the temperature in our neighborhood by 18°” and cited worries about water loops, waste and emergency‑service costs.
Commissioners said they heard the concerns and reiterated the need for full information before moving forward. Several commissioners said industrial‑siting review or an ISC (industrial‑siting committee/process) would be the appropriate venue to evaluate complex environmental, infrastructure and service implications. Commissioners and staff also emphasized the county could engage in the siting process to set expectations and conditions but said it lacked the staffing and technical resources to vet all the developer’s asserted mitigation without external review.
County staff said they will continue to collect project details and will consult with the developer and other counties with recent industrial‑park experience. The board took no action to approve an industrial park or a PUD at the meeting and described the discussion as an information‑gathering step.
