Residents urge Franklin County to halt data-center approvals, citing water, noise and transparency concerns

Dozens of residents urged the Franklin County Commission on June 18 to halt or reject proposals to permit hyperscale data centers in rural areas, raising repeated concerns about water use, noise, environmental harms, transparency and ethics.

Speakers who identified themselves and those labeled as residents during public comment told the commission the projects would be sited too close to homes and farmland, would consume large amounts of groundwater and could cause long-term loss of rural character and property value. "I continue to oppose both data centers in the proposed locations on agricultural land so close to residences," said Nancy Watson.

The session included a string of detailed complaints and appeals. Anne Hayden said she opposed data centers "as a permitted use" and objected to spot rezoning of the Diamond Farm and McLaren parcels, arguing rezoning should benefit the broader community rather than individual landowners. John Rose warned about evacuation and emergency-response risks during floods and raised the possibility of lithium-battery fires at complex sites. Janet Hubard cited studies on noise, infrasound and a "data heat island" effect near large facilities and asked what safeguards the county would employ to protect nearby schoolchildren.

Several speakers directly challenged the commission’s process and transparency. Corbett Shannon accused one commissioner of attacking the patriotism of opponents by suggesting they were "serving the interests of communist China," and said attempts to limit public comment were an affront to civic norms. Others asked about a 2024 ethics complaint that lacked a quorum for investigation and requested a "natural heritage review" that only the commission can initiate.

Some comments included specific technical and numerical claims. Travis Leighton said a neighboring county’s water-board presentation described plans for two 1,000–1,500-foot-deep wells and estimated that a data center could need "1 million gallons per day up to 1.5" at peak, while the local utility’s present usage was described as about 0.92 million gallons per day. Leighton urged commissioners to demand precise, written commitments about well drilling, redundant water infrastructure and how private water use would interact with existing supplies.

Several speakers proposed mitigation measures if projects move forward: strict water-use monitoring and limits, community benefit funds to offset local impacts, prohibition of private wells for data centers, financial penalties for noise violations and requirements that developers pay electrical upgrade costs. Amy Thompson asked the commission to hold substantive public discussion and answer written questions rather than rely on one-way statements from developers.

Commissioners heard lengthy anecdotal and second-hand claims about health effects, property-value impacts and environmental degradation; the meeting record does not include independent validation of those assertions. Commenters repeatedly asked the commission to provide comparables and documentation backing developers’ publicized project valuations and tax-incentive assumptions.

The commission did not take a final vote on rezoning or approvals related to the data-center proposals at this meeting. The public-comment period concluded after more than a dozen residents spoke; department reports followed and the meeting adjourned later in the session.

The commission’s next procedural steps and any formal hearings or votes on the specific rezoning or contract items were not decided at this meeting; residents asked for more detailed public briefings and written responses before any final action.