Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County adopts 12‑month moratorium directing staff to study large AI/data centers
Summary
After hours of public comment, the Clay County Board of County Commissioners voted 4–1 on June 23 to impose a 12‑month moratorium directing staff to research large‑scale AI/data centers and return with recommended regulatory options.
The Clay County Board of County Commissioners voted 4–1 on June 23 to adopt a 12‑month moratorium directing county staff to study large‑scale AI/data centers and report back with recommended permitting, environmental and public‑safety safeguards.
The moratorium, discussed as item 18 on the agenda, pauses new permitting or approvals for covered facilities while staff evaluates water and power demands, noise and light impacts, backup‑power emissions and other community risks. Chair (speaker 1) said the pause was intended to give staff time to “research whether there are lawful, effective guardrails” the county could adopt and to return with options for the commission.
Supporters of the moratorium told the board they were acting out of concern for local water supplies, wildlife and residents’ health. Environmental specialist Bruce Reynolds (speaker 4) urged more time to review the science and said closed‑loop cooling claims often require supplemental water use; he asked the commission to “give yourself time to learn.” Pat Jorgensen (speaker 9), speaking for community organizers, said she supported the pause and asked the board to return with findings before any approvals.
Opponents and some business voices urged a measured approach that would not preclude existing in‑house data centers (such as hospital or courthouse systems) or drive all projects elsewhere. Marsha Garcia (speaker 12) — who identified herself as opposing the moratorium “as written” — noted that hospitals and other entities already operate data centers in the county and suggested the board preserve the ability to allow low‑impact, on‑site systems.
Commissioner remarks reflected a mix of concerns. Several commissioners emphasized the county’s limited staff resources and legal limits under state law; others pointed to utilities’ warnings about potential grid upgrades and local water availability. The board’s vote was 4 in favor, 1 opposed; the chair instructed staff to return with a report and potential ordinance language for future consideration.
Next steps: staff will prepare a research report and draft regulatory options for the commission to consider during the moratorium period. The board did not adopt a permanent ban; commissioners suggested the study could lead to new code language or a narrower local permitting framework.
