Prospective data center draws questions about water use, cooling and emergency planning at Des Moines County meeting

A representative of a company operating an existing facility in the county (referred to in the transcript as Mr. Barry) briefed the Des Moines County Board of Supervisors on June 23 about current operations and the possibility of an expansion to 25 megawatts. The presentation prompted extended public questioning about water use, cooling technology, wastewater handling, fire history and coordination with local emergency services.

Why it matters: Residents and local emergency officials flagged potential impacts on water supplies, road safety, and hazardous-responder capacity if a large facility expands; the board asked staff to pursue follow‑up information rather than taking immediate action.

Key points and exchanges:

- Company description and expansion scope: The presenter described existing sites and discussed the prospect of an expansion on county property, mentioning both Bitcoin‑mining and potential modular data‑center tenants. Commissioners and residents asked whether plans were final or speculative. The presenter said many proposals are preliminary and some opportunities are speculative.

- Cooling and water use: Citizens pressed whether a 25‑megawatt expansion would rely on closed‑loop air cooling or water/evaporative systems. The presenter described closed‑loop air options and acknowledged evaporative systems as another method; residents continued to press for a firm written commitment. One participant cited a figure of "43 million gallons a year" as potential water use at scale; meeting participants treated that number as a concern rather than an approved estimate.

- Emergency response and fire hazards: Local safety staff and residents asked whether the company has coordinated with county fire, hazmat and ambulance services and whether materials from server fires had been discussed. County safety staff recommended the presenter reach out to Emergency Management to provide technical detail to first responders.

- Reporter outreach and company responsiveness: Several members of the media and local editors said they had attempted to reach company staff with no response. Lori Cochran of the Burlington Beacon said, "I've emailed you and your company several times and never gotten a response," and Mr. Barry asked for her contact information to follow up. Tracy Lamb, city editor of the Hawkeye, said she had also tried to contact the operator and requested follow-up.

- Property taxes and jobs: Commissioners asked whether a 25‑megawatt site would generate meaningful property‑tax revenue and how many local jobs an expanded facility would create; the company representative offered no county‑specific tax estimate at the meeting and described employment numbers as dependent on tenant use and operational choices.

Board response and next steps: The supervisors did not take any permitting action related to the presentation. Commissioners and staff repeatedly urged the company to provide written confirmations from utilities about impacts to water and electric service, to consult county emergency management and to furnish clearer contact points for media and officials. Public Works and Emergency Management staff were named as follow‑up contacts for further technical reviews.

What was not decided: No formal agreement, permit or binding operational restriction was adopted at the June 23 meeting. Several technical numbers discussed by meeting participants (including the cited water‑use figure) were provided by commenters and remain unverified.

The county asked the company to submit additional information and to coordinate with Shannon Prada, Emergency Management, for responder outreach; the board said it will review any material presented at a future meeting if the company pursues formal requests.