Supervisors debate a draft data‑center ordinance after industry expert outlines water and energy realities

The Crawford County Board of Supervisors spent much of its June 23 meeting debating a draft ordinance to regulate data centers in unincorporated parts of the county after hearing technical testimony from Cole Paul Hein, a construction engineer who has worked on dozens of data‑center projects nationwide.

Cole, joining by Zoom, told the board that modern large data centers have shifted away from open, water‑intensive cooling toward closed‑loop and air‑cooled systems and that the industry is investing heavily in battery storage and other measures to reduce grid impacts. "Closed‑loop systems have changed a lot of perception and impacts on environment," Cole said, adding that once a closed system is commissioned its ongoing water use is small — roughly the annual water use of a few households for routine building operations, he said.

Why it matters: Crawford County officials are writing rules because data‑center projects raise local questions about water use, road impacts, electric infrastructure upgrades and community benefits. Supervisors emphasized that any ordinance should be clear so potential developers know the county's requirements before they spend on studies, but not so slow or cumbersome that projects time out.

Key discussion points and board concerns - Approval authority and timeline: Board members debated whether the supervisors should retain final approval for all scales of projects or allow a streamlined permit for small facilities. Staff warned that multi‑step public hearings and review processes could extend timelines by months and risk losing projects that need faster decisions. - Water and cooling technology: Several supervisors cited high public concern about data centers’ water use. One board member noted that some older facilities were reported to evaporate "4 to 5,000 gallons a day" for cooling. Cole said modern large‑scale sites increasingly use closed‑loop cooling that reduces fresh‑water consumption and that many operators now seek technologies that lessen water or energy needs. - Utility upgrades and cost allocation: County utility partners told the board that large loads require transmission and substation work and that developers are expected to fund needed upgrades rather than pass costs to other customers. Board members asked that ordinances require applicants to demonstrate how required grid and road upgrades will be paid and timed to be completed before the facility comes online. - Noise, emergency planning and decommissioning: Supervisors requested baseline acoustic evaluations so future noise complaints can be judged against pre‑project conditions. They also asked that applicants submit emergency and fire‑response plans and coordinate with local emergency management, and that the ordinance define "substantial operations" to trigger decommissioning obligations if a site lies dormant.

Voices on the record - Cole Paul Hein, construction engineer (via Zoom): "Closed‑loop technology has certainly changed a lot of perception and impacts on environment... Once you fill those systems and walk away, they're using the amount of water that 4 or 5 households use in a year." (Cole summarized decades of construction experience and answered questions about filtration, open vs. closed cooling, energy interconnection and resilience.) - Board chair Craig Dozark: Introduced the guest and guided the board’s line‑by‑line review of the draft ordinance. - Steph (county staff): Advised that an overly long application review process has led other counties to lose projects and urged the board to weigh permitting certainty against preserving board discretion.

What’s next: Staff will incorporate the board’s edits and reissue a revised draft for public posting; the supervisors repeatedly said they want a clear ordinance the public can find and that gives potential developers predictable approval criteria and timelines.

No final ordinance vote occurred on June 23; the board directed staff to revise and repost the draft for further public review.