Residents press Des Moines County board on Bitcoin/data-center inquiries, water and zoning

The Des Moines County Board of Supervisors heard extended public concern on June 2 after residents raised questions about correspondence between county staff and Aram Capital Ventures, a firm exploring small Bitcoin mining and data-center operations on two parcels near the ethanol plant and off Highway 61. Elsie, a resident, asked why the board had not been made aware of the inquiry and warned about potential strain on local water and energy supplies.

"Did you share that with the board that someone was looking at putting in Bitcoin mining and data centers in the county?" Elsie asked, citing a September 2024 exchange she had read. Jared, the county land-use administrator, said the staff fields numerous written inquiries and typically provides information on whether a project would require permits. "All that was requested was in confirmation whether permits would be required and that was what was provided," Jared said, adding that at the time the firm was considering two small sites and ultimately chose a roughly seven-acre site adjacent to the ethanol plant.

Leia Anderson, identified herself as a former Hawkeye and a caller to the meeting, and urged the board to remember that data centers are a newer, rapidly evolving issue and that potential water and electricity impacts should be considered. "These data centers are brand new . . . and we are constantly evolving new issues and things that weren't even a problem six months ago are now exploding," she said.

County staff and residents debated what authority the county has to require information on water and power outside Burlington's two-mile zoning jurisdiction. Chris Ber (county representative) noted state and local permitting: wells and large water withdrawals are regulated in part by Iowa code and, for larger uses, handled by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR). "Water usage for the larger amounts would actually go to the DNR," he said.

Several residents urged the board to seek more data rather than assume county infrastructure is sufficient. One commenter suggested the county issue a request for information (RFI) to gather details on proposed well permits and utility connections; Jared said that for projects that trigger zoning review within the two-mile area the county would require applicants to provide infrastructure information and would solicit comments from utility providers.

Board members agreed to pursue further information. The board discussed scheduling a work session to bring company representatives and staff together so the supervisors can ask specific questions about water, power, site choice and permitting. No regulatory changes were adopted at the meeting.

The public discussion also covered boundaries of the two-mile jurisdiction around Burlington, how extraterritorial zoning interacts with West Burlington and the county's historical mapping; staff said a GIS map showing the two-mile area is available and that the county enforces zoning within that Burlington-focused two-mile zone, per existing agreements.

Next steps: supervisors asked staff to set up a work session to allow more detailed briefing and to request specific infrastructure information as appropriate.