Residents, reporters and supervisors press company on water, fire-safety and expansion plans for proposed data center in Des Moines County

A company representative appearing before the Des Moines County Board of Supervisors on June 23 fielded an extended series of questions from county officials, reporters and residents about a potential expansion of local data-center and bitcoin-mining operations.

The presentation and public Q&A centered on the operator’s plan to expand capacity at a Middletown-area site up to a maximum of 25 megawatts and whether such growth would require water-intensive evaporative cooling, lead to large wastewater volumes, or strain local electric and water infrastructure. Several speakers urged written assurances from utilities and the company about demand and public-safety implications.

Why it matters: County officials said the potential expansion could materially affect water and power systems serving households and businesses in the area, and they asked for documentation that the grid and water systems can absorb the load without harming residents’ service or emergency response capabilities.

During the exchange, Lori Cochran of the Burlington Beacon asked directly about expansion plans and outreach: “I had asked about future plans for expansion in the county. I’ve heard that you had looked at some property up near Sperry. Is that correct?” Cochran also said she had emailed the company previously and received no response. The company representative acknowledged contact gaps and supplied a new email address for follow-up.

Reporters and residents pressed on technical details. Tracy Lamb, city editor of the Hawkeye, asked when the parcel was purchased and when initial contact began; a county official noted the sale posted in GIS as May 7, 2025 and initial contact paperwork dated September 2024. A resident raised water-use concerns and cited a figure discussed at the meeting: “43 million gallons a year,” which participants compared against county household water demand.

Public-safety officials and citizens asked whether the operator has coordinated with local fire, law-enforcement and hazmat teams. Angie Von, the local safety director, requested information about hazardous byproducts and whether the operator had consulted the county’s emergency responders. Several speakers urged that the operator meet with Shannon Prada at Emergency Management to ensure first responders understand any unique risks.

On cooling systems, the operator described closed-loop air-cooling options but acknowledged that higher-capacity operations may use evaporative (water) cooling. Attendees repeatedly asked whether the company would commit in writing to a closed-loop system if it expanded; the representative did not make a binding commitment during the session.

Speakers also asked about local economic impacts: expected local hiring, whether local contractors would be used for construction, and potential property-tax revenue from a 25-megawatt facility. The company did not provide firm tax-estimate figures during the meeting and encouraged follow-up with county staff.

What comes next: Supervisors and residents asked the company to provide written documentation from utilities and more detailed, site-specific information about water, wastewater handling and emergency response plans. Several commissioners said that documentation—particularly a written utility statement about available capacity—would be important for any future county decisions or land-use actions.

The presentation and Q&A concluded without formal board action on the project; board members asked staff to follow up with the company and with emergency-management and fire officials.