Suwannee County attorney says state law likely bars local bans on data centers until 2027

County Attorney Mr. Morrison told the Suwannee County Board of County Commissioners on July 7 that recent state legislation makes it legally risky for Suwannee County to try to regulate data centers now.

Morrison reviewed two competing legal authorities: section 28 of Senate Bill 180, which he said renders certain local restrictions “void ab initio” for properties affected by specified storms, and later provisions in the laws of Florida that discuss local authority over comprehensive planning and land‑development regulation as applied to large‑load customers. He said the tension between the measures has left no definitive answer until a court resolves whether the statutes can be harmonized or whether one implicitly repeals the other.

"If there's a regulation which violates one of those sections, it's void from the absolute beginning," Morrison told the commission, warning that private parties could seek injunctions, damages and attorney's fees if the county adopted measures that run afoul of section 28. He emphasized that the provision applies statewide in parts related to LDRs and review procedures, and that Suwannee County likely falls under the scope of the property‑damage provisions because there are few parcels that were not affected by the storms named in the statute.

Morrison also described a narrower statute that some local governments rely on to regulate large‑load uses (he summarized the definition as applying to customers with an anticipated peak load of 50 megawatts or more). He said that statute explicitly addresses comprehensive planning and land‑development regulation but does not mention moratoria or construction prohibitions. That distinction, he said, is central to his recommendation.

"Anybody who tells you they know what the answer is is lying to you," Morrison said, adding that courts historically prefer interpretations that give both statutes effect and that a final answer will likely come only through litigation. He recommended against adopting moratoria or bans that could be vulnerable to a private challenge and urged commissioners to weigh political responses against legal exposure.

Commissioners heard the presentation and acknowledged that other counties have acted in different ways; Morrison outlined three common local responses — (1) unaware adoption, (2) private advisement followed by political action, and (3) divergent legal opinions among county attorneys. He urged caution and recommended waiting for clearer judicial guidance or using technical amendments that fall clearly within local planning authority.

The presentation framed the issue for the board as one of legal risk and long‑term consequence: ordinances found void ab initio cannot be cured later, he said, and the board should consider whether a temporarily visible policy wins the short term at the cost of long‑term legal liabilities.

The board did not take immediate action to adopt any county‑level moratorium on data centers during the meeting.