Hawaii County committee forwards Bill 170 to planning commissions after widespread public testimony opposing data centers

HILO — The Hawaii County Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Economic Development voted 8–0 on July 7 to forward Bill 170, which would distinguish industrial-scale data centers from permitted data-processing facilities in the county zoning code, to the planning director and planning commissions for review and recommendation.

Public testimony at the committee’s Hilo meeting overwhelmingly urged stricter language or a ban. "The amount of water that it demands," said Karen Foster, a longtime resident testifying in opposition, listing water use, electricity demand, 24-hour lighting and continuous noise as reasons the county should block large-scale data centers.

Why it matters: Testifiers cited resource scarcity on the island and the potential for hyper-scale centers to strain water and electrical systems, change land-use patterns, and generate traffic, noise and emissions. Several speakers asked for specific thresholds and stricter drafting — for example, a 20-megawatt campus threshold and explicit prohibitions on aggregating adjacent parcels to create a single large campus.

Bill details and next steps: The clerk read that Bill 170 would amend Chapter 25, Article 1 of the Hawaii County Code (1983, 2016 additions) to treat "data centers" separately from "data processing facilities" for zoning purposes. Introducer Council member Heather Kimball framed the measure as a definitions-based approach grounded in standard zoning practice and guidance from the National Association of Counties. She said the intent is to ensure that industrial-scale, manufacturing-like facilities cannot be read as permitted uses under the current data-processing classification. Kimball asked that the planning director and planning commissions further refine the definition and consider whether additional specificity is needed.

Planning director Jeff Darrow told the committee the department has received inquiries but no formal large-scale permit applications; in some zoning districts a data center would trigger plan approval rather than a special permit, while a change of zone or a special permit would prompt a more detailed infrastructure review, including water and utility impacts and public hearings.

Public concerns and examples: Speakers offered national examples and data to illustrate potential impacts. Testimony included varying figures: Charmaine Banther said an "average" data center uses "60 megawatts of electricity per day" and "5,000,000 gallons of water a day;" Kathy Cohen said a medium-sized data center can use "roughly 110,000,000 gallons of water in a year" and that larger facilities can use "millions of gallons a day." Those numbers were presented by members of the public and were not validated during the meeting.

Other testimony urged transparency and limits on nondisclosure agreements between developers and local officials, required environmental impact statements for applicants, criminal or civil penalties for noncompliance, and a narrow, unambiguous definition of "AI data centers." Ken Honma told the committee he opposes data centers on civil-liberty grounds, saying they enable surveillance and automated decision-making; that claim was not addressed with technical rebuttal during the meeting.

Vote and procedural outcome: Council member Heather Kimball moved to forward Bill 170 to the planning director and planning commissions; Council member Jennifer Kogewata seconded. The motion carried with eight ayes; Council member Fresh Onishi was excused. The committee took no final zoning action and referred the bill for review, at which point the planning director and commissions may suggest amendments and return recommendations to the council.

What to watch next: The planning director and planning commissions will review the draft and any proposed amendments. If they return recommendations, the council committee may convene further hearings or propose ordinance language changes before any vote on final reading.

Quotes: "Please pass the strongest version of this bill language," said Noel Lendenman, who urged a 20-megawatt threshold and aggregation language to prevent circumvention. "We can't drink data," Kathy Cohen said, summarizing the recurring theme of water scarcity raised by multiple speakers.

Context and limitations: The meeting recorded public testimony and a procedural referral; it did not adopt final regulatory language or impose bans. Numbers cited in public testimony were presented as claims and were not independently verified during the meeting. The planning department said it has not received any large-scale data-center permit applications to date.