Greenwood County Council imposes 12‑month moratorium on data‑center approvals after loud public outcry

The Greenwood County Council voted 4–3 on July 7 to impose a 12‑month moratorium on approval of data centers and related infrastructure, invoking the pending‑ordinance doctrine to pause new applications while the county studies environmental, health and infrastructure impacts.

Chair Theo Lane, who said the county had received interest from two firms but that no application was pending, framed the vote as a response to public concern and an attempt to balance economic opportunity with resident protection. "There is no data center project before this council," Lane said during public comment and early discussion; he later explained that interest does exist but that council lacked the guardrails to deny unregulated projects without an ordinance.

Why it matters: Residents pressed the council for immediate protections — citing water use, noise, light and potential contamination — while some council members and residents stressed the possible fiscal benefits of data‑center revenue. The moratorium will pause local approvals for up to 12 months, giving staff and elected officials time to research best practices, require baseline monitoring, and craft a zoning approach tailored to Greenwood County.

Public concerns drove the meeting. Speakers representing neighbors, environmental groups and local professionals argued the county's draft text amendment (ordinance 20‑26‑19) left major gaps. "There's no requirement for independent baseline groundwater testing before construction, no requirement for permanent monitoring wells, no continuing groundwater sampling throughout the life of the facility," said Aaron Khan, a longtime investigator and local watchdog, during public comment. Emily Poole, an upstate staff attorney with the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, urged the council to "table ordinance 20‑26‑19 tonight" and adopt a moratorium to allow a comprehensive public review.

Staff had proposed a conditional‑use framework that included closed‑loop cooling, limits on groundwater use, pre‑ and post‑construction sound studies, building‑to‑building setbacks of 1,000 feet to defined sensitive uses, vegetation buffers up to 200 feet, a decommissioning plan and financial security equal to 125% of projected decommissioning costs. Deputy county manager for operations (identified in materials as Mr. Russian) summarized those provisions during the staff presentation.

Several council members said they were swayed by the volume and tenor of public input. Councilwoman Cathy Miller moved to deny the text amendment as crafted and to amend it so that data centers would be excluded from RDD, I‑1 and I‑2 zoning districts; the body later approved that change by a 4–3 vote after passage of the moratorium.

What happens next: The moratorium, approved on second reading, invokes the pending‑ordinance doctrine while the council completes the three‑reading process; the ordinance will return for a final (third) reading. Staff and council members said they would use the moratorium period to gather comparative data, develop a dedicated zoning classification or more prescriptive conditional‑use standards, and define monitoring, enforcement and bonding requirements.

Council members and residents expressed sharply different views about economic tradeoffs. During discussion, Lane said one interested company had offered payment to the county that could range "$30 to $40 million a year for the next 30 years," framing the fiscal potential. Opponents countered that many promised benefits fail to materialize and that the long‑term costs to water, health and rural character could outweigh early revenue.

The council scheduled follow‑up work during the moratorium, with staff asked to catalog models from similar counties, clarify enforcement mechanisms for noise and water, and return with options for a dedicated data‑center zoning process.

The moratorium vote was 4 in favor, 3 opposed (District 1: Griffin — no; District 2: Allison — yes; District 3: Bishop — no; District 4: Miller — yes; District 5: Pruitt — yes; District 6: Templeton — yes; District 7 — no).