Clay County begins drafting ordinance for data centers after extensive public Q&A on water, noise and transparency

Commissioners on the Clay County Commission heard an informational presentation on data centers and extensive public comment before agreeing to move a draft ordinance toward a formal first reading.

The presentation, led by Jim of the Vermillion Chamber, explained the range of facilities called data centers — from small colocation racks to large hyperscale campuses — and summarized common community concerns including electricity and water demand, noise, lighting and the potential use of incentives. "Everybody's using a data center somewhere," Jim said, describing why local governments are examining regulations and permitting requirements.

Planning staff and commissioners said the draft ordinance under consideration would be restrictive in several areas. Staff described a preference for allowing only closed‑loop water systems for any data center permitted in the county and for distinguishing small from large centers in the ordinance so that heavier regulation would apply to larger facilities. A planning staff member summarized the approach as "land‑use controls first: where they can go, and then conditional use/permitting requirements that require full disclosure of operations." (Speaker listed in meeting materials as planning staff.)

Residents raised multiple technical and policy questions. Suzanne Skirm, who identified herself as a Vermillion resident, asked whether closed‑loop systems already exist in other places; staff pointed to older examples and said closed‑loop operations are in use in some U.S. facilities. Another commenter pressed about water and electrical capacity; staff responded that utilities (local and regional) would need to certify capacity during any permit review. "We can follow up and get back to the public" on exact utility capacity, staff said.

Several speakers pressed the commission for protections on transparency and nondisclosure agreements. Jeff Church asked that the permitting process require public disclosure of a facility's expected energy and water consumption and other operational parameters when a company locates in Clay County. Planning staff and commissioners said permitting and permitting conditions are the usual public remedies and that key details would be part of the review if a specific proposal arrived.

Commissioners and staff also discussed noise standards, landscaping and screening, visual standards and how to define large versus small centers (both by land area and by electrical/megawatt scale). A commissioner said the draft ordinance contains daytime and property‑line sound limits and other mitigation such as berms and landscape screening, while noting that specific decibel testing protocols still require refinement in the draft.

No formal regulatory action was taken on a final ordinance at the meeting; staff said the draft will proceed to a first reading and that commissioners may send it back to planning and zoning for revisions after that reading. Staff also encouraged ongoing public input and said the first reading will be publicly noticed in the county newspapers and on county websites.

What happens next: staff will publish the draft language for public review, the commission will hold a formal first reading (timing to be posted), and any future permit for a data center would require a public permitting process with opportunities for comment and conditions designed to address utilities, noise, environmental and land‑use impacts.