Topeka council approves 12‑month moratorium on data‑center applications

The Topeka City Council voted unanimously on July 14 to adopt a 12‑month temporary moratorium on accepting, processing and approving applications for data‑center developments within the city limits.

The moratorium, introduced by council members Murray McGee, Christina Valdivia Acala and Michelle Bradbury, passed after an extended public‑comment period that included more than 20 speakers and a council amendment to add large battery systems and battery energy storage systems to the moratorium's definition. Councilman McGee, one of the sponsors, described the ordinance as “temporary. It is for 12 months” and said the pause will let the council “stop and try to get ahead, gather more information.”

Why it matters: Residents and local stakeholders told the council they are worried about cumulative public‑health and infrastructure impacts if hyperscale facilities are approved without additional safeguards. Speakers cited concerns about water use and wastewater, emergency response capacity, noise and low‑frequency vibration, PFAS and other chemical risks, and the long‑term financial tradeoffs for neighborhoods near proposed sites.

What supporters and opponents said: - Gary Morgan, a mechanical engineer who signed up to speak as a local resident, urged the council to study Topeka's water loss and infrastructure before permitting water‑intensive projects: “Data centers... consume massive amounts of treated water,” he said, and asked the council to “develop a comprehensive plan, including funding, to fix our own problems before you consider giving abatements.” - Community members including Katharine Andrews and Megan Ryan cited fire‑response and public‑health examples from other jurisdictions and urged a pause so experts and residents can study the local impacts. Ryan, who said she holds a master's degree in public health, noted that common cooling and fire suppression systems can involve PFAS and other chemicals and warned of community‑wide exposure risks should city water be extended to a campus. - Mike Morris, who spoke as a developer/landowner involved with the proposal, described the project's scale and potential tax benefits and contested some claims about water use: “The system that will be used is... it doesn't use any water. It uses antifreeze,” he said, and told the council staff had provided estimates of roughly 240,000 gallons per building per year in water use for the cooled systems the developer plans to deploy.

Amendment and next steps: Council member Brett Kell proposed and the council adopted an amendment to add "large battery systems" and "battery energy storage systems" and "similarly functioning energy systems" to the ordinance's covered facilities; the amendment passed by voice vote. Council members also discussed referring follow‑up work to a committee of the whole and hiring outside subject‑matter experts to study impacts during the moratorium period. The city attorney noted the ordinance can be rescinded earlier if the council chooses.

Vote and effect: The amended ordinance passed by voice vote (10 yes). It bars the city from accepting, processing or approving applications for the covered categories for 12 months unless the council rescinds the moratorium sooner. Proponents said the pause will allow the city to build study teams and regulatory guardrails; opponents warned the pause could delay potential economic development.

The council directed staff to continue study and outreach and discussed bringing the matter to a committee of the whole so the full governing body can review impact studies and proposed regulatory changes during the moratorium period.