Wright County opens fact-finding on data centers, battery storage and wind turbines

Supervisor (speaker 7) introduced a broad agenda item asking residents for input on data centers, battery energy storage systems and wind turbines, citing concerns about water use, noise and long-term impacts. He said the board intends to keep the topic on future agendas and collect public comment before making policy decisions.

"I would just like to get, I'd like to hear what the citizens of Wright County because that's their natural resources," the supervisor said, framing the item as public input rather than a decision. Jeremy Abbas of planning and zoning summarized technical sticking points, noting power availability, zoning suitability ratings and that many proposed data centers use closed-loop cooling to minimize water use.

Assessor Toni (speaker 11) provided a fiscal example for context, saying a $5 million assessed data center could generate roughly $115,000 in property taxes in that hypothetical township, while larger development-spending-based incentives can alter the tax picture. Planning staff and multiple supervisors cautioned that exemptions and incentive programs can change net revenue and that valuation and incentive schedules differ by project.

Representatives from local energy providers urged careful fact-gathering. Kate Noyer of Prairie Energy said modern proposals increasingly use closed-loop systems that "have minimal water usage" and warned that social media can amplify misinformation. Luke from MidAmerican Energy offered to provide technical briefs and tours and said energy companies can help evaluate whether Wright County has the transmission capacity to host large facilities.

Several residents raised objections focused on water consumption and battery safety. One resident worried about battery chemistries and disposal, saying, "Let's wait until we get sodium ion or lithium iron phosphate that don't have a fire exit," while another asked what would happen to an oversized facility or batteries when they become obsolete.

The board repeatedly rejected immediate moratoriums. One supervisor said he opposed a flat moratorium given limits on property-tax growth and the potential for economic development but favored drafting ordinances and development agreements to protect county resources. Planning and zoning agreed to prepare ordinance language and the board asked staff to organize tours and a targeted public-education work session; no regulatory action was taken at the meeting.

Next steps: planning & zoning will gather model ordinances and draft potential standards (closed-loop cooling, minimum setbacks, CSR restrictions and emergency-service requirements), energy providers will be asked to assess power availability, and supervisors indicated they will consider a focused work session or subcommittee to present findings before any vote.