Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tribes and residents urge stricter protections as county considers technology‑use ordinance
Summary
Multiple tribal leaders and community members told the King William County Board of Supervisors they oppose the draft technology‑use ordinance as written, citing water withdrawals, cultural‑resource risks, and a lack of required tribal consultation; speakers asked the board to require impact studies and clear limits on water use for data‑center projects.
Dozens of residents and tribal representatives urged the King William County Board of Supervisors to strengthen a proposed technology‑use ordinance, saying the draft would not prevent long‑term harms if it allows large data‑center projects near tribal lands.
“Allison Grama, a Pamunkey tribal council member, told the board she opposed the ordinance because of what it leaves out: ‘For us, this isn’t theoretical. The Pamunkey River is directly tied to our reservation, our culture, and our ability to live on our remaining land,’ she said, later adding that tribal consultation must be required rather than optional. Tina Heath, environmental director for Mount Canaan Scribe Conservation, told the board: “These facilities require massive amounts of water for cooling,” and warned of cumulative impacts on river systems and wildlife.
Speakers asked the board to add three items to the ordinance process: mandatory government‑to‑government tribal consultation for projects affecting waterways and cultural sites; explicit, numeric limits on water withdrawal and binding mitigation requirements; and independent environmental and cultural‑resource impact studies presented to the public before approvals. Several speakers described the Mattaponi and Pamunkey rivers as culturally and ecologically sensitive and said the draft ordinance’s language (terms such as “preferred”) does not provide enforceable protections.
Board members acknowledged the breadth of public concern and reminded attendees that the board previously tabled the ordinance for further review. Supervisor Justin Fogg (addressing public comment during supervisor remarks) said the board had postponed action earlier to allow more study and public input. The meeting record shows the board will hold further public hearings on the proposal as the ordinance language is revised.
Next steps: the board has not adopted any ordinance changes; public hearings and additional planning‑commission work are expected before any final action.
