Residents press DeKalb commissioners for independent health and environmental study before data‑center approvals

Dozens of residents used the public‑comment period at the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners’ Aug. 11 meeting to demand an independent health and environmental impact study before the county advances any further text amendments or permits for hyperscale data centers.

Jan Dunaway, a DeKalb County Soil and Water Conservation District supervisor, told commissioners the public lacks essential engineering and environmental data and asked the board to “fully fund a comprehensive, independent health and environmental study to protect the citizens of DeKalb before approaching another data center text amendment.” She raised specific operational concerns, saying the county’s industrial pretreatment permit “does not remove the common chemicals used for cooling” and noting DeKalb remains under a federal consent order for sanitary‑sewer overflows.

Other commenters amplified those concerns. Austin Carl, who identified himself on the record as representing CAB residents, said the community had spent nearly a year engaging the board and that the county’s denial of a text amendment in June had prompted a $30 million lawsuit alleging the moratorium lacked standing. He repeated the demand that the county fund an independent study before lifting the moratorium, calling Shadowbox’s lawsuit “frivolous” and urging the county not to settle.

Residents also raised quality‑of‑life and equity issues. PJ Lemuel, a 20‑year homeowner in South DeKalb, warned that if large facilities require “enormous amounts of electricity” and water and release chemically treated wastewater, nearby neighborhoods could bear persistent environmental harm and depressed property values. Regina Roberts, who lives in unincorporated DeKalb, asked commissioners to weigh “who benefits and who bears the burden” when the county evaluates proposed sites.

Speakers repeatedly requested a pause on approvals until an independent analysis could confirm water and sewer capacity, detail chemical‑discharge pathways, and quantify potential health impacts. Several commenters alleged inadequate transparency in the planning process and questioned whether developers had private communications with county staff or officials; one speaker also said a commissioner had previously received a campaign contribution tied to a developer now involved in financing decisions.

The board did not adopt any new study funding at the Aug. 11 meeting; multiple related agenda items were discussed or deferred to committee and future meetings. The vocal demand for an independent study, however, was a clear throughline of public comment and is likely to shape upcoming committee discussions, staff analyses, and any proposed text‑amendment returns to the full board.