Residents, supervisors press data-center presenter on water use, cooling and emergency response

At the June 23 Des Moines County Board of Supervisors meeting, a prospective data-center operator presented plans for possible expansion and fielded an extended public Q&A about the project's local impacts.

Board members and residents repeatedly asked whether the facility would use closed-loop air cooling or an evaporative water-based system and how much water the site would consume. One commenter summarized figures discussed during the meeting, saying the site could use “43,000,000 gallons a year,” and urged the county to require written confirmation from utilities that the system would not harm local service or prices. The presenter said LOIs (letters of intent) were generalized and that specific contracts for the county site were not yet signed.

Local emergency-preparedness officials and citizens urged the operator to coordinate with fire, HazMat and ambulance services. A safety director said responders need information about potential equipment hazards and combustion byproducts, noting: “When that burns, the different components of that equipment will cause gases. It will cause different pollutions that our emergency personnel need to be well aware of.” The operator acknowledged past incidents and was asked to meet with Des Moines County Emergency Management to review response plans.

Several supervisors pressed the presenter on jobs, property taxes and local hiring. A supervisor asked for an estimate of annual property-tax revenue from a 25-megawatt facility and whether local contractors would be used for construction; the operator said details depend on final facility design and ownership structure. Another speaker, a local reporter, said they had sent multiple emails to the company and received no response; the presenter agreed to follow up with the reporter.

Toward the end of the exchange supervisors requested documentation: written assurances from utilities and written commitment on cooling/water use before the board considers lifting any moratorium or taking development actions. The board suggested the operator contact county emergency management and local utilities and provide specifics in writing so the county can evaluate infrastructure and public-safety implications.

The public Q&A stretched the meeting's end and generated requests from officials for follow-up facts rather than immediate approvals: supervisors asked for water-use estimates, written utility statements regarding capacity and pricing impacts, documentation of wastewater/HAZMAT planning and clarity on local hiring and tax estimates. No permit or formal approval was granted; the discussion served as information-gathering and public comment.