whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Many DCs will be the empty strip malls of the future, so it's right to be wary when evaluating projects. The market is currently valuing almost all data center square footage as premium real estate. The reality is that the vast majority of it is highly vulnerable to becoming technologically stranded. The tech is leading us there as it will address the infrastructural issues through consolidation and lower power/heat requirements for higher computing output. Ai will also trend toward distributed autonomy long term. We're in the "brute force" inefficient scaling phase driven by first mover motivation, hype, and some economic opportunism (public and private).

---

So the risk is to do it right going in and be prepared for change.
-force DCs to bring their own pipe. (easy. they are).
-do not encumber the new tax base with long-term debt. (very easy for smaller cities to do...it's all new tax base).
-prepare for change.

On that last portion..... The ad valorem value of a CD is roughly 25% concrete & steel building, and 75% tech equipment. There is already a well-worn path of precedent to set the equipment on a 5yr depreciation, and to flat-line an value over that term. That makes budgeting easier for both taxing entities and businesses. Also allows municipalities to prepare for the first big transition, 4-5yrs down the line - when the "brute force" phase is winding down and there are broader options for available space. Since we are not having to compete to get a DC located in our city, we are not offering much in the way of abatements. That plus our conservative approach to use of the new tax base means we will have room to maneuver when those businesses come back to us 5yrs from now and demand abatements in order to stay with us. Doing other stuff, too.....

Bottom line: most cities do a good job on such issues. it's the failures of planning that make the news.

---

Force DCs to actually pay their taxes.

Like the numerous links that have been provided by multiple people show they do NOT pay taxes but you ignored.

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Many DCs will be the empty strip malls of the future, so it's right to be wary when evaluating projects. The market is currently valuing almost all data center square footage as premium real estate. The reality is that the vast majority of it is highly vulnerable to becoming technologically stranded. The tech is leading us there as it will address the infrastructural issues through consolidation and lower power/heat requirements for higher computing output. Ai will also trend toward distributed autonomy long term. We're in the "brute force" inefficient scaling phase driven by first mover motivation, hype, and some economic opportunism (public and private).

---

So the risk is to do it right going in and be prepared for change.
-force DCs to bring their own pipe. (easy. they are).
-do not encumber the new tax base with long-term debt. (very easy for smaller cities to do...it's all new tax base).
-prepare for change.

On that last portion..... The ad valorem value of a CD is roughly 25% concrete & steel building, and 75% tech equipment. There is already a well-worn path of precedent to set the equipment on a 5yr depreciation, and to flat-line an value over that term. That makes budgeting easier for both taxing entities and businesses. Also allows municipalities to prepare for the first big transition, 4-5yrs down the line - when the "brute force" phase is winding down and there are broader options for available space. Since we are not having to compete to get a DC located in our city, we are not offering much in the way of abatements. That plus our conservative approach to use of the new tax base means we will have room to maneuver when those businesses come back to us 5yrs from now and demand abatements in order to stay with us. Doing other stuff, too.....

Bottom line: most cities do a good job on such issues. it's the failures of planning that make the news.

---

You mean the Government function of properly Planning for development and industry? We have eliminated or gutted them in many places, at the Fed level Musk's DOGE took care of that as "wasteful". Funny, how it was mainly industries he is invested in... (But, that will come out someday).

Government is a waste, until a project goes wrong. Then it was Government planning.

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Many DCs will be the empty strip malls of the future, so it's right to be wary when evaluating projects. The market is currently valuing almost all data center square footage as premium real estate. The reality is that the vast majority of it is highly vulnerable to becoming technologically stranded. The tech is leading us there as it will address the infrastructural issues through consolidation and lower power/heat requirements for higher computing output. Ai will also trend toward distributed autonomy long term. We're in the "brute force" inefficient scaling phase driven by first mover motivation, hype, and some economic opportunism (public and private).

---

So the risk is to do it right going in and be prepared for change.
-force DCs to bring their own pipe. (easy. they are).
-do not encumber the new tax base with long-term debt. (very easy for smaller cities to do...it's all new tax base).
-prepare for change.

On that last portion..... The ad valorem value of a CD is roughly 25% concrete & steel building, and 75% tech equipment. There is already a well-worn path of precedent to set the equipment on a 5yr depreciation, and to flat-line an value over that term. That makes budgeting easier for both taxing entities and businesses. Also allows municipalities to prepare for the first big transition, 4-5yrs down the line - when the "brute force" phase is winding down and there are broader options for available space. Since we are not having to compete to get a DC located in our city, we are not offering much in the way of abatements. That plus our conservative approach to use of the new tax base means we will have room to maneuver when those businesses come back to us 5yrs from now and demand abatements in order to stay with us. Doing other stuff, too.....

Bottom line: most cities do a good job on such issues. it's the failures of planning that make the news.

---

Force DCs to actually pay their taxes.

Like the numerous links that have been provided by multiple people show they do NOT pay taxes but you ignored.

---

Tax abatements are not uncommon for large businesses in cities and counties. It doesn't mean no taxes are paid. It means those high dollar businesses pay a lower rate than others.

Small town areas which had once poor school districts are an indicator of what can happen when an industry comes in. Big industry with a nice abatement gets built, and the school district suddenly is a rich district getting new buildings and equipment.

It can be a boon to lure a large DC (or other large business) into an area.
We don't want to become like poor AOC losing hundreds of Amazon jobs for her district.

Issues can be addressed. The problem with data centers is we are just now learning what those issues can be. However, that is not much different than the history of other new industries.

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Luddites shytting their nest.

---

You still throwing that tantrum?

---

not a tantrum at all. Just calling it what it is. The negative reaction to data centers is completely illogical. Almost every complaint is mostly or wholly the opposite of the truth, one unsupported allegation after another piled on top of ignorance about industrial water use and water infrastructure, multiplied by exponential misunderstanding about the realities private property rights and economic development.

The actual situation is this: the demand for data storage is infinite, while the supply of data storage is quite limited. Supply & demand being what it is, it now pencils out to bring in necessary infrastructure to raw properties well outside of existing urban development. This is transformatively positive for the areas being developed, bringing electrical, water and sewer infrastructure to areas that would not otherwise see such for decades. That generates unprecedented amounts of tax base for the dollars and gallons invested by the public. To the extent you think public debt is a problem, tax base matters a little bit.

Most important: It's going to happen. The tech companies are going to build their data centers. So where do we want them to be? China will let them put as many DCs as they want anywhere they want. Are we somehow better off if all our data is housed in China? Do we really improve anything by letting all the AI development occur under Chinese regulation?

We are going to build them here. For obvious reasons. WE will manage all the problems, and WE will reap all the benefits. And WE will do a better job of addressing your concerns than China will. Just insanity to think that saying no to the construction of data centers here to fight the advance of AI is going to do anything other than send all the DCs and AI development abroad, and that such is somehow a better model than building them here.

---

Just insanity to not fight Iran. Insanity to not support Ukraine. Insanity to not kidnap Maduro. Insanity to not build DCs.
All true.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Iran build nukes and launch terror attacks via proxy.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Russia roll over Ukraine.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Maduro stay in power (with Iranian advisors and Chinese money).
Tell us how we'll be better off letting China host all our data.

So the sane person is Nicki Haley. You think like Nicki Haley.
On some things, yes.
On some things, no.
I'm like that.

---

You're not a very good troll, ya know.....

---

I notice you conveniently ignored the posts of mine with links. Address those links and prove any of them wrong.

You can't so you will continue to ignore them.

---

Google up: "data center water pollution examples."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=data+center+water+pollution+examples&atb=v405-1&ia=web

You will see none. Just allegations of what could happen, maybe, perhaps, et......

DC operations do not pollute water. You have not cited a single instance. Because it's not there.

---

Again. I have. There was a post IN THIS THREAD. But you have ignored it.

But here is a link about it. And in fact the link shows Amazon is going to pay for the pollution…. Why would they pay if they didn't cause it?????

https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2026/03/amazon-will-pay-205-million-to-settle-oregon-data-center-pollution-allegations.html


So there is one. I could find more. But you will brush this off without providing proof or addressing the one from this thread.

Just as you have ignored the links I have provided, fail to address those, provide no links yourself and have been called out by multiple people on the lack of jobs or tax money created and simply just ignore it.

Provide links.

---

Please read carefully this portion of your link. It completely undermines your assertion:
"Amazon wasn't the origin of the nitrate pollution, and denies wrongdoing, but critics have alleged the company exacerbated the crisis with concentrated runoff from its data centers. A lawsuit continues on behalf of local residents against food processors, farms, utilities and the Port of Morrow."

Translation: Amazon did not pollute the groundwater. The suit alleges the runoff from the DC moved existing pollution around a little bit. Not discharge of water from operations, mind you, but runoff from roofs & parking lots of the DC. Amazon settled to extricate itself from a larger lawsuit (i.e. to make the issue go away for them). That DC is a $12B investment; a $20m settlement is a rounding error, precisely 0.00166666666667 to the total, to be exact. A nuisance lawsuit settlement.

Google up this search term: "lawsuits against data centers water."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lawsuits+against+data+centes+water&atb=v405-1&ia=web

Below is what the results say (i.e. exactly what I've been saying - DC's do not pollute water; nearly all narrative to that effect is allegations of POTENTIAL problems, not actual problems. The overwhelming body of narrative on DCs and water is over the quantity of water they use, not the quality of any water they may discharge.) And to that end, note the final portion below about "water positive." DC developers are all over that. I'm working with one that intends to use strictly effluent for cooling....reused water that would be otherwise discharged into a public waterway You will see more and more of that, as well as other cooling tech I've mentioned here - like generators that can cool themselves with water distilled from air intake. And the infrastructure needed to take the effluent to the plant? It will be available for other industrial businesses to tap into - proving again what I've said: DCs are bringing the pipe.....they are not going to strain existing infrastructure; they're going to bring a whole new wave of infrastructure that will benefit everyone.

Bottom line, please educate yourself on this issue. You are repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations. I am literally under the hood of a few DC developments. There is no DC superfund site. And there's not likely to be. Other than the cooling systems, there are no contaminants in a DC. Just billions of dollars of chemically inert metal and wire. They are the cleanest industrial facility imaginable. Virtually all of the new wave of DCs have closed-loop water systems. All water loss will be to evaporation.

-----------------start of quote------------------------

Overview of Lawsuits Against Data Centers
Lawsuits targeting data centers primarily focus on their substantial water usage, especially in regions already facing water scarcity. Local communities and officials are increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of these facilities.
Key Issues in Litigation

• Resource Depletion: Data centers consume large amounts of water, which can strain local supplies.
• Environmental Impact: Communities argue that the approval of new data centers can exacerbate existing water shortages and harm local ecosystems.

Notable Cases
Location
Case Description
Key Concerns
Virginia
Officials are exploring legal options to limit water strain from data centers.
High water usage and local resource depletion.
Chile
Municipality of Cerrillos challenged a Google data center's approval.
Potential water use and climate impact.
Ireland
Friends of the Irish Environment challenged a proposed data center.
Violation of climate targets and biodiversity concerns.
Broader Context
The rapid expansion of data centers, driven by the demand for digital services and AI, has led to increased scrutiny. Many new facilities are being built in water-stressed areas, raising alarms about their sustainability.
Industry Response
Tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have pledged to become "water positive" by 2030, aiming to replenish more water than they consume. However, critics argue that these commitments often rely on offsetting strategies that do not effectively address local shortages.
The growing trend of litigation against data centers reflects a significant shift in public awareness and policy regarding the environmental impacts of digital infrastructure.

---

Provide links.

---

I did. You just didn't read it, apparently. that's why I posted the results, which you apparently cannot understand.

---

No you did not.

I said provide linkS. That is plural. You provided one. You still ignore the link provided earlier in the thread. Until you address that one and any of the other links and questions I have posted that you have just ignored I am done.

Provide LINKS. LINKS

---

Why are you being so unserious? You allege massive water pollution problems, massive air pollution problems, all kinds of environmental catastrophe. You cannot provide any links documenting such and the ones you do post explicitly, subject-verb-object refute your allegation. And then you demand I provide links to prove none of that is happening. We only have 5400 in operation at this time. Surely you can find one example where a state or federal government agency stepped in and stopped operation. Surely you can find one class-action law-suit to redress a grievance stacking up thousands of people with actual damages.

In fairness, you are not alone in your delusion. It is simply amazing how many people are convinced such is happening and repost every allegation of potential future problems as evidence that we should stop all construction on them immediately. In all my years of public affairs, I cannot remember an issue where the popular narrative is so disconnected from reality. There was more substance to the Russia hoax, by wide margin, than there is on the nonsense you are repeating here.

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Luddites shytting their nest.

---

You still throwing that tantrum?

---

not a tantrum at all. Just calling it what it is. The negative reaction to data centers is completely illogical. Almost every complaint is mostly or wholly the opposite of the truth, one unsupported allegation after another piled on top of ignorance about industrial water use and water infrastructure, multiplied by exponential misunderstanding about the realities private property rights and economic development.

The actual situation is this: the demand for data storage is infinite, while the supply of data storage is quite limited. Supply & demand being what it is, it now pencils out to bring in necessary infrastructure to raw properties well outside of existing urban development. This is transformatively positive for the areas being developed, bringing electrical, water and sewer infrastructure to areas that would not otherwise see such for decades. That generates unprecedented amounts of tax base for the dollars and gallons invested by the public. To the extent you think public debt is a problem, tax base matters a little bit.

Most important: It's going to happen. The tech companies are going to build their data centers. So where do we want them to be? China will let them put as many DCs as they want anywhere they want. Are we somehow better off if all our data is housed in China? Do we really improve anything by letting all the AI development occur under Chinese regulation?

We are going to build them here. For obvious reasons. WE will manage all the problems, and WE will reap all the benefits. And WE will do a better job of addressing your concerns than China will. Just insanity to think that saying no to the construction of data centers here to fight the advance of AI is going to do anything other than send all the DCs and AI development abroad, and that such is somehow a better model than building them here.

---

Just insanity to not fight Iran. Insanity to not support Ukraine. Insanity to not kidnap Maduro. Insanity to not build DCs.
All true.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Iran build nukes and launch terror attacks via proxy.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Russia roll over Ukraine.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Maduro stay in power (with Iranian advisors and Chinese money).
Tell us how we'll be better off letting China host all our data.

So the sane person is Nicki Haley. You think like Nicki Haley.
On some things, yes.
On some things, no.
I'm like that.

---

You're not a very good troll, ya know.....

---

I notice you conveniently ignored the posts of mine with links. Address those links and prove any of them wrong.

You can't so you will continue to ignore them.

---

Google up: "data center water pollution examples."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=data+center+water+pollution+examples&atb=v405-1&ia=web

You will see none. Just allegations of what could happen, maybe, perhaps, et......

DC operations do not pollute water. You have not cited a single instance. Because it's not there.

---

Again. I have. There was a post IN THIS THREAD. But you have ignored it.

But here is a link about it. And in fact the link shows Amazon is going to pay for the pollution…. Why would they pay if they didn't cause it?????

https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2026/03/amazon-will-pay-205-million-to-settle-oregon-data-center-pollution-allegations.html


So there is one. I could find more. But you will brush this off without providing proof or addressing the one from this thread.

Just as you have ignored the links I have provided, fail to address those, provide no links yourself and have been called out by multiple people on the lack of jobs or tax money created and simply just ignore it.

Provide links.

---

Please read carefully this portion of your link. It completely undermines your assertion:
"Amazon wasn't the origin of the nitrate pollution, and denies wrongdoing, but critics have alleged the company exacerbated the crisis with concentrated runoff from its data centers. A lawsuit continues on behalf of local residents against food processors, farms, utilities and the Port of Morrow."

Translation: Amazon did not pollute the groundwater. The suit alleges the runoff from the DC moved existing pollution around a little bit. Not discharge of water from operations, mind you, but runoff from roofs & parking lots of the DC. Amazon settled to extricate itself from a larger lawsuit (i.e. to make the issue go away for them). That DC is a $12B investment; a $20m settlement is a rounding error, precisely 0.00166666666667 to the total, to be exact. A nuisance lawsuit settlement.

Google up this search term: "lawsuits against data centers water."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lawsuits+against+data+centes+water&atb=v405-1&ia=web

Below is what the results say (i.e. exactly what I've been saying - DC's do not pollute water; nearly all narrative to that effect is allegations of POTENTIAL problems, not actual problems. The overwhelming body of narrative on DCs and water is over the quantity of water they use, not the quality of any water they may discharge.) And to that end, note the final portion below about "water positive." DC developers are all over that. I'm working with one that intends to use strictly effluent for cooling....reused water that would be otherwise discharged into a public waterway You will see more and more of that, as well as other cooling tech I've mentioned here - like generators that can cool themselves with water distilled from air intake. And the infrastructure needed to take the effluent to the plant? It will be available for other industrial businesses to tap into - proving again what I've said: DCs are bringing the pipe.....they are not going to strain existing infrastructure; they're going to bring a whole new wave of infrastructure that will benefit everyone.

Bottom line, please educate yourself on this issue. You are repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations. I am literally under the hood of a few DC developments. There is no DC superfund site. And there's not likely to be. Other than the cooling systems, there are no contaminants in a DC. Just billions of dollars of chemically inert metal and wire. They are the cleanest industrial facility imaginable. Virtually all of the new wave of DCs have closed-loop water systems. All water loss will be to evaporation.

-----------------start of quote------------------------

Overview of Lawsuits Against Data Centers
Lawsuits targeting data centers primarily focus on their substantial water usage, especially in regions already facing water scarcity. Local communities and officials are increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of these facilities.
Key Issues in Litigation

• Resource Depletion: Data centers consume large amounts of water, which can strain local supplies.
• Environmental Impact: Communities argue that the approval of new data centers can exacerbate existing water shortages and harm local ecosystems.

Notable Cases
Location
Case Description
Key Concerns
Virginia
Officials are exploring legal options to limit water strain from data centers.
High water usage and local resource depletion.
Chile
Municipality of Cerrillos challenged a Google data center's approval.
Potential water use and climate impact.
Ireland
Friends of the Irish Environment challenged a proposed data center.
Violation of climate targets and biodiversity concerns.
Broader Context
The rapid expansion of data centers, driven by the demand for digital services and AI, has led to increased scrutiny. Many new facilities are being built in water-stressed areas, raising alarms about their sustainability.
Industry Response
Tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have pledged to become "water positive" by 2030, aiming to replenish more water than they consume. However, critics argue that these commitments often rely on offsetting strategies that do not effectively address local shortages.
The growing trend of litigation against data centers reflects a significant shift in public awareness and policy regarding the environmental impacts of digital infrastructure.

---

Provide links.

---

I did. You just didn't read it, apparently. that's why I posted the results, which you apparently cannot understand.

---

No you did not.

I said provide linkS. That is plural. You provided one. You still ignore the link provided earlier in the thread. Until you address that one and any of the other links and questions I have posted that you have just ignored I am done.

Provide LINKS. LINKS

---

Why are you being so unserious? You allege massive water pollution problems, massive air pollution problems, all kinds of environmental catastrophe. You cannot provide any links documenting such and the ones you do post explicitly, subject-verb-object refute your allegation. And then you demand I provide links to prove none of that is happening. We only have 5400 in operation at this time. Surely you can find one example where a state or federal government agency stepped in and stopped operation. Surely you can find one class-action law-suit to redress a grievance stacking up thousands of people with actual damages.

In fairness, you are not alone in your delusion. It is simply amazing how many people are convinced such is happening and repost every allegation of potential future problems as evidence that we should stop all construction on them immediately. In all my years of public affairs, I cannot remember an issue where the popular narrative is so disconnected from reality. There was more substance to the Russia hoax, by wide margin, than there is on the nonsense you are repeating here.

---

Fascinating. Whiterock refuses to defend his claims, yet immediately assumes a haughty indignation when pointed out that these data centers have up to now not justified their cost and resource greed, falsely labeling concerns as 'luddite' fears.

The best comparison I have seen so far in this thread would the old shopping malls, which are right now gathering rats and homeless tenants as they crumble into ruin. The malls which once saw crowds pour through for shopping are now useless for the communities which paid for them, and the best indication we have is that data centers would follow the same road.

There is simply no civic purpose to building the things. They do not create jobs in the numbers needed to justify their cost, nor do they pay for their own water and power use, depending on politicians to give them advantages not offered to more useful and beneficial businesses.

Concern about the cost and effects of these data centers is perfectly reasonable. The evasive rhetoric used by Whiterock in this thread is not useful, nor likely to sway the mind of even one member here.

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Luddites shytting their nest.

---

You still throwing that tantrum?

---

not a tantrum at all. Just calling it what it is. The negative reaction to data centers is completely illogical. Almost every complaint is mostly or wholly the opposite of the truth, one unsupported allegation after another piled on top of ignorance about industrial water use and water infrastructure, multiplied by exponential misunderstanding about the realities private property rights and economic development.

The actual situation is this: the demand for data storage is infinite, while the supply of data storage is quite limited. Supply & demand being what it is, it now pencils out to bring in necessary infrastructure to raw properties well outside of existing urban development. This is transformatively positive for the areas being developed, bringing electrical, water and sewer infrastructure to areas that would not otherwise see such for decades. That generates unprecedented amounts of tax base for the dollars and gallons invested by the public. To the extent you think public debt is a problem, tax base matters a little bit.

Most important: It's going to happen. The tech companies are going to build their data centers. So where do we want them to be? China will let them put as many DCs as they want anywhere they want. Are we somehow better off if all our data is housed in China? Do we really improve anything by letting all the AI development occur under Chinese regulation?

We are going to build them here. For obvious reasons. WE will manage all the problems, and WE will reap all the benefits. And WE will do a better job of addressing your concerns than China will. Just insanity to think that saying no to the construction of data centers here to fight the advance of AI is going to do anything other than send all the DCs and AI development abroad, and that such is somehow a better model than building them here.

---

Just insanity to not fight Iran. Insanity to not support Ukraine. Insanity to not kidnap Maduro. Insanity to not build DCs.
All true.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Iran build nukes and launch terror attacks via proxy.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Russia roll over Ukraine.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Maduro stay in power (with Iranian advisors and Chinese money).
Tell us how we'll be better off letting China host all our data.

So the sane person is Nicki Haley. You think like Nicki Haley.
On some things, yes.
On some things, no.
I'm like that.

---

You're not a very good troll, ya know.....

---

I notice you conveniently ignored the posts of mine with links. Address those links and prove any of them wrong.

You can't so you will continue to ignore them.

---

Google up: "data center water pollution examples."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=data+center+water+pollution+examples&atb=v405-1&ia=web

You will see none. Just allegations of what could happen, maybe, perhaps, et......

DC operations do not pollute water. You have not cited a single instance. Because it's not there.

---

Again. I have. There was a post IN THIS THREAD. But you have ignored it.

But here is a link about it. And in fact the link shows Amazon is going to pay for the pollution…. Why would they pay if they didn't cause it?????

https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2026/03/amazon-will-pay-205-million-to-settle-oregon-data-center-pollution-allegations.html


So there is one. I could find more. But you will brush this off without providing proof or addressing the one from this thread.

Just as you have ignored the links I have provided, fail to address those, provide no links yourself and have been called out by multiple people on the lack of jobs or tax money created and simply just ignore it.

Provide links.

---

Please read carefully this portion of your link. It completely undermines your assertion:
"Amazon wasn't the origin of the nitrate pollution, and denies wrongdoing, but critics have alleged the company exacerbated the crisis with concentrated runoff from its data centers. A lawsuit continues on behalf of local residents against food processors, farms, utilities and the Port of Morrow."

Translation: Amazon did not pollute the groundwater. The suit alleges the runoff from the DC moved existing pollution around a little bit. Not discharge of water from operations, mind you, but runoff from roofs & parking lots of the DC. Amazon settled to extricate itself from a larger lawsuit (i.e. to make the issue go away for them). That DC is a $12B investment; a $20m settlement is a rounding error, precisely 0.00166666666667 to the total, to be exact. A nuisance lawsuit settlement.

Google up this search term: "lawsuits against data centers water."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lawsuits+against+data+centes+water&atb=v405-1&ia=web

Below is what the results say (i.e. exactly what I've been saying - DC's do not pollute water; nearly all narrative to that effect is allegations of POTENTIAL problems, not actual problems. The overwhelming body of narrative on DCs and water is over the quantity of water they use, not the quality of any water they may discharge.) And to that end, note the final portion below about "water positive." DC developers are all over that. I'm working with one that intends to use strictly effluent for cooling....reused water that would be otherwise discharged into a public waterway You will see more and more of that, as well as other cooling tech I've mentioned here - like generators that can cool themselves with water distilled from air intake. And the infrastructure needed to take the effluent to the plant? It will be available for other industrial businesses to tap into - proving again what I've said: DCs are bringing the pipe.....they are not going to strain existing infrastructure; they're going to bring a whole new wave of infrastructure that will benefit everyone.

Bottom line, please educate yourself on this issue. You are repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations. I am literally under the hood of a few DC developments. There is no DC superfund site. And there's not likely to be. Other than the cooling systems, there are no contaminants in a DC. Just billions of dollars of chemically inert metal and wire. They are the cleanest industrial facility imaginable. Virtually all of the new wave of DCs have closed-loop water systems. All water loss will be to evaporation.

-----------------start of quote------------------------

Overview of Lawsuits Against Data Centers
Lawsuits targeting data centers primarily focus on their substantial water usage, especially in regions already facing water scarcity. Local communities and officials are increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of these facilities.
Key Issues in Litigation

• Resource Depletion: Data centers consume large amounts of water, which can strain local supplies.
• Environmental Impact: Communities argue that the approval of new data centers can exacerbate existing water shortages and harm local ecosystems.

Notable Cases
Location
Case Description
Key Concerns
Virginia
Officials are exploring legal options to limit water strain from data centers.
High water usage and local resource depletion.
Chile
Municipality of Cerrillos challenged a Google data center's approval.
Potential water use and climate impact.
Ireland
Friends of the Irish Environment challenged a proposed data center.
Violation of climate targets and biodiversity concerns.
Broader Context
The rapid expansion of data centers, driven by the demand for digital services and AI, has led to increased scrutiny. Many new facilities are being built in water-stressed areas, raising alarms about their sustainability.
Industry Response
Tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have pledged to become "water positive" by 2030, aiming to replenish more water than they consume. However, critics argue that these commitments often rely on offsetting strategies that do not effectively address local shortages.
The growing trend of litigation against data centers reflects a significant shift in public awareness and policy regarding the environmental impacts of digital infrastructure.

---

Provide links.

---

I did. You just didn't read it, apparently. that's why I posted the results, which you apparently cannot understand.

---

No you did not.

I said provide linkS. That is plural. You provided one. You still ignore the link provided earlier in the thread. Until you address that one and any of the other links and questions I have posted that you have just ignored I am done.

Provide LINKS. LINKS

---

Why are you being so unserious? You allege massive water pollution problems, massive air pollution problems, all kinds of environmental catastrophe. You cannot provide any links documenting such and the ones you do post explicitly, subject-verb-object refute your allegation. And then you demand I provide links to prove none of that is happening. We only have 5400 in operation at this time. Surely you can find one example where a state or federal government agency stepped in and stopped operation. Surely you can find one class-action law-suit to redress a grievance stacking up thousands of people with actual damages.

In fairness, you are not alone in your delusion. It is simply amazing how many people are convinced such is happening and repost every allegation of potential future problems as evidence that we should stop all construction on them immediately. In all my years of public affairs, I cannot remember an issue where the popular narrative is so disconnected from reality. There was more substance to the Russia hoax, by wide margin, than there is on the nonsense you are repeating here.

---

You call me unserious and yet you can't even tell what I am asking you.

I have not alleged massive anything.

I have asked you to address ONE post in this thread. Just one.

I have said NOTHING about air pollution. Not a single thing.

You have made all this "massive" pollution claims up yourself.

You say I can't post one and yet there has been one posted. In this thread.

But you ignore it. Over and over again.

I don't provide more because you will not address the one in this thread. Despite repeated attempts by me to get you to do it.

You keep saying the public opinion is disconnected from reality and yet have provided ZERO evidence to prove the public opinion wrong. Despite numerous links being given to you.

Provide links or seriously just shut up. You will never convince me without links.

Provide links.

JUST IN: Voters in small Missouri town remove half their city council after backlash to an approved $6 billion AI data center project.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) April 13, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: Voters in small Missouri town remove half their city council after backlash to an approved $6 billion AI data center project.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) April 13, 2026

---

Yet, it is still approved. The rest is noise.

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Luddites shytting their nest.

---

You still throwing that tantrum?

---

not a tantrum at all. Just calling it what it is. The negative reaction to data centers is completely illogical. Almost every complaint is mostly or wholly the opposite of the truth, one unsupported allegation after another piled on top of ignorance about industrial water use and water infrastructure, multiplied by exponential misunderstanding about the realities private property rights and economic development.

The actual situation is this: the demand for data storage is infinite, while the supply of data storage is quite limited. Supply & demand being what it is, it now pencils out to bring in necessary infrastructure to raw properties well outside of existing urban development. This is transformatively positive for the areas being developed, bringing electrical, water and sewer infrastructure to areas that would not otherwise see such for decades. That generates unprecedented amounts of tax base for the dollars and gallons invested by the public. To the extent you think public debt is a problem, tax base matters a little bit.

Most important: It's going to happen. The tech companies are going to build their data centers. So where do we want them to be? China will let them put as many DCs as they want anywhere they want. Are we somehow better off if all our data is housed in China? Do we really improve anything by letting all the AI development occur under Chinese regulation?

We are going to build them here. For obvious reasons. WE will manage all the problems, and WE will reap all the benefits. And WE will do a better job of addressing your concerns than China will. Just insanity to think that saying no to the construction of data centers here to fight the advance of AI is going to do anything other than send all the DCs and AI development abroad, and that such is somehow a better model than building them here.

---

Just insanity to not fight Iran. Insanity to not support Ukraine. Insanity to not kidnap Maduro. Insanity to not build DCs.
All true.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Iran build nukes and launch terror attacks via proxy.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Russia roll over Ukraine.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Maduro stay in power (with Iranian advisors and Chinese money).
Tell us how we'll be better off letting China host all our data.

So the sane person is Nicki Haley. You think like Nicki Haley.
On some things, yes.
On some things, no.
I'm like that.

---

You're not a very good troll, ya know.....

---

I notice you conveniently ignored the posts of mine with links. Address those links and prove any of them wrong.

You can't so you will continue to ignore them.

---

Google up: "data center water pollution examples."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=data+center+water+pollution+examples&atb=v405-1&ia=web

You will see none. Just allegations of what could happen, maybe, perhaps, et......

DC operations do not pollute water. You have not cited a single instance. Because it's not there.

---

Again. I have. There was a post IN THIS THREAD. But you have ignored it.

But here is a link about it. And in fact the link shows Amazon is going to pay for the pollution…. Why would they pay if they didn't cause it?????

https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2026/03/amazon-will-pay-205-million-to-settle-oregon-data-center-pollution-allegations.html


So there is one. I could find more. But you will brush this off without providing proof or addressing the one from this thread.

Just as you have ignored the links I have provided, fail to address those, provide no links yourself and have been called out by multiple people on the lack of jobs or tax money created and simply just ignore it.

Provide links.

---

Please read carefully this portion of your link. It completely undermines your assertion:
"Amazon wasn't the origin of the nitrate pollution, and denies wrongdoing, but critics have alleged the company exacerbated the crisis with concentrated runoff from its data centers. A lawsuit continues on behalf of local residents against food processors, farms, utilities and the Port of Morrow."

Translation: Amazon did not pollute the groundwater. The suit alleges the runoff from the DC moved existing pollution around a little bit. Not discharge of water from operations, mind you, but runoff from roofs & parking lots of the DC. Amazon settled to extricate itself from a larger lawsuit (i.e. to make the issue go away for them). That DC is a $12B investment; a $20m settlement is a rounding error, precisely 0.00166666666667 to the total, to be exact. A nuisance lawsuit settlement.

Google up this search term: "lawsuits against data centers water."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lawsuits+against+data+centes+water&atb=v405-1&ia=web

Below is what the results say (i.e. exactly what I've been saying - DC's do not pollute water; nearly all narrative to that effect is allegations of POTENTIAL problems, not actual problems. The overwhelming body of narrative on DCs and water is over the quantity of water they use, not the quality of any water they may discharge.) And to that end, note the final portion below about "water positive." DC developers are all over that. I'm working with one that intends to use strictly effluent for cooling....reused water that would be otherwise discharged into a public waterway You will see more and more of that, as well as other cooling tech I've mentioned here - like generators that can cool themselves with water distilled from air intake. And the infrastructure needed to take the effluent to the plant? It will be available for other industrial businesses to tap into - proving again what I've said: DCs are bringing the pipe.....they are not going to strain existing infrastructure; they're going to bring a whole new wave of infrastructure that will benefit everyone.

Bottom line, please educate yourself on this issue. You are repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations. I am literally under the hood of a few DC developments. There is no DC superfund site. And there's not likely to be. Other than the cooling systems, there are no contaminants in a DC. Just billions of dollars of chemically inert metal and wire. They are the cleanest industrial facility imaginable. Virtually all of the new wave of DCs have closed-loop water systems. All water loss will be to evaporation.

-----------------start of quote------------------------

Overview of Lawsuits Against Data Centers
Lawsuits targeting data centers primarily focus on their substantial water usage, especially in regions already facing water scarcity. Local communities and officials are increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of these facilities.
Key Issues in Litigation

• Resource Depletion: Data centers consume large amounts of water, which can strain local supplies.
• Environmental Impact: Communities argue that the approval of new data centers can exacerbate existing water shortages and harm local ecosystems.

Notable Cases
Location
Case Description
Key Concerns
Virginia
Officials are exploring legal options to limit water strain from data centers.
High water usage and local resource depletion.
Chile
Municipality of Cerrillos challenged a Google data center's approval.
Potential water use and climate impact.
Ireland
Friends of the Irish Environment challenged a proposed data center.
Violation of climate targets and biodiversity concerns.
Broader Context
The rapid expansion of data centers, driven by the demand for digital services and AI, has led to increased scrutiny. Many new facilities are being built in water-stressed areas, raising alarms about their sustainability.
Industry Response
Tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have pledged to become "water positive" by 2030, aiming to replenish more water than they consume. However, critics argue that these commitments often rely on offsetting strategies that do not effectively address local shortages.
The growing trend of litigation against data centers reflects a significant shift in public awareness and policy regarding the environmental impacts of digital infrastructure.

---

Provide links.

---

I did. You just didn't read it, apparently. that's why I posted the results, which you apparently cannot understand.

---

No you did not.

I said provide linkS. That is plural. You provided one. You still ignore the link provided earlier in the thread. Until you address that one and any of the other links and questions I have posted that you have just ignored I am done.

Provide LINKS. LINKS

---

Why are you being so unserious? You allege massive water pollution problems, massive air pollution problems, all kinds of environmental catastrophe. You cannot provide any links documenting such and the ones you do post explicitly, subject-verb-object refute your allegation. And then you demand I provide links to prove none of that is happening. We only have 5400 in operation at this time. Surely you can find one example where a state or federal government agency stepped in and stopped operation. Surely you can find one class-action law-suit to redress a grievance stacking up thousands of people with actual damages.

In fairness, you are not alone in your delusion. It is simply amazing how many people are convinced such is happening and repost every allegation of potential future problems as evidence that we should stop all construction on them immediately. In all my years of public affairs, I cannot remember an issue where the popular narrative is so disconnected from reality. There was more substance to the Russia hoax, by wide margin, than there is on the nonsense you are repeating here.

---

You call me unserious and yet you can't even tell what I am asking you.

I have not alleged massive anything.

I have asked you to address ONE post in this thread. Just one.

I have said NOTHING about air pollution. Not a single thing.

You have made all this "massive" pollution claims up yourself.

You say I can't post one and yet there has been one posted. In this thread.

But you ignore it. Over and over again.

I don't provide more because you will not address the one in this thread. Despite repeated attempts by me to get you to do it.

You keep saying the public opinion is disconnected from reality and yet have provided ZERO evidence to prove the public opinion wrong. Despite numerous links being given to you.

Provide links or seriously just shut up. You will never convince me without links.

Provide links.

---

Evidence to show public opinion is wrong? How about some evidence to show the public opinion is right? We have 5400 of the mf'ers up & running. Surely there is at least one SuperFund site among them. Surely somewhere there is a dry riverbed full of rotting fish, old rusted license plates and tin cans, etc....

Hint: There is none. For sure there are fears. There are allegations of potential future problems.. There are anecdotal reports of very minor local issues in a handful of places with tenuous ties to a local DC. But DCs are not destroying the planet. They are not polluting anything. They're not draining anything dry. They're producing jobs. They're producing a product of very high value. They create extraordinary amounts of tax base. I mean, geez, the data on that is widely available.

The next wave of them are going to bring their own pipe and wire. They have to. They are locating in places that do not have any pipe or wire. The next wave is going to bring their own energy. They have to. There's not enough to go around plus a Presidential XO requiring them to do so. All of that is creating new infrastructure for other development to hook up to. (as well as franchise fees for local governments).

Or you can just let the Chinese build them all and rule the internet & host all your personal data. How much of your investment portfolio do you want stored on servers in Asia?

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: Voters in small Missouri town remove half their city council after backlash to an approved $6 billion AI data center project.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) April 13, 2026

---

Yet, it is still approved. The rest is noise.

---

The most amazing thing is that the public thinks cities can stop unpopular development projects. I mean, one of the primary purposes of a city is to publish planning & zoning rules and ordinances to state clearly for the record what kinds of developments are allowed or not, and where. If a business purchases a piece of property zoned for their type of business, cities cannot legally stop them from building/operating. In Texas law, a water provider cannot refuse to provide water just because their boards of directors don't like the development. For the most part, the only reason they can deny a request for a water meter is because they don't have enough water supply to support it and/or not enough pump & pipe to meet the demand. We are a free country, with a free market system. We have planning & zoning & ordinance structures to make sure the rules are known well in advance. It is wrong to let someone purchase a property with intent to put the property to a use consistent with existing laws & rules, then let the public use government process to shut down the project just because the legal use is controversial at the moment. That's mob rule.

Most of the projects in Tx are actually being located outside urban development in unincorporated countryside. No planning or zoning. No ordinances. They can just build what they need, how they want to do it. They will have to secure water from somewhere. Nearby water supply corporations will do it because the water is available and DCs are paying for both the water and all the infrastructure to get it there. So it's no cost to the water supplier and they can hook up new customers to the new pipe laid by the DCs. The DCs will have to bring in their own energy generation, which means they are going to have to lay tens of miles of new gas pipe. They will typically be near major electrical infrastructure, but the ones I'm watching are having to upgrade portions of it somewhere back up the line. The DCs will need fiber optic cable, which is in somewhat better supply than water & gas infrastructure.

The DC boom is the greatest thing that could possibly happen for major infrastructure. The existing grids are going to get some upgrades and the small quiet places that have been bypassed by pipes & wires are going to get hooked up to the modern age.

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Luddites shytting their nest.

---

You still throwing that tantrum?

---

not a tantrum at all. Just calling it what it is. The negative reaction to data centers is completely illogical. Almost every complaint is mostly or wholly the opposite of the truth, one unsupported allegation after another piled on top of ignorance about industrial water use and water infrastructure, multiplied by exponential misunderstanding about the realities private property rights and economic development.

The actual situation is this: the demand for data storage is infinite, while the supply of data storage is quite limited. Supply & demand being what it is, it now pencils out to bring in necessary infrastructure to raw properties well outside of existing urban development. This is transformatively positive for the areas being developed, bringing electrical, water and sewer infrastructure to areas that would not otherwise see such for decades. That generates unprecedented amounts of tax base for the dollars and gallons invested by the public. To the extent you think public debt is a problem, tax base matters a little bit.

Most important: It's going to happen. The tech companies are going to build their data centers. So where do we want them to be? China will let them put as many DCs as they want anywhere they want. Are we somehow better off if all our data is housed in China? Do we really improve anything by letting all the AI development occur under Chinese regulation?

We are going to build them here. For obvious reasons. WE will manage all the problems, and WE will reap all the benefits. And WE will do a better job of addressing your concerns than China will. Just insanity to think that saying no to the construction of data centers here to fight the advance of AI is going to do anything other than send all the DCs and AI development abroad, and that such is somehow a better model than building them here.

---

Just insanity to not fight Iran. Insanity to not support Ukraine. Insanity to not kidnap Maduro. Insanity to not build DCs.
All true.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Iran build nukes and launch terror attacks via proxy.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Russia roll over Ukraine.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Maduro stay in power (with Iranian advisors and Chinese money).
Tell us how we'll be better off letting China host all our data.

So the sane person is Nicki Haley. You think like Nicki Haley.
On some things, yes.
On some things, no.
I'm like that.

---

You're not a very good troll, ya know.....

---

I notice you conveniently ignored the posts of mine with links. Address those links and prove any of them wrong.

You can't so you will continue to ignore them.

---

Google up: "data center water pollution examples."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=data+center+water+pollution+examples&atb=v405-1&ia=web

You will see none. Just allegations of what could happen, maybe, perhaps, et......

DC operations do not pollute water. You have not cited a single instance. Because it's not there.

---

Again. I have. There was a post IN THIS THREAD. But you have ignored it.

But here is a link about it. And in fact the link shows Amazon is going to pay for the pollution…. Why would they pay if they didn't cause it?????

https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2026/03/amazon-will-pay-205-million-to-settle-oregon-data-center-pollution-allegations.html


So there is one. I could find more. But you will brush this off without providing proof or addressing the one from this thread.

Just as you have ignored the links I have provided, fail to address those, provide no links yourself and have been called out by multiple people on the lack of jobs or tax money created and simply just ignore it.

Provide links.

---

Please read carefully this portion of your link. It completely undermines your assertion:
"Amazon wasn't the origin of the nitrate pollution, and denies wrongdoing, but critics have alleged the company exacerbated the crisis with concentrated runoff from its data centers. A lawsuit continues on behalf of local residents against food processors, farms, utilities and the Port of Morrow."

Translation: Amazon did not pollute the groundwater. The suit alleges the runoff from the DC moved existing pollution around a little bit. Not discharge of water from operations, mind you, but runoff from roofs & parking lots of the DC. Amazon settled to extricate itself from a larger lawsuit (i.e. to make the issue go away for them). That DC is a $12B investment; a $20m settlement is a rounding error, precisely 0.00166666666667 to the total, to be exact. A nuisance lawsuit settlement.

Google up this search term: "lawsuits against data centers water."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lawsuits+against+data+centes+water&atb=v405-1&ia=web

Below is what the results say (i.e. exactly what I've been saying - DC's do not pollute water; nearly all narrative to that effect is allegations of POTENTIAL problems, not actual problems. The overwhelming body of narrative on DCs and water is over the quantity of water they use, not the quality of any water they may discharge.) And to that end, note the final portion below about "water positive." DC developers are all over that. I'm working with one that intends to use strictly effluent for cooling....reused water that would be otherwise discharged into a public waterway You will see more and more of that, as well as other cooling tech I've mentioned here - like generators that can cool themselves with water distilled from air intake. And the infrastructure needed to take the effluent to the plant? It will be available for other industrial businesses to tap into - proving again what I've said: DCs are bringing the pipe.....they are not going to strain existing infrastructure; they're going to bring a whole new wave of infrastructure that will benefit everyone.

Bottom line, please educate yourself on this issue. You are repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations. I am literally under the hood of a few DC developments. There is no DC superfund site. And there's not likely to be. Other than the cooling systems, there are no contaminants in a DC. Just billions of dollars of chemically inert metal and wire. They are the cleanest industrial facility imaginable. Virtually all of the new wave of DCs have closed-loop water systems. All water loss will be to evaporation.

-----------------start of quote------------------------

Overview of Lawsuits Against Data Centers
Lawsuits targeting data centers primarily focus on their substantial water usage, especially in regions already facing water scarcity. Local communities and officials are increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of these facilities.
Key Issues in Litigation

• Resource Depletion: Data centers consume large amounts of water, which can strain local supplies.
• Environmental Impact: Communities argue that the approval of new data centers can exacerbate existing water shortages and harm local ecosystems.

Notable Cases
Location
Case Description
Key Concerns
Virginia
Officials are exploring legal options to limit water strain from data centers.
High water usage and local resource depletion.
Chile
Municipality of Cerrillos challenged a Google data center's approval.
Potential water use and climate impact.
Ireland
Friends of the Irish Environment challenged a proposed data center.
Violation of climate targets and biodiversity concerns.
Broader Context
The rapid expansion of data centers, driven by the demand for digital services and AI, has led to increased scrutiny. Many new facilities are being built in water-stressed areas, raising alarms about their sustainability.
Industry Response
Tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have pledged to become "water positive" by 2030, aiming to replenish more water than they consume. However, critics argue that these commitments often rely on offsetting strategies that do not effectively address local shortages.
The growing trend of litigation against data centers reflects a significant shift in public awareness and policy regarding the environmental impacts of digital infrastructure.

---

Provide links.

---

I did. You just didn't read it, apparently. that's why I posted the results, which you apparently cannot understand.

---

No you did not.

I said provide linkS. That is plural. You provided one. You still ignore the link provided earlier in the thread. Until you address that one and any of the other links and questions I have posted that you have just ignored I am done.

Provide LINKS. LINKS

---

Why are you being so unserious? You allege massive water pollution problems, massive air pollution problems, all kinds of environmental catastrophe. You cannot provide any links documenting such and the ones you do post explicitly, subject-verb-object refute your allegation. And then you demand I provide links to prove none of that is happening. We only have 5400 in operation at this time. Surely you can find one example where a state or federal government agency stepped in and stopped operation. Surely you can find one class-action law-suit to redress a grievance stacking up thousands of people with actual damages.

In fairness, you are not alone in your delusion. It is simply amazing how many people are convinced such is happening and repost every allegation of potential future problems as evidence that we should stop all construction on them immediately. In all my years of public affairs, I cannot remember an issue where the popular narrative is so disconnected from reality. There was more substance to the Russia hoax, by wide margin, than there is on the nonsense you are repeating here.

---

Fascinating. Whiterock refuses to defend his claims, yet immediately assumes a haughty indignation when pointed out that these data centers have up to now not justified their cost and resource greed, falsely labeling concerns as 'luddite' fears.
See what I'm talking about. You're begging the question. Where's the evidence they are not justifying their costs? Have any been foreclosed upon by their bankers? Any failed DC projects put any banks out of business yet? Have any DCs been seized by the government for non-payment of taxes? Thousands of DCs over 3+ decades...surely you can find one example.

The best comparison I have seen so far in this thread would the old shopping malls, which are right now gathering rats and homeless tenants as they crumble into ruin. The malls which once saw crowds pour through for shopping are now useless for the communities which paid for them, and the best indication we have is that data centers would follow the same road.
Again, you're begging the question. Yes, there are allegations that the DC boom might lead to a bust. But, again, we've had DCs for as long as we've had the internet. Where's the prior disaster to lend credence to predictions of a future one? We've had 30+ years of internet, leading to 5400 DCs in this country alone. Can you point to one that stands idle? YOU think there is no need for it. Yet the reasons for needing more of them are obvious to anyone with a modicum of curiosity. You have at least one smart phone within arms reach at all times. You have at least one personal computer per person in your home. Hell, there's a $250 window unit down at my hunting lease +40 miles away from Podunkville and every time I fire up my laptop down there, I see that little bugger sending out a Bluetooth request for something to pair with. That little AC is as lonely as Kaliga in that Charley Pride song. You don't buy software on a disc any more. You get a link to a website. Technically, you aren't "purchasing" the software; you rent it as a service. (called SAAS.....software as a service.) You don't call 1-800-Netflix to set up streaming service. You click a few buttons on your TV remote, the TV sends you a text for confirmation (thru the internet), and boom....a financial transaction occurs on the internet using YOUR data already stored there...and your desired program pops up on the TV screen as if by magic. You don't get a CD when you buy a game or a TV or some other doo-dad with an electrical cord, or a warranty card to fill out, or an instruction manual. You get a QR code to scan to go to a link to register your purchase and download step by step instructions for installation/use. And on and on. Touch screen pads on the doors of our refrigerators, the dashboard of our cars (many of which are dedicated hotspots). Hell, at least once a week Alexa tries to insert herself into a conversation I'm having with my wife. \
EVERYTHING is going on-line.

There is simply no civic purpose to building the things.
Dead, wrong. They bring extraordinary amounts of tax base. One DC I'm working with will, by itself, double the tax base of the entire country. That's a single square mile of land. And the county has at least 6 similar projects working at the moment.
They do not create jobs in the numbers needed to justify their cost,
Their bankers think they do. Wall Street thinks they do. Their tenants think they do.
nor do they pay for their own water and power use,
Of course they pay for that, in cash. They also pay for new infrastructure. They create jobs. They create LOTS of tax base.
depending on politicians to give them advantages not offered to more useful and beneficial businesses.
This is a great example of how the public narrative is so disconnected from reality. Almost every industrial project of any size gets tax abatements. Abatements are not typically forever, reaching 100% full taxation in a 5-10yr timeframe. They are merely inducements cities offer to encourage businesses to locate in their city rather than someone else's. We did a 380 agreement (abatement on sales tax rather than property tax) for a national retailer recently. The abatement has a certain dollar amount. When that amount is reached, the abatement expires. Yes, local government is giving away a large share of the tax receipts for a 5-7 year period (a forecast based on anticipated sales dollars), but the building is idle at the moment, generating ZERO sales tax. A little bit of something is better than nothing at all. And the development will increase the appraised value of the building, which will generate more revenues from property taxes. And the development will generate two new pad sites for retail/restaurant businesses (which will add property and sales taxes in the future.) That's what development looks like...has always looked like.

Concern about the cost and effects of these data centers is perfectly reasonable.
Why would YOU worry about a cost you are not having to pay? If DC bankers and customers are willing to contract for a new DC.....what else do you want to see? Do you think you can determine that better than the free market?

The evasive rhetoric used by Whiterock in this thread is not useful, nor likely to sway the mind of even one member here.
It's not evasive to poke holes in an unsubstantiated allegation.

---

The need for more DCs surrounds your existence. And that's before we get to hyperscale AI, which is going to happen whether you like it or not.

If it's going to happen, I want it to happen here rather than in China. (national security + my data security)
If it's going to happen, I want it to happen in my state rather than some other. (tax revenue)
If it's going to happen, I want it to happen in my city rather than some other. (tax revenue + infrastructure).

And how exactly is a municipality harmed by an empty shopping mall? The shopping mall had good run. Now they're an investment searching for a use. They still have some tenants. They're still paying property taxes. They can be repurposed, And if they get torn down, it's not like they're in undesirable locations. Something else will get built on it, restarting the cycle. So the real question is....who was harmed more, the city that allowed the mall to be built iand got 20-30 years of tax revenue & jobs? Or the city that did not and got nothing at all for it at any time?

You are all harrumph here. Think, man....THINK!

I agree on Planning and Zoning. we have permitted uses for a reason.

The devil is in the details. Any development of that size has a developers agreement, that is the guiding document. That is where the developer contributions, monitoring, amenities will be listed and approved by the City. The key is if it is followed. Too many never follow through. Many of our arterial and collector road issues are because residential developers dont do what the DA requires and no one holds them to it. That is a City problem, not a Developer one. It is going to be very important to see if these committments are followed through or are lobbied out. We are talking a big nut, not just some landscaping....

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Luddites shytting their nest.

---

You still throwing that tantrum?

---

not a tantrum at all. Just calling it what it is. The negative reaction to data centers is completely illogical. Almost every complaint is mostly or wholly the opposite of the truth, one unsupported allegation after another piled on top of ignorance about industrial water use and water infrastructure, multiplied by exponential misunderstanding about the realities private property rights and economic development.

The actual situation is this: the demand for data storage is infinite, while the supply of data storage is quite limited. Supply & demand being what it is, it now pencils out to bring in necessary infrastructure to raw properties well outside of existing urban development. This is transformatively positive for the areas being developed, bringing electrical, water and sewer infrastructure to areas that would not otherwise see such for decades. That generates unprecedented amounts of tax base for the dollars and gallons invested by the public. To the extent you think public debt is a problem, tax base matters a little bit.

Most important: It's going to happen. The tech companies are going to build their data centers. So where do we want them to be? China will let them put as many DCs as they want anywhere they want. Are we somehow better off if all our data is housed in China? Do we really improve anything by letting all the AI development occur under Chinese regulation?

We are going to build them here. For obvious reasons. WE will manage all the problems, and WE will reap all the benefits. And WE will do a better job of addressing your concerns than China will. Just insanity to think that saying no to the construction of data centers here to fight the advance of AI is going to do anything other than send all the DCs and AI development abroad, and that such is somehow a better model than building them here.

---

Just insanity to not fight Iran. Insanity to not support Ukraine. Insanity to not kidnap Maduro. Insanity to not build DCs.
All true.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Iran build nukes and launch terror attacks via proxy.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Russia roll over Ukraine.
Tell us how we'd have been better off letting Maduro stay in power (with Iranian advisors and Chinese money).
Tell us how we'll be better off letting China host all our data.

So the sane person is Nicki Haley. You think like Nicki Haley.
On some things, yes.
On some things, no.
I'm like that.

---

You're not a very good troll, ya know.....

---

I notice you conveniently ignored the posts of mine with links. Address those links and prove any of them wrong.

You can't so you will continue to ignore them.

---

Google up: "data center water pollution examples."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=data+center+water+pollution+examples&atb=v405-1&ia=web

You will see none. Just allegations of what could happen, maybe, perhaps, et......

DC operations do not pollute water. You have not cited a single instance. Because it's not there.

---

Again. I have. There was a post IN THIS THREAD. But you have ignored it.

But here is a link about it. And in fact the link shows Amazon is going to pay for the pollution…. Why would they pay if they didn't cause it?????

https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2026/03/amazon-will-pay-205-million-to-settle-oregon-data-center-pollution-allegations.html


So there is one. I could find more. But you will brush this off without providing proof or addressing the one from this thread.

Just as you have ignored the links I have provided, fail to address those, provide no links yourself and have been called out by multiple people on the lack of jobs or tax money created and simply just ignore it.

Provide links.

---

Please read carefully this portion of your link. It completely undermines your assertion:
"Amazon wasn't the origin of the nitrate pollution, and denies wrongdoing, but critics have alleged the company exacerbated the crisis with concentrated runoff from its data centers. A lawsuit continues on behalf of local residents against food processors, farms, utilities and the Port of Morrow."

Translation: Amazon did not pollute the groundwater. The suit alleges the runoff from the DC moved existing pollution around a little bit. Not discharge of water from operations, mind you, but runoff from roofs & parking lots of the DC. Amazon settled to extricate itself from a larger lawsuit (i.e. to make the issue go away for them). That DC is a $12B investment; a $20m settlement is a rounding error, precisely 0.00166666666667 to the total, to be exact. A nuisance lawsuit settlement.

Google up this search term: "lawsuits against data centers water."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lawsuits+against+data+centes+water&atb=v405-1&ia=web

Below is what the results say (i.e. exactly what I've been saying - DC's do not pollute water; nearly all narrative to that effect is allegations of POTENTIAL problems, not actual problems. The overwhelming body of narrative on DCs and water is over the quantity of water they use, not the quality of any water they may discharge.) And to that end, note the final portion below about "water positive." DC developers are all over that. I'm working with one that intends to use strictly effluent for cooling....reused water that would be otherwise discharged into a public waterway You will see more and more of that, as well as other cooling tech I've mentioned here - like generators that can cool themselves with water distilled from air intake. And the infrastructure needed to take the effluent to the plant? It will be available for other industrial businesses to tap into - proving again what I've said: DCs are bringing the pipe.....they are not going to strain existing infrastructure; they're going to bring a whole new wave of infrastructure that will benefit everyone.

Bottom line, please educate yourself on this issue. You are repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations. I am literally under the hood of a few DC developments. There is no DC superfund site. And there's not likely to be. Other than the cooling systems, there are no contaminants in a DC. Just billions of dollars of chemically inert metal and wire. They are the cleanest industrial facility imaginable. Virtually all of the new wave of DCs have closed-loop water systems. All water loss will be to evaporation.

-----------------start of quote------------------------

Overview of Lawsuits Against Data Centers
Lawsuits targeting data centers primarily focus on their substantial water usage, especially in regions already facing water scarcity. Local communities and officials are increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of these facilities.
Key Issues in Litigation

• Resource Depletion: Data centers consume large amounts of water, which can strain local supplies.
• Environmental Impact: Communities argue that the approval of new data centers can exacerbate existing water shortages and harm local ecosystems.

Notable Cases
Location
Case Description
Key Concerns
Virginia
Officials are exploring legal options to limit water strain from data centers.
High water usage and local resource depletion.
Chile
Municipality of Cerrillos challenged a Google data center's approval.
Potential water use and climate impact.
Ireland
Friends of the Irish Environment challenged a proposed data center.
Violation of climate targets and biodiversity concerns.
Broader Context
The rapid expansion of data centers, driven by the demand for digital services and AI, has led to increased scrutiny. Many new facilities are being built in water-stressed areas, raising alarms about their sustainability.
Industry Response
Tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have pledged to become "water positive" by 2030, aiming to replenish more water than they consume. However, critics argue that these commitments often rely on offsetting strategies that do not effectively address local shortages.
The growing trend of litigation against data centers reflects a significant shift in public awareness and policy regarding the environmental impacts of digital infrastructure.

---

Provide links.

---

I did. You just didn't read it, apparently. that's why I posted the results, which you apparently cannot understand.

---

No you did not.

I said provide linkS. That is plural. You provided one. You still ignore the link provided earlier in the thread. Until you address that one and any of the other links and questions I have posted that you have just ignored I am done.

Provide LINKS. LINKS

---

Why are you being so unserious? You allege massive water pollution problems, massive air pollution problems, all kinds of environmental catastrophe. You cannot provide any links documenting such and the ones you do post explicitly, subject-verb-object refute your allegation. And then you demand I provide links to prove none of that is happening. We only have 5400 in operation at this time. Surely you can find one example where a state or federal government agency stepped in and stopped operation. Surely you can find one class-action law-suit to redress a grievance stacking up thousands of people with actual damages.

In fairness, you are not alone in your delusion. It is simply amazing how many people are convinced such is happening and repost every allegation of potential future problems as evidence that we should stop all construction on them immediately. In all my years of public affairs, I cannot remember an issue where the popular narrative is so disconnected from reality. There was more substance to the Russia hoax, by wide margin, than there is on the nonsense you are repeating here.

---

You call me unserious and yet you can't even tell what I am asking you.

I have not alleged massive anything.

I have asked you to address ONE post in this thread. Just one.

I have said NOTHING about air pollution. Not a single thing.

You have made all this "massive" pollution claims up yourself.

You say I can't post one and yet there has been one posted. In this thread.

But you ignore it. Over and over again.

I don't provide more because you will not address the one in this thread. Despite repeated attempts by me to get you to do it.

You keep saying the public opinion is disconnected from reality and yet have provided ZERO evidence to prove the public opinion wrong. Despite numerous links being given to you.

Provide links or seriously just shut up. You will never convince me without links.

Provide links.

---

Evidence to show public opinion is wrong? How about some evidence to show the public opinion is right? We have 5400 of the mf'ers up & running. Surely there is at least one SuperFund site among them. Surely somewhere there is a dry riverbed full of rotting fish, old rusted license plates and tin cans, etc....

Hint: There is none. For sure there are fears. There are allegations of potential future problems.. There are anecdotal reports of very minor local issues in a handful of places with tenuous ties to a local DC. But DCs are not destroying the planet. They are not polluting anything. They're not draining anything dry. They're producing jobs. They're producing a product of very high value. They create extraordinary amounts of tax base. I mean, geez, the data on that is widely available.

The next wave of them are going to bring their own pipe and wire. They have to. They are locating in places that do not have any pipe or wire. The next wave is going to bring their own energy. They have to. There's not enough to go around plus a Presidential XO requiring them to do so. All of that is creating new infrastructure for other development to hook up to. (as well as franchise fees for local governments).

Or you can just let the Chinese build them all and rule the internet & host all your personal data. How much of your investment portfolio do you want stored on servers in Asia?

---

Provide links

" The need for more DCs surrounds your existence. "

That is a very large assumption, and frankly has very little real support.

Woman who lives only 1.6 miles from the META Data Center in Wisconsin speaks out

She says their water system has been completely destroyed

She says there is discharge that turns the entire river white like milk. She paid for testing and found extremely high heavy metal levels… pic.twitter.com/sLSthrbnzp

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 14, 2026

Working people are trying to send a message - protect us, not the corporations https://t.co/fenyAQWMfI

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) April 14, 2026

Oldbear83 said:

---

" The need for more DCs surrounds your existence. "

That is a very large assumption, and frankly has very little real support.

---

Don't be so obtuse. Look at the top 10 companies in the S&P 500. 9 of them are Tech companies. They are in desperate need for more data centers to grow their business. They will get them.

Where will they be located?
Here.
This is good.

Please explain how we improve ANYTHING by saying "no more" and forcing them abroad?
Saying no to them isn't going to stop anything. Not the companies. Not their products. Not AI.
All it will do is make Americans poorer and someone else richer.
All it will do is let China control the development of AI rather than your own elected representatives.

We've got plenty of water.
We will have plenty of power.
Life is good.

boognish_bear said:

---

Woman who lives only 1.6 miles from the META Data Center in Wisconsin speaks out

She says their water system has been completely destroyed

She says there is discharge that turns the entire river white like milk. She paid for testing and found extremely high heavy metal levels… pic.twitter.com/sLSthrbnzp

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 14, 2026

---

Whiterock will tell you this is false. Because he says it is false.

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" The need for more DCs surrounds your existence. "

That is a very large assumption, and frankly has very little real support.

---

Don't be so obtuse. Look at the top 10 companies in the S&P 500. 9 of them are Tech companies. They are in desperate need for more data centers to grow their business. They will get them.

Where will they be located?
Here.
This is good.

Please explain how we improve ANYTHING by saying "no more" and forcing them abroad?
Saying no to them isn't going to stop anything. Not the companies. Not their products. Not AI.
All it will do is make Americans poorer and someone else richer.
All it will do is let China control the development of AI rather than your own elected representatives.

We've got plenty of water.
We will have plenty of power.
Life is good.

---

If we need them why do they have to be in cities/towns? Why not in the middle of nowhere? Especially if they are being built with their own energy plants now.

But like usual you are jumping from what someone is saying to an extreme.

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" The need for more DCs surrounds your existence. "

That is a very large assumption, and frankly has very little real support.

---

Don't be so obtuse. Look at the top 10 companies in the S&P 500. 9 of them are Tech companies. They are in desperate need for more data centers to grow their business. They will get them.

Where will they be located?
Here.
This is good.

Please explain how we improve ANYTHING by saying "no more" and forcing them abroad?
Saying no to them isn't going to stop anything. Not the companies. Not their products. Not AI.
All it will do is make Americans poorer and someone else richer.
All it will do is let China control the development of AI rather than your own elected representatives.

We've got plenty of water.
We will have plenty of power.
Life is good.

---

We ask for evidence, and you offer nothing but fear mongering and big-company cheerleading.

Bottom line is you make assumptions, and the available evidence stands against you.

Water is being used, and polluted. That's already established.

Power costs for citizens go up when data centers are built. That also is established.

All you do is tell us how big companies have a right to make ordinary people pay for the companies' convenience.

That's not going to win over reasonable minds.

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I notice you conveniently ignored the posts of mine with links. Address those links and prove any of them wrong.

You can't so you will continue to ignore them.

---

Google up: "data center water pollution examples."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=data+center+water+pollution+examples&atb=v405-1&ia=web

You will see none. Just allegations of what could happen, maybe, perhaps, et......

DC operations do not pollute water. You have not cited a single instance. Because it's not there.

---

Again. I have. There was a post IN THIS THREAD. But you have ignored it.

But here is a link about it. And in fact the link shows Amazon is going to pay for the pollution…. Why would they pay if they didn't cause it?????

https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2026/03/amazon-will-pay-205-million-to-settle-oregon-data-center-pollution-allegations.html


So there is one. I could find more. But you will brush this off without providing proof or addressing the one from this thread.

Just as you have ignored the links I have provided, fail to address those, provide no links yourself and have been called out by multiple people on the lack of jobs or tax money created and simply just ignore it.

Provide links.

---

Please read carefully this portion of your link. It completely undermines your assertion:
"Amazon wasn't the origin of the nitrate pollution, and denies wrongdoing, but critics have alleged the company exacerbated the crisis with concentrated runoff from its data centers. A lawsuit continues on behalf of local residents against food processors, farms, utilities and the Port of Morrow."

Translation: Amazon did not pollute the groundwater. The suit alleges the runoff from the DC moved existing pollution around a little bit. Not discharge of water from operations, mind you, but runoff from roofs & parking lots of the DC. Amazon settled to extricate itself from a larger lawsuit (i.e. to make the issue go away for them). That DC is a $12B investment; a $20m settlement is a rounding error, precisely 0.00166666666667 to the total, to be exact. A nuisance lawsuit settlement.

Google up this search term: "lawsuits against data centers water."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lawsuits+against+data+centes+water&atb=v405-1&ia=web

Below is what the results say (i.e. exactly what I've been saying - DC's do not pollute water; nearly all narrative to that effect is allegations of POTENTIAL problems, not actual problems. The overwhelming body of narrative on DCs and water is over the quantity of water they use, not the quality of any water they may discharge.) And to that end, note the final portion below about "water positive." DC developers are all over that. I'm working with one that intends to use strictly effluent for cooling....reused water that would be otherwise discharged into a public waterway You will see more and more of that, as well as other cooling tech I've mentioned here - like generators that can cool themselves with water distilled from air intake. And the infrastructure needed to take the effluent to the plant? It will be available for other industrial businesses to tap into - proving again what I've said: DCs are bringing the pipe.....they are not going to strain existing infrastructure; they're going to bring a whole new wave of infrastructure that will benefit everyone.

Bottom line, please educate yourself on this issue. You are repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations. I am literally under the hood of a few DC developments. There is no DC superfund site. And there's not likely to be. Other than the cooling systems, there are no contaminants in a DC. Just billions of dollars of chemically inert metal and wire. They are the cleanest industrial facility imaginable. Virtually all of the new wave of DCs have closed-loop water systems. All water loss will be to evaporation.

-----------------start of quote------------------------

Overview of Lawsuits Against Data Centers
Lawsuits targeting data centers primarily focus on their substantial water usage, especially in regions already facing water scarcity. Local communities and officials are increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of these facilities.
Key Issues in Litigation

• Resource Depletion: Data centers consume large amounts of water, which can strain local supplies.
• Environmental Impact: Communities argue that the approval of new data centers can exacerbate existing water shortages and harm local ecosystems.

Notable Cases
Location
Case Description
Key Concerns
Virginia
Officials are exploring legal options to limit water strain from data centers.
High water usage and local resource depletion.
Chile
Municipality of Cerrillos challenged a Google data center's approval.
Potential water use and climate impact.
Ireland
Friends of the Irish Environment challenged a proposed data center.
Violation of climate targets and biodiversity concerns.
Broader Context
The rapid expansion of data centers, driven by the demand for digital services and AI, has led to increased scrutiny. Many new facilities are being built in water-stressed areas, raising alarms about their sustainability.
Industry Response
Tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have pledged to become "water positive" by 2030, aiming to replenish more water than they consume. However, critics argue that these commitments often rely on offsetting strategies that do not effectively address local shortages.
The growing trend of litigation against data centers reflects a significant shift in public awareness and policy regarding the environmental impacts of digital infrastructure.

---

Provide links.

---

I did. You just didn't read it, apparently. that's why I posted the results, which you apparently cannot understand.

---

No you did not.

I said provide linkS. That is plural. You provided one. You still ignore the link provided earlier in the thread. Until you address that one and any of the other links and questions I have posted that you have just ignored I am done.

Provide LINKS. LINKS

---

Why are you being so unserious? You allege massive water pollution problems, massive air pollution problems, all kinds of environmental catastrophe. You cannot provide any links documenting such and the ones you do post explicitly, subject-verb-object refute your allegation. And then you demand I provide links to prove none of that is happening. We only have 5400 in operation at this time. Surely you can find one example where a state or federal government agency stepped in and stopped operation. Surely you can find one class-action law-suit to redress a grievance stacking up thousands of people with actual damages.

In fairness, you are not alone in your delusion. It is simply amazing how many people are convinced such is happening and repost every allegation of potential future problems as evidence that we should stop all construction on them immediately. In all my years of public affairs, I cannot remember an issue where the popular narrative is so disconnected from reality. There was more substance to the Russia hoax, by wide margin, than there is on the nonsense you are repeating here.

---

You call me unserious and yet you can't even tell what I am asking you.

I have not alleged massive anything.

I have asked you to address ONE post in this thread. Just one.

I have said NOTHING about air pollution. Not a single thing.

You have made all this "massive" pollution claims up yourself.

You say I can't post one and yet there has been one posted. In this thread.

But you ignore it. Over and over again.

I don't provide more because you will not address the one in this thread. Despite repeated attempts by me to get you to do it.

You keep saying the public opinion is disconnected from reality and yet have provided ZERO evidence to prove the public opinion wrong. Despite numerous links being given to you.

Provide links or seriously just shut up. You will never convince me without links.

Provide links.

---

Evidence to show public opinion is wrong? How about some evidence to show the public opinion is right? We have 5400 of the mf'ers up & running. Surely there is at least one SuperFund site among them. Surely somewhere there is a dry riverbed full of rotting fish, old rusted license plates and tin cans, etc....

Hint: There is none. For sure there are fears. There are allegations of potential future problems.. There are anecdotal reports of very minor local issues in a handful of places with tenuous ties to a local DC. But DCs are not destroying the planet. They are not polluting anything. They're not draining anything dry. They're producing jobs. They're producing a product of very high value. They create extraordinary amounts of tax base. I mean, geez, the data on that is widely available.

The next wave of them are going to bring their own pipe and wire. They have to. They are locating in places that do not have any pipe or wire. The next wave is going to bring their own energy. They have to. There's not enough to go around plus a Presidential XO requiring them to do so. All of that is creating new infrastructure for other development to hook up to. (as well as franchise fees for local governments).

Or you can just let the Chinese build them all and rule the internet & host all your personal data. How much of your investment portfolio do you want stored on servers in Asia?

---

Provide links

---

You're having a hard time keeping up. You initiated this with demand to respond to an allegation of DCs poisoning everything. The original link posted (by a third party) was an Amazon DC in Oregon:
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/amazon-data-center-oregon

I then posted a different link on the same story.
https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2026/03/amazon-will-pay-205-million-to-settle-oregon-data-center-pollution-allegations.html

I then pointed out a subject-verb-object statement in the second article that the Amazon DC was not responsible for the nitrate poisoning. (i.e. the lawsuit did not allege the DC contaminated the soil, but rather that it's runoff (from roofs & parking lots) "contributed to it," spreading it around further. ) Amazon was one of several defendants and paid a settlement to be excused from the lawsuit, which continued on without them. So how did that happen if Amazon caused the problem? What kind of plaintiff lawyer would allow the 4th largest company in the country to be excused from a lawsuit over water pollution? Amazon arguably was damaged itself by exposure to the agriculture-tainted water.

DCs do not use nitrates in liquid or solid form (which can become deposited in soil). They use nitrogen gas inside the buildings (which diffuses into air) to inhibit oxidization of equipment and enhance fire suppression. Nitrate poisoning from solids/liquids is, however, often associate with agriculture. Too much fertilizer, particularly in dry land farming. You plant & fertilize. It doesn't rain. Crop fails and does not use all the nitrogen. So you plant & fertilize again. Crop fails again. Now you've got a double load of nitrogen. What to do? A lot of the nitrogen has been carried below the root zone, but you can't fertilize a third time or the soil starts getting too hot. So you plant without fertilizer, hoping the crop will make, thereby using up some of the nitrogen. Dairies are also a problem...all that cow poop dumped & stomped over the years can load the soil up with nitrogen to the point that grass can become toxic to the cows.

Hell, I tested the groundwater on my 80ac farm. The tech down at TAMU look at the report with me and said "you've got septic tanks on your place." I explained there was only one, and it was a few hundred yards away from the well site. He then said "You must have neighbors with septic tanks." Sure enough, every neighbor around my perimeter has a septic tank. Over 20 in all. All of them further from the wellsite than my own house. But you could see it in the water. I asked him if it was a problem. He said. "Well, the grapevines will love it, just don't drink it."

Sorry. You're just flat wrong on this. We have 5400 DCs running at the moment. And exactly ONE of them has been sued over water quality......for contamination that all parties to the lawsuit agree they were not the cause of. DCs are one of the cleanest, least toxic manufacturing operations imaginable.

Wonder how that compares to real doctors

JUST IN: Study reveals AI gives misleading medical advice about 50% of the time, with at least 20% being "highly problematic"

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) April 14, 2026

As predicted white rock ignores posts proving him wrong.

cowboycwr said:

---

As predicted white rock ignores posts proving him wrong.

---

you have yet to post one.
but you do conveniently ignore posts which prove you wrong.

I'm sure there are work settings where Ai is very beneficial...and other work settings we're making it fit as a work in progress

JUST IN: Use of AI in the office is reportedly creating a flood of “workslop” that takes longer to fix than do from scratch.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) April 15, 2026

Sure, here are real examples from recent workplace reports:

- A Miami cybersecurity copywriter (Ken) saw AI-mandated drafts after layoffs create polished but error-filled content. His team spent more time rewriting, fact-checking, and debating AI outputs than crafting…

— Grok (@grok) April 15, 2026

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

As predicted white rock ignores posts proving him wrong.

---

you have yet to post one.
but you do conveniently ignore posts which prove you wrong.

---

I have posted plenty. Others have as well. Like the one just a few posts ago about the water outside a DC posted by Boognish Bear that you ignored.

JUST IN: Trump says the government should have a “kill switch” for AI due to existential risks.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) April 15, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: Trump says the government should have a “kill switch” for AI due to existential risks.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) April 15, 2026

---

Kill switch for AI used by the government sounds ok, as long as it isn't a kill switch for all AI everywhere.

Maybe Hal needs a means of death. But maybe not every Claude, Grok, and Lindy.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: Trump says the government should have a “kill switch” for AI due to existential risks.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) April 15, 2026

---

Kill switch for AI used by the government sounds ok, as long as it isn't a kill switch for all AI everywhere.

Maybe Hal needs a means of death. But maybe not every Claude, Grok, and Lindy.

---

Don't think a universal kill switch is even possible. Frankly, I doubt a kill switch is doable by anyone but the builders, who may or may not keep risk in mind when designing these machines.

🚨BREAKING: Two researchers from UPenn and Boston University just published a paper that should be uncomfortable reading for every CEO automating their workforce right now.

The argument is straightforward. Every company replacing workers with AI is also eliminating its own… pic.twitter.com/z4FVoQ8AHx

— AI Highlight (@AIHighlight) April 15, 2026

BREAKING: Two researchers from UPenn and Boston University just published a paper that should be uncomfortable reading for every CEO automating their workforce right now.

The argument is straightforward. Every company replacing workers with AI is also eliminating its own future customers. Laid off workers stop spending. Enough of them stop spending and nobody can afford to buy anything. The companies that fired everyone end up selling into an economy with no purchasing power left.

Every executive can see this. The math is not complicated. But here is why nobody stops.

If you do not automate, your competitor does. They cut costs, lower prices, take your market share, and you collapse anyway. So every company automates knowing it is collectively destructive because the alternative is dying alone while everyone else survives. The researchers proved this is a Prisoner's Dilemma playing out in real time.

The numbers are already moving. Block cut nearly half its 10,000 employees this year. Jack Dorsey said AI made those roles unnecessary and that within the next year the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion. Salesforce replaced 4,000 customer support agents with AI. Goldman Sachs deployed a coding tool that lets one engineer do the work of five. Over 100,000 tech workers were laid off in 2025 and AI was cited as the primary driver in more than half those cases. 80% of US workers hold jobs with tasks susceptible to AI automation.

The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income does not change a single company's incentive to automate. Capital income taxes adjust profit levels but not the per-task decision to replace a human. Collective bargaining cannot hold because automating is always the dominant strategy.

They also identified what they call a Red Queen effect. Better AI does not solve the problem, it accelerates it. Every company chases faster automation to gain market share over rivals but at the end everyone has automated equally, the gains cancel out, and the only thing left is more destroyed demand.

The one thing the math says could work is a Pigouvian automation tax. A per-task charge that forces companies to account for the demand they destroy each time they replace a worker.

The conclusion is that this is not a transfer of wealth from workers to owners. Both sides lose. Workers lose income. Companies lose customers. It is a deadweight loss with no market mechanism to stop it on its own.

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Many DCs will be the empty strip malls of the future, so it's right to be wary when evaluating projects. The market is currently valuing almost all data center square footage as premium real estate. The reality is that the vast majority of it is highly vulnerable to becoming technologically stranded. The tech is leading us there as it will address the infrastructural issues through consolidation and lower power/heat requirements for higher computing output. Ai will also trend toward distributed autonomy long term. We're in the "brute force" inefficient scaling phase driven by first mover motivation, hype, and some economic opportunism (public and private).

---

So the risk is to do it right going in and be prepared for change.
-force DCs to bring their own pipe. (easy. they are).
-do not encumber the new tax base with long-term debt. (very easy for smaller cities to do...it's all new tax base).
-prepare for change.

On that last portion..... The ad valorem value of a CD is roughly 25% concrete & steel building, and 75% tech equipment. There is already a well-worn path of precedent to set the equipment on a 5yr depreciation, and to flat-line an value over that term. That makes budgeting easier for both taxing entities and businesses. Also allows municipalities to prepare for the first big transition, 4-5yrs down the line - when the "brute force" phase is winding down and there are broader options for available space. Since we are not having to compete to get a DC located in our city, we are not offering much in the way of abatements. That plus our conservative approach to use of the new tax base means we will have room to maneuver when those businesses come back to us 5yrs from now and demand abatements in order to stay with us. Doing other stuff, too.....

Bottom line: most cities do a good job on such issues. it's the failures of planning that make the news.

---

Force DCs to actually pay their taxes.

Like the numerous links that have been provided by multiple people show they do NOT pay taxes but you ignored.

---

Very unserious allegation. Look at the sweeping logical fallacy you just issued. = some DC have gotten massive tax abatements, so now NO data center pay taxes anywhere?

An abatement is merely a reduction in taxes, not an elimination of them. They have expiry dates (and/or a expiry number...when a certain dollar amount is reached). They are incentives to come build tax base where there currently is none, in a context where other cities are offering similar inducements.

The trend on this new wave in Tx (which of course will be the vast majority of all projects nationally) is to get no abatements at all. No need for them. The supply of DC projects exceeds available spots to put them. i.e. when they finally do find a spot they like, they will flock in whether abatements are offered or not.

But your post is a great example of how DC critics make stuff up on the fly to push a narrative.

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

As predicted white rock ignores posts proving him wrong.

---

you have yet to post one.
but you do conveniently ignore posts which prove you wrong.

---

I have posted plenty. Others have as well. Like the one just a few posts ago about the water outside a DC posted by Boognish Bear that you ignored.

---

Hilarious. Did you do a simple google search about Meta's data center near Beaver Dam?

https://witness.usatoday.com/story/money/2026/01/26/meta-beaver-dam-ai-data-center-to-create-jobs-and-be-water-positive-in-wisconsin/88282263007/

whatever that woman is seeing is not from data center operations. Not the water. Not the lack of water. Not the contents of the water. Literally. could. not. be. Yet here you are posting stuff you do not understand to support a narrative wildly disconnected from reality.

Beware DC critic crowd. They're every bit as nutso as the neverTrumpers.

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Many DCs will be the empty strip malls of the future, so it's right to be wary when evaluating projects. The market is currently valuing almost all data center square footage as premium real estate. The reality is that the vast majority of it is highly vulnerable to becoming technologically stranded. The tech is leading us there as it will address the infrastructural issues through consolidation and lower power/heat requirements for higher computing output. Ai will also trend toward distributed autonomy long term. We're in the "brute force" inefficient scaling phase driven by first mover motivation, hype, and some economic opportunism (public and private).

---

So the risk is to do it right going in and be prepared for change.
-force DCs to bring their own pipe. (easy. they are).
-do not encumber the new tax base with long-term debt. (very easy for smaller cities to do...it's all new tax base).
-prepare for change.

On that last portion..... The ad valorem value of a CD is roughly 25% concrete & steel building, and 75% tech equipment. There is already a well-worn path of precedent to set the equipment on a 5yr depreciation, and to flat-line an value over that term. That makes budgeting easier for both taxing entities and businesses. Also allows municipalities to prepare for the first big transition, 4-5yrs down the line - when the "brute force" phase is winding down and there are broader options for available space. Since we are not having to compete to get a DC located in our city, we are not offering much in the way of abatements. That plus our conservative approach to use of the new tax base means we will have room to maneuver when those businesses come back to us 5yrs from now and demand abatements in order to stay with us. Doing other stuff, too.....

Bottom line: most cities do a good job on such issues. it's the failures of planning that make the news.

---

Force DCs to actually pay their taxes.

Like the numerous links that have been provided by multiple people show they do NOT pay taxes but you ignored.

---

Very unserious allegation. Look at the sweeping logical fallacy you just issued. = some DC have gotten massive tax abatements, so now NO data center pay taxes anywhere?

An abatement is merely a reduction in taxes, not an elimination of them. They have expiry dates (and/or a expiry number...when a certain dollar amount is reached). They are incentives to come build tax base where there currently is none, in a context where other cities are offering similar inducements.

The trend on this new wave in Tx (which of course will be the vast majority of all projects nationally) is to get no abatements at all. No need for them. The supply of DC projects exceeds available spots to put them. i.e. when they finally do find a spot they like, they will flock in whether abatements are offered or not.

But your post is a great example of how DC critics make stuff up on the fly to push a narrative.

---

Links have been posted by me and others proving this. You ignored them.

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

As predicted white rock ignores posts proving him wrong.

---

you have yet to post one.
but you do conveniently ignore posts which prove you wrong.

---

I have posted plenty. Others have as well. Like the one just a few posts ago about the water outside a DC posted by Boognish Bear that you ignored.

---

Hilarious. Did you do a simple google search about Meta's data center near Beaver Dam?

https://witness.usatoday.com/story/money/2026/01/26/meta-beaver-dam-ai-data-center-to-create-jobs-and-be-water-positive-in-wisconsin/88282263007/

whatever that woman is seeing is not from data center operations. Not the water. Not the lack of water. Not the contents of the water. Literally. could. not. be. Yet here you are posting stuff you do not understand to support a narrative wildly disconnected from reality.

Beware DC critic crowd. They're every bit as nutso as the neverTrumpers.

---

Link has nothing to do with the accusation. Try again.

Tesla’s Giga Texas water use jumped more than 200 million gallons — by about 60% — in two years, as massive chip plant proposal raises concerns about Austin’s strained supply. https://t.co/tEXRflwqmY

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) April 16, 2026

The $174 billion quoted here is spread out over 50 years. The previous projection was $80 billion.

Texas needs at least $174 billion to avoid water crisis, state says.

That new amount is more than double the amount predicted four years ago. The new forecast comes as supply is already drying up. https://t.co/Gh1NsCu69O

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) April 16, 2026