Data Centers and Democracy: The public is speaking

Close look at server aisles at the New Albany Data-Center campus in Central Ohio. (Google photo)

In these politically turbulent times, we’ve witnessed a rise in widespread public response of protest and resistance in many forms—primarily against federal policies and actions driven by the current U.S. administration, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Something different has been rising in the public response to the push to rapidly develop a wave of new data centers for artificial intelligence in sites throughout both the U.S. and Canada. Proposals for these centers have been popping up like mushrooms after a summer rain across the Great Lakes region. We already have a lot of them. A July 2025 report by the Alliance for the Great Lakes (AGL) shows just how many: Minnesota: 60; Wisconsin: 43; Michigan: 53; Illinois: 224; Indiana: 70; Ohio: 185; Pennsylvania: 88; New York: 143; and let’s not forget the 105 in Ontario. That totals 866 centers already humming in the region.

It is harder to determine how many data centers are in the planning stage, (and which are intended for AI production) as private corporations aren’t bound by any regulatory process to share their game plan with the public, or regulators. We should also note that for years, here in the “water belt,” states and local governments have offered tax breaks and incentives to attract data centers. The AGL report notes that “All eight Great Lakes states have passed measures in the last 20 years to support the push for these businesses.”

So, here we are. But what we’re witnessing is that a lot of the public doesn’t want a data center in their community, and for good reasons. The promoters of these centers should be cautioned to avoid dismissive uses of the outdated expression, “NIMBYism” (not in my backyard). This isn’t just about one “backyard” or one community. A whole lot of people have figured out that these centers require enormous amounts of energy as well as water. This raises further questions about whose energy, what kind of energy, and who pays for the infrastructure for increased generation, and  this means for rate-payers in any utility’s service area in terms of costs. In addition, there are plenty of questions about potential impacts on air quality, climate impacts, and aesthetics.

Energy production, distribution, and access has never been a particularly democratic process in the United States. Intervening in processes to set rates or site power lines is a complex and time-consuming journey, and you need some expensive high-powered attorneys on your side if you want to give it a try.

Then there’s the water. All those rows of humming servers in a data center build up a lot of heat, and as conventional power plants learned long ago, water is an easy way to cool things down. And when water is a key factor, there’s always someone who says, “hey, what about the Great Lakes—looks like they have plenty.” Sigh. Oh, the difference between a living ecosystem and a holding tank, but I digress.

Depending on the design, these data centers require a lot of water. While the focus has been on cooling systems, there are many other direct indirect water uses related to these sites. A study by Clean Wisconsin notes that “The Vantage data center in Port Washington will reportedly have power needs reaching 3.5 gigawatts (GW). If non-renewable energy sources are used to meet those needs, its off-site water use would be at least 54 million gallons a day. That’s more than double the amount used by every home, business and manufacturer in the City of Green Bay.”

Some sites have proposed closed-loop water-cooling systems to reduce the water needs, but this has also introduced PFAS to the conversation. Apparently using fluorinated gasses (that’s what the “F” stands for in the PFAS acronym) as refrigerants can increase cooling efficiency, and  infusing PFAS in cooling water in pipes can help reduce corrosion. Just how “closed” are those closed loop systems? Meanwhile,  let’s not overlook  the upstream use of PFAS in semiconductor production, and potentially other data center equipment, and the resulting production waste stream. We just can’t seem to find a way to stop making and using these “forever chemicals.”

There are also concerns about land use and the likely permanent conversion of farmlands or precious natural space into industrial space in small communities, as well as infrastructure needs, such as roads and power lines, to support these centers. Add to these  concerns about noise pollution and possible job displacement, and the list could go on.

But something intriguing is happening in dozens of communities. People are showing up and saying, “No.” In addition to the environmental and community impact concerns, there seems to be an emerging rejection of the idea that  these plants truly represent “progress,” and if so, for whom, and who will benefit? Billionaires seem to have lost their cachet among people who are trying to afford groceries and health insurance and live a decent life in a good community. They aren’t convinced that these centers are the solutions to the challenges they are facing. The “tech-bros” romance is feeling a little chilly these days. The extraordinary response in local action—from public meetings, yard signs, rallies, and lawsuits, feels like real small-town democracy in action, and that in turn, feels heartening in these times as does the demand for transparency in planning and decision-making.

From Kalkaska, Michigan, to DeForest, Wisconsin, (where a 15-center “campus” is pending) to perhaps a dozen or more other sites in the Great Lakes region, community members are making their voices heard by local city councils, planning commissions, and economic development commissions, and increasingly, by state government. The people who are showing up are asking the big questions, thinking about the future of their community and the region for generations to come. They are connecting the dots, and following the money.

You know an issue has traction when the comedians get involved. Wisconsin’s Charlie Berens has recorded a series of deeply sarcastic (dare I say caustic?) videos on the topic. Here’s a link to an early one for a taste of the outrage. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ILAh210SEtk

Maybe, just maybe, this public outrage will slow things down enough to prompt some analysis on long-term needs, impacts, and benefits, and the various options and tradeoffs, and to inspire innovative ways to dramatically reduce their environmental and social impact. For example, a utility in Helsinki, Finland, has captured data center excess heat for district heating for residential homes.

On December 9, 2025, more than 230 U.S. environmental groups sent a joint letter to Congress demanding a national moratorium on new data centers in the United States, noting among other things that this growth is “largely unregulated.” A pause to get our regulatory act together certainly makes sense, and that should include better ways to engage the public in making decisions that will have lasting impacts on our shared quality of life, health, and safety. For tips on taking local action, here’s a new toolkit from Wisconsin organizations that may be helpful.

GLEN welcomes diverse perspectives on Great Lakes protection. Please note that the views in our posts are those of the author. To learn more about GLEN please visit our website at https://www.greatlakesecoregion.org/.

A special note to Great Lakes Together subscribers. If you would like to learn more about GLEN or get involved in issues we’re working on, join us for our virtual annual meeting and 2026 strategy kick-off on January 15, noon eastern time. Email John Jackson at jjackson@web.ca for the agenda and the Zoom link.