Public and data center developers (left) at Jan.27 proposed dater center public meeting at Pacific city hall. _________________________________________________________________________
By Alison Quennoz –
Communities shouldn’t be asked to accept long-term environmental and infrastructure risk without clear, independently verified information. That’s the concern many citizens have with the proposed data park.
People’s concerns about this proposal come from different places. Some are opposed simply because they do not want a massive industrial development in or near their neighborhood. Others are focused on environmental risk, infrastructure strain, or long-term land use. All of those concerns are valid, and they are being amplified by the scale and location of this project and the lack of independently verified information available to the public.
This is not a small facility. It is a massive, long-term development proposed near schools, homes, farmland, and environmentally sensitive areas. Yet there are still major unanswered questions. We do not have clear, binding information on water usage, wastewater impacts, long-term power demands, tax abatements, or what the actual net benefit to the local community would be.
While the developer has explained their plans around water and wastewater, those explanations are coming directly from the party with a financial interest in moving the project forward. For something of this magnitude, impacting shared water resources, infrastructure, schools, and the surrounding ecosystem, it is reasonable to ask for outside, third-party experts to independently review and confirm those claims.
This is not about assuming bad intent. If everything truly checks out, independent verification should strengthen the proposal, not weaken it. Without that verification, the community is being asked to accept long-term impacts largely based on assurances.
Another major concern is that the financial “benefits” are often discussed in very general terms. We have not been given detailed numbers, enforceable commitments, or a clear breakdown of who benefits, what tax incentives may be involved, and how risks or long-term costs would be handled. People are being asked to accept significant infrastructure and environmental risk without transparent explanations of the tradeoffs.
There is also the environmental side. This area supports important ecosystems, waterways, and wildlife. Once something like this is built, there is no undo button. That reality deserves careful study, not a rushed process.
Finally, this is a long-term land use decision. AI and technology evolve quickly. Communities across the country are already grappling with what happens when technology changes, demand drops, or an operator leaves. In many cases, they are left with massive industrial shells that cannot easily be repurposed, while the environmental and infrastructure impacts remain.
I will be honest. I have been swayed back and forth on this more times than I can count. At the end of the day, it comes down to one thing. We need more information. Much of that information has been difficult to obtain, incomplete, or simply does not exist yet.
It has also been especially hard for those of us who live closest to the proposed site but outside city limits. We are likely to be among the most directly affected, yet we have little to no formal representation in the decision making process. That disconnect adds to the sense that this is being rushed without fully accounting for who bears the impact.
For many of us, this is not about fear or opposition for the sake of it. We are not demanding an immediate no. We are asking for the process to slow down, for independent experts to weigh in, and for full transparency so the community can make an informed decision about something that will shape this area for generations.
I agree with you, Alison. The lack of clear, verifiable and truthful information in this whole process is causing the lion’s share of the problem. The hyperbolic overreactions of many or not helping, either. The defamation, name calling and pure ugliness that I’ve seen surrounding this issue is completely uncalled for.
This won’t be the only issue we’ll need to face as a community regarding the Hwy. O corridor, even if the data center is rejected.
I’m writing this as someone that is neither pro nor anti data center. I need a whole lot more information about a number of different issues to make a decision. My knee jerk reaction is against it, but I’m not sure that is the best decision in the longer term.
My reason for this is that the Hwy. O corridor is going to be developed. I spent my entire career in the home building business. Every time I drive down O from Lake Cattails to Catawissa all I see are subdivisions. There is a lot of prime land along that stretch, from a development standpoint. This area is going to become another Wildwood, of sorts.
So, if this development were to happen it will have major impacts on the rural quality of life that we all live out here for. There could be a couple thousand new single-family homes built there and multi-family development, think apartments, condos and the like, are not out of the picture, either.
Now, if this happens, each of those will require water, sewer and electric. Unlike the proposed data center, they will be drawing from the aquifer. New waste systems will be built and they will dump into the river. Every house will need electric and there will be no restrictions on the utility company when it comes to passing along the cost to consumers.
Many will argue that high density subdivisions can’t be built there due to the restrictions on septic systems. Well, subdivisions that are built outside the reach of regular sewer systems can and do build their own waste treatment into the cost. If you don’t think this is true, I would invite you to consider the subdivision that Vatterott built years ago at Hwy. 109 and Old State Rd, the one with the pool by the highway. If you look behind that pool, you’ll see a structure that sits low to the ground. That is a waste treatment facility. It was repurposed from the old Muddy Waters Saloon in Castlewood. It cleans the waste and puts it into the creek that runs under 109 and goes to the Meramec. The technology exists and it has been used over the years in many places. The only real consideration is cost and how it impacts Return On Investment.
Water is pretty much the same thing. Instead of the individual wells used in large acreage subdivisions, a developer, or more likely a governmental body, will drill and operate a municipal well system, just like Pacific uses. Again, it’s all about the R.O.I.
Oh, and by the way, that new well will tap into the same aquifer all of our individual wells tap into, using much more water than the proposed data center.
Traffic will increase in a big way. Schools will need to be built. This concentration of housing will probably cause retail growth along O. The road will need to be improved. Noise levels will increase, along with light pollution. The growth in population might cause an increase in crime, which of course will require additional taxes to fund police. Don’t forget the fire department, either. It will need to get bigger and that, too, will require tax increases.
I write all of this to remind those that are dead set on stopping the data center that it might not be the worst thing built in the area. This is not an endorsement of the data center but rather a cautionary note. The alternative, which I believe is likely to become the reality, just might be worse.
We should use this fight about the data center to build an effective way to get our voices heard, in a polite and informed way. The political process is important when it comes to land use and development. We need to master the skills needed to effectively fight the system, or support it. Name calling and derogation will only harm us, in the long run.
I totally agree Allison.