DEPLOY

Answer

Why are people against data centers?

Opposition to AI data centers is real, growing, and driven by four specific grievances, not vague anti-tech sentiment. Below is what the DEPLOY registry has documented for each, with links to the primary sources. As of 2026-09-27, 709 facilities are in the US pipeline, every one of them a potential fight.

1. Water draw

Legacy evaporative cooling can use millions of gallons a day. Newer builds use closed-loop or direct-to-chip liquid cooling with near-zero ongoing draw, but the ones already operating are the ones neighbors object to. Here are 15 facilities where DEPLOY has recorded specific water arrangements:

  • AWS Center for Quantum Computing Pasadena

    No industrial water cooling disclosed. Quantum processors on site (Ocelot cat-qubit chip) operate in dilution refrigerators at near-absolute-zero temperatures, which use closed-cycle helium (helium-3/helium-4) rather than facility water for cryogenic cooling.

  • AWS Madison County Data Center Campuses

    Transitioning to recycled/treated wastewater cooling by 2027; $215M state loan funded wastewater treatment upgrades

  • Alpha Digital Campus (LandBridge / PowerBridge)

    Not published. The announcement lists significant water availability among West Texas's advantages and says nothing further: no source, no volume, no arrangement, on a campus of about 3,400 acres.

  • Alterra Marshall Technology & Energy Center

    Closed-loop liquid cooling proposed to minimize water use; developer said it would not draw from Stuart Lake (reported, Dec 2025). No gpd figure sourced.

  • Amazon (AWS) Hermiston / Umatilla Data Center Campus

    Hermiston annexed 810 acres into its Urban Growth Boundary (South Hermiston Industrial Park) in Sept 2025 for future data centers. Region attractive for proximity to Columbia River water supply. Existing AWS load served via PacifiCorp.

  • Amazon Project Rainier Data Center (New Carlisle)

    Uses free-air cooling about 90% of the year, switching to evaporative (water) cooling only when ambient temperature exceeds ~85F; cooling water is drawn from the New Carlisle aquifer, with Phase 1 permitted at ~1.6M gal/day and Amazon stating water is used in under 2% of hours annually.

  • Atom Computing Boulder Quantum Facility

    Neutral-atom quantum systems trap and cool ytterbium atoms with lasers rather than dilution refrigerators, so the facility has no significant process-water or cryogenic-water load; cooling needs are limited to conventional HVAC and laser/electronics chillers.

  • Cayuga Data Campus

    Existing industrial-scale water intake system at former coal plant; TeraWulf states it will NOT rely on Cayuga Lake to cool the data center

  • Compass Datacenters Red Oak Campus (DFW III)

    Closed-loop water-cooling system that is not connected to the city utility line and, per city staff, uses less water annually than a Walmart Supercenter.

  • Core Scientific / CoreWeave Muskogee HPC Campus

    Not published. Core Scientific's own page for the site talks about power, connectivity and expansion room, and mentions cooling only as one of the things the facility provides. It names no cooling method, water source or volume.

  • Crusoe Childress Campus

    Closed-loop, non-evaporative liquid cooling to reduce water use.

  • D-Wave Burnaby Quantum Center of Excellence

    Quantum annealing QPUs are cooled with dilution refrigerators (helium-3/helium-4 mixture) to roughly 10-15 mK, not water. Building HVAC uses municipal water; no disclosed process-water draw.

  • Data City (Energy Abundance)

    Not published. The launch release describes a centralised district cooling system built around direct-to-chip liquid cooling, and says nothing about where the water comes from or how much is needed, on a 50,000 acre site in a part of Texas where that is the question.

  • DataVolt NEOM Oxagon Net-Zero AI Factory

    Not published. The launch announcement commits to renewable power, net zero operation and unspecified advanced cooling technologies, but names no water source and gives no volume. On a Red Sea industrial site the plausible answer is desalination, which is exactly why it should not be assumed here.

  • Dove Creek Data Center (Beacon)

    Off-grid; powered by on-site natural-gas reciprocating engines (RICE). ~1,240 acres of buildable land (est. 70% of total site). Facility sited 0.25 mi south of US 67 on FM 2335, west Tom Green County. Community concerns raised over water and power; water source not specified in permit reporting.

2. On-site fossil generation

When grid interconnection takes too long, operators build their own gas plants. DEPLOY has recorded 77.0 GW of co-located gas/diesel/oil generation across 12 sites so far. This is the flashpoint in most rural-siting fights.

  1. 18.00 GW gas
  2. 15.30 GW gas
  3. 9.20 GW gas
  4. 7.56 GW gas
  5. 5.40 GW gas
  6. 5.37 GW gas
  7. 4.50 GW gas
  8. 4.00 GW gas
  9. 2.41 GW gas
  10. 2.00 GW gas
  11. 2.00 GW gas
  12. 1.23 GW gas

3. Grid strain and rate impact

A campus that draws a gigawatt reshapes the local grid. Regulators are starting to ask whether that cost gets spread across ratepayers or absorbed by the operator. Every DEPLOY facility page carries a DealShock section that surfaces the specific interconnection queue, serving utility, and (where disclosed) the special tariff or side deal.

4. Tax abatements and land deals

Multi-billion tax breaks, non-disclosure agreements with local officials, and land parcels assembled through shell LLCs are recurring themes. DEPLOY’s data_center_financial_claims table captures the disclosed dollar figures, and each campus page’s DealShock hero band surfaces them at the top.

Related answers

This page reports the sourced grievances the DEPLOY registry has already documented; it takes no editorial position on siting decisions. Every specific claim links to the facility page carrying the primary source. Rebuilt every 15 minutes.