Community, environment and resource reporting for data-center decisions across the United States. Explore selected public evidence and operator disclosures with dates and source context.
Map scope: 50 states, Washington, D.C., and five inhabited U.S. territories. Evidence coverage is selected and incomplete.
NATIONAL VIEW · SELECTED PUBLIC EVIDENCEPublic insight → Project-specific analysis
U.S. Data Center Intelligence DashboardCommunity & environment · Reviewed weekly
EVIDENCE REGISTER / ETV-CEI-1.2
Every development has context. Every conclusion needs evidence.
Track reported concerns, documented findings, mitigation efforts and reported benefits—with the event date, publication date and evidence status kept distinct.
Register reviewed
Status rules evaluated
Documented milestone window
–
Reviewed weekly · Mondays, 8 a.m. Chicago time. Newly verified events appear in the relevant categories after source review; no change does not mean no concerns.
Reviewed evidence indicators
20 matching reviewed records · Counts reflect your applied search and filters.
Selected records, not an exhaustive incident inventory. Colors describe documented follow-up status—not community health, facility safety, or ethical certification. Card totals describe your matching records. Select a card to apply or remove a status filter. No record means a coverage gap; it does not mean no concern.
The timeline follows your matching records. Theme and map comparisons retain the other filters so you can explore alternatives. Resource quantities use their own controls.
DATED EVIDENCE
A timeline of documented milestones.
Reviewed records by documented milestone year. These counts describe this register—not incident frequency or a national trend. A zero means no matching reviewed record for that year, not no events.
View timeline data as a table
Matching reviewed records by documented milestone year
Year
Records
2022
1
2023
1
2024
0
2025
3
2026
15
ISSUE THEMES
Explore the questions communities raise.
Compare themes using your search, jurisdiction, status, development type and dates. Selecting a theme narrows the records below; these bars retain the other themes for comparison. A record may cover multiple themes, so counts must not be added together.
View issue-theme data as a table
Reviewed records by theme, applying all filters except the selected theme
Theme
Records
Air & emissions
8
Water resources
10
Energy & affordability
9
Agricultural land & water
3
Noise
6
Land use & ecosystems
9
Public-health concerns
1
Community engagement
20
GEOGRAPHY OF REVIEWED EVIDENCE
Select a jurisdiction to investigateAll issue themes · Comparing all jurisdictions using your theme, date, development type, status and search filters. Select a place to narrow the records and timeline.
Keyboard: arrow keys move through states; Home and End jump to the first and last; Enter or Space selects. The jurisdiction selector includes small states and territories. Map shading shows evidence coverage, not severity or environmental conditions. Geographic scope follows the cited record; it does not establish a facility location. 0 national-context records are not assigned to states. Minor Outlying Islands are outside this map.
View geographic counts as a table
Matching reviewed records across all 56 mapped jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Records
Alabama
0
Alaska
0
American Samoa
0
Arizona
2
Arkansas
0
California
2
Colorado
0
Connecticut
0
Delaware
0
District of Columbia
0
Florida
0
Georgia
0
Guam
0
Hawaii
0
Idaho
0
Illinois
1
Indiana
0
Iowa
0
Kansas
0
Kentucky
0
Louisiana
1
Maine
0
Maryland
0
Massachusetts
0
Michigan
0
Minnesota
0
Mississippi
1
Missouri
0
Montana
0
Nebraska
0
Nevada
0
New Hampshire
0
New Jersey
0
New Mexico
0
New York
0
North Carolina
0
North Dakota
0
Northern Mariana Islands
0
Ohio
1
Oklahoma
0
Oregon
5
Pennsylvania
0
Puerto Rico
1
Rhode Island
0
South Carolina
0
South Dakota
0
Tennessee
1
Texas
1
U.S. Virgin Islands
0
Utah
0
Vermont
0
Virginia
3
Washington
0
West Virginia
0
Wisconsin
1
Wyoming
0
RESOURCE EVIDENCE / ETV-RM-1.0
Quantities with a defined boundary.
Compare individual observations and compatible sample totals. Reported quantities, modeled estimates, design capacities and permitted limits retain their distinct meanings.
Resource periods and geography are selected separately below. Concern dates, issue themes and status filters do not change these quantities. Reviewed 2026-11-09.
Read the units. MWh measures electricity used over a period; MW describes power or connection capacity. Water withdrawal is water taken from a source; consumption is the portion not returned. Site water is not necessarily cooling-only.
CO₂e describes greenhouse gases within the stated accounting boundary. It does not measure local air pollution, exposure or health outcomes. Annual reporting periods remain annual; weekly reviews add newly verified disclosures and events, not weekly meter readings.
Water5 sourced series
Electricity3 sourced series
Power capacity2 sourced series
Emissions3 sourced series
Land area2 sourced series
Water consumption / All represented jurisdictions
Google: five disclosed U.S. locations, 2025 — water consumption
Compatible sample total4,165.2million US gal5 sourced observations · selected series only
What this covers. Annual operational water at the five selected Google reporting locations; seawater and brackish sources excluded.
Coverage. Selected disclosure subset, not all Google U.S. operations or a U.S. total. Same five locations in both water cohorts; never add withdrawal to consumption.
Disclosed sample by jurisdiction · not state-wide totals
Water consumption · million US gal · Reporting period: 2025-01-01 – 2025-12-31
Select a jurisdiction to inspect its sourced subtotal.Scale changes with the selected metric and reporting period. It does not represent environmental severity.
No verified valueReported zero> 0 – 336.5 million US gal> 336.5 – 673 million US gal> 673 – 1,009.5 million US gal> 1,009.5 – 1,346 million US gal
Arrow keys move through states; Home and End jump; Enter or Space selects. Use the resource jurisdiction selector for small states and territories. Subtotals describe the disclosed sample only; site boundaries may include several buildings or campuses. Unreported jurisdictions are not assigned zero. Minor Outlying Islands are outside map coverage.
View all resource jurisdiction subtotals
Google: five disclosed U.S. locations, 2025 — water consumption: selected-series subtotals, not state-wide totals
Jurisdiction
Value (million US gal)
Observations
Alabama
Not available
Not available
Alaska
Not available
Not available
American Samoa
Not available
Not available
Arizona
Not available
Not available
Arkansas
Not available
Not available
California
Not available
Not available
Colorado
Not available
Not available
Connecticut
Not available
Not available
Delaware
Not available
Not available
District of Columbia
Not available
Not available
Florida
Not available
Not available
Georgia
367.1
1
Guam
Not available
Not available
Hawaii
Not available
Not available
Idaho
Not available
Not available
Illinois
Not available
Not available
Indiana
Not available
Not available
Iowa
1,346
1
Kansas
Not available
Not available
Kentucky
Not available
Not available
Louisiana
Not available
Not available
Maine
Not available
Not available
Maryland
Not available
Not available
Massachusetts
Not available
Not available
Michigan
Not available
Not available
Minnesota
Not available
Not available
Mississippi
Not available
Not available
Missouri
Not available
Not available
Montana
Not available
Not available
Nebraska
Not available
Not available
Nevada
Not available
Not available
New Hampshire
Not available
Not available
New Jersey
Not available
Not available
New Mexico
Not available
Not available
New York
Not available
Not available
North Carolina
Not available
Not available
North Dakota
Not available
Not available
Northern Mariana Islands
Not available
Not available
Ohio
Not available
Not available
Oklahoma
1,081.4
1
Oregon
469
1
Pennsylvania
Not available
Not available
Puerto Rico
Not available
Not available
Rhode Island
Not available
Not available
South Carolina
901.7
1
South Dakota
Not available
Not available
Tennessee
Not available
Not available
Texas
Not available
Not available
U.S. Virgin Islands
Not available
Not available
Utah
Not available
Not available
Vermont
Not available
Not available
Virginia
Not available
Not available
Washington
Not available
Not available
West Virginia
Not available
Not available
Wisconsin
Not available
Not available
Wyoming
Not available
Not available
Google — Council Bluffs reporting location IA1,346 million US gal
Google — Mayes County reporting location OK1,081.4 million US gal
Google — Berkeley County reporting location SC901.7 million US gal
Google — The Dalles reporting location OR469 million US gal
Google — Douglas County reporting location GA367.1 million US gal
Individual observations, periods & sources
Google: five disclosed U.S. locations, 2025 — water consumption. Each row retains its original scope, reporting period and source.
Entity & geography
Quantity & basis
Boundary & source
Google — Council Bluffs reporting locationIA · campus
1,346 million US galWater consumptionOperator-reportedReporting period: 2025-01-01 – 2025-12-31
Annual operational water at the five selected Google reporting locations; seawater and brackish sources excluded.
Reported values may contain estimates. Location rows can combine campuses. Not cooling-only or freshwater-only; not a watershed-impact measure.
Google — Douglas County reporting locationGA · campus
367.1 million US galWater consumptionOperator-reportedReporting period: 2025-01-01 – 2025-12-31
Annual operational water at the five selected Google reporting locations; seawater and brackish sources excluded.
Reported values may contain estimates. Location rows can combine campuses. Not cooling-only or freshwater-only; not a watershed-impact measure. This location includes reclaimed wastewater.
These country-level series are independent of the selected jurisdiction and facility sample. They are not allocated to states or added to facility totals.
Modeled estimate
U.S. modeled electricity consumption · 2024
≈ 192 TWhUnited States data centers · Reporting period: 2024-01-01 – 2024-12-31
What this covers. National total-facility electricity model: servers, storage, networking and supporting infrastructure; cryptocurrency mining excluded.
Coverage. Historical estimate from the June 2026 report edition, not a metered census. Kept separate from facility disclosures and state/territory filters; never allocated to individual facilities.
National total-facility electricity model: servers, storage, networking and supporting infrastructure; cryptocurrency mining excluded.
Historical estimate from the June 2026 report edition, not a metered census. Kept separate from facility disclosures and state/territory filters; never allocated to individual facilities.
≈ 66 billion litersUnited States data centers · Reporting period: 2023-01-01 – 2023-12-31
What this covers. Modeled direct on-site data-center water consumption in 2023.
Coverage. Historical estimate from the December 2024 report edition, not withdrawals or a current annual measurement. Excludes indirect water used for electricity generation; not allocated to states or facilities.
U.S. modeled direct water consumption · 2023. Each row retains its original scope, reporting period and source.
Entity & geography
Quantity & basis
Boundary & source
United States data centersUS · national
17,435.355 million US galWater consumptionModeled estimateReporting period: 2023-01-01 – 2023-12-31Originally reported: 66,000,000,000 liters
Modeled direct on-site data-center water consumption in 2023.
Historical estimate from the December 2024 report edition, not withdrawals or a current annual measurement. Excludes indirect water used for electricity generation; not allocated to states or facilities.
≈ 61 million tCO₂eUnited States data centers · Reporting period: 2023-01-01 – 2023-12-31
What this covers. National electricity-related greenhouse-gas estimate using regional-grid modeling.
Coverage. CO₂-equivalent, not CO₂-only or local pollutant exposure. Excludes a complete inventory of direct fuels, construction and supply-chain emissions; no proportional allocation to individual sites.
National electricity-related greenhouse-gas estimate using regional-grid modeling.
CO₂-equivalent, not CO₂-only or local pollutant exposure. Excludes a complete inventory of direct fuels, construction and supply-chain emissions; no proportional allocation to individual sites.
Cochise residents raise water questions during review of a proposed computing campus
Unincorporated Cochise County, U.S. Highway 191 near Cochise · Application SU26-22 east of U.S. Highway 191. The county lists a separate Planning and Zoning Commission hearing for December 9.
Regulatory milestones
County review continues. The December 9 hearing is the next scheduled decision point.
Event / milestone date
Applicant-hosted community meeting held
Primary report published
Date not established
Eco TerraVault reviewed
Cochise County received Tombstone Resources L.L.C.’s special-use application on October 30. At a November 4 applicant-hosted meeting, residents could ask about the proposed campus and battery storage system. Local reporting documented one resident’s questions about water use and noise.
Water resourcesNoiseEnergy & affordabilityCommunity engagement
Recheck after:
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The county documented the meeting and pending application. A named resident described concerns to local reporters.
Interpretation. A source documents a concern, proposal, or review. An allegation is not a confirmed impact.
Limits. The applicant’s cooling plans and demand estimates await review. The evidence does not establish measured withdrawals, power demand, noise exposure or the views of the community as a whole.
FERC seeks public input on a pipeline expansion serving a planned data center
Moore and Deaf Smith counties · Docket CP26-581-000 covers Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America’s proposed compressor and delivery facilities in two Texas counties.
Regulatory milestones
Written comments on the scope of the environmental analysis are due December 2 at 5 p.m. Eastern.
Event / milestone date
FERC issued public scoping notice
Primary report published
Eco TerraVault reviewed
In a November 2 notice published November 5, FERC staff opened public scoping for the Amarillo Expansion Project. The applicant proposes gas delivery to a generating facility intended to power a data center in Deaf Smith County.
Energy & affordabilityLand use & ecosystemsAir & emissionsNoiseCommunity engagement
Recheck after:
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. FERC identified land use, air quality and noise among the topics for environmental review and invited comments through December 2.
Interpretation. A source documents a concern, proposal, or review. An allegation is not a confirmed impact.
Limits. The notice identifies questions for study. Its figures describe proposed gas transportation and construction disturbance. The notice supplies no facility electricity reading, verified agricultural conversion or final permitting decision.
Federal court allows Southaven gas-turbine lawsuit to proceed
Southaven · Power-generation infrastructure in Southaven serving greater Memphis data-center operations; not a Memphis, Tennessee data-hall location.
Regulatory milestones
The court resolved a procedural challenge to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs’ allegations proceed to further litigation.
Event / milestone date
Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss
Primary report published
Date not established
Eco TerraVault reviewed
On October 30, the federal district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the NAACP’s Clean Air Act case concerning gas turbines in Southaven that supply power to data-center operations. An earlier October 19 order allowed the United States to intervene and declined its separate dismissal request.
Air & emissionsPublic-health concernsCommunity engagement
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. A signed judicial order allows the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed beyond the pleading stage. The suit concerns permitting and community air-quality concerns in Southaven.
Interpretation. A source documents a concern, proposal, or review. An allegation is not a confirmed impact.
Limits. The October 30 order resolves a motion to dismiss. Final liability, the outcome of the preliminary injunction request, operating conditions, and individual health effects remain unverified.
San Diego adopts a temporary moratorium on data-center development approvals
San Diego · Permits, applications, and entitlements within San Diego’s jurisdiction. Section 3 excludes incidental on-site server rooms and specified public facilities. Section 6 exempts certain work at existing lawful facilities.
Regulatory milestones
San Diego paused specified development approvals while it evaluates siting and operating standards. The ordinance’s pre-expiration reporting requirement provides the next review checkpoint.
Event / milestone date
City adopts urgency ordinance
Primary report published
Date not established
Eco TerraVault reviewed
San Diego adopted Ordinance O-22152 on October 27. It immediately paused city processing and approval of permits and entitlements for new, expanded, or intensified data-center uses. The initial term runs for 45 days. An extension requires notice, a public hearing, and written findings.
Land use & ecosystemsWater resourcesEnergy & affordabilityCommunity engagement
Recheck after:
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The City Clerk’s certified ordinance records final passage on October 27 and an initial 45-day term effective upon passage.
Interpretation. Reviewed authority evidence documents an action requiring follow-up. This is not a finding of health harm or a facility-wide risk score.
Limits. The ordinance allows qualifying maintenance that leaves data-center floor area, electrical service capacity, and water demand unchanged. The city must report ten days before expiration. Any subsequent extension requires separate evidence.
CyrusOne reports installation of an additional sound curtain at its Aurora campus
Aurora · Ongoing sound-mitigation work at CyrusOne’s Aurora CHI2 and CHI3 buildings.
Mitigation & safeguards
The operator reports completing the Building 3 curtain after its October 9 construction update. The October 26 update leaves the effect on neighborhood sound levels unquantified.
CyrusOne reported on October 26 that crews finished installing an additional sound curtain at Building 3. Site restoration was underway. The operator still planned to install inlet attenuators at that building.
NoiseCommunity engagement
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. CyrusOne documents further construction in response to neighborhood noise concerns. Inlet attenuation remained outstanding at the time of its update.
Interpretation. A source documents a concern, proposal, or review. An allegation is not a confirmed impact.
Limits. Independent acoustic measurements and a municipal determination on resolution remain unverified.
FERC schedules environmental assessment for the Franklin Farms pipeline project
Richland Parish · ETC Tiger Pipeline’s proposed Franklin Farms project in Richland Parish would provide gas transportation for Entergy Louisiana.
Regulatory milestones
January 8 is the agency’s target for issuing its assessment. A permitting decision is a later step.
Event / milestone date
Environmental assessment schedule issued
Primary report published
Eco TerraVault reviewed
FERC’s October 23 notice set a January 8, 2027 target for an environmental assessment of a pipeline project serving a proposed AI campus. The notice describes comments about wetlands, land, air quality and noise, and a separate concern about costs to ratepayers.
Land use & ecosystemsWater resourcesAir & emissionsNoiseEnergy & affordabilityCommunity engagement
Recheck after:
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. FERC summarized comments received during scoping and set the next environmental review milestone.
Interpretation. A source documents a concern, proposal, or review. An allegation is not a confirmed impact.
Limits. The comments describe potential impacts. The notice provides neither a completed assessment nor a measured campus impact. Its header and opening paragraph contain different docket numbers. The earlier scoping notice confirms the named project and location.
Clackamas County pauses approvals for new and expanded data centers in unincorporated areas
Unincorporated Clackamas County · County approvals in unincorporated Clackamas County for projects with a data center as a primary use.
Regulatory milestones
The vote gives county staff time to evaluate development regulations. The county identifies public participation as part of that process.
Event / milestone date
Commissioners adopt temporary moratorium
Primary report published
Eco TerraVault reviewed
On October 22 the Board of County Commissioners adopted a temporary pause on land-use and building-permit approvals for new or expanded data centers as primary uses in unincorporated Clackamas County. The county announced an immediate 120-day term, subject to earlier extension or repeal.
Land use & ecosystemsWater resourcesEnergy & affordabilityAgricultural land & waterCommunity engagement
Recheck after:
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The county’s post-vote announcement and meeting minutes document adoption, geographic scope, and the initial term.
Interpretation. Reviewed authority evidence documents an action requiring follow-up. This is not a finding of health harm or a facility-wide risk score.
Limits. Commissioners identified water availability, agricultural users, utility costs, and infrastructure as issues for policy review. Site-level water use, land conversion, and effects on farms remain unmeasured in these records.
Umatilla declares a local emergency over potential revenue losses
City of Umatilla · The City of Umatilla’s fiscal response to a state permitting decision. The declaration applies to the municipality.
Regulatory milestones
The council requested reconsideration of the state directive and authorized a review of the city’s financial exposure. Its October 21 announcement confirms the previous day’s vote.
Event / milestone date
Council adopts local emergency declaration
Primary report published
Eco TerraVault reviewed
On October 20, the City Council adopted Resolution 15-2027 in response to the governor’s request to pause certain data-center permits. The city said delays could affect anticipated revenue and planned water infrastructure. It authorized the city manager to assess the financial effects and coordinate a response.
Community engagementWater resources
Recheck after:
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The city confirms council adoption and requires a review of the declaration at least every 90 days.
Interpretation. Reviewed authority evidence documents an action requiring follow-up. This is not a finding of health harm or a facility-wide risk score.
Limits. The city’s financial figures are preliminary projections. The January 18 checkpoint reflects the first 90-day review interval. The declaration’s duration depends on whether the underlying conditions continue.
Memphis approves a temporary pause on new data-center approvals
Memphis · New data-center approvals in the City of Memphis and the city’s related policy review.
Regulatory milestones
The council approved a temporary pause on new data-center approvals while Memphis studies development rules. This citywide action concerns future approvals.
Event / milestone date
Council approves temporary pause
Primary report published
Date not established
Eco TerraVault reviewed
Memphis City Council approved Ordinance 5986 on October 20. The city describes a 135-day pause on new data-center approvals. A separate October 9 executive order directed a 90-day review of siting, infrastructure, and environmental policy.
Air & emissionsWater resourcesEnergy & affordabilityNoiseLand use & ecosystemsCommunity engagement
Recheck after:
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. Council minutes document approval of Ordinance 5986. The city’s Planning and Zoning Committee confirms the temporary pause.
Interpretation. Reviewed authority evidence documents an action requiring follow-up. This is not a finding of health harm or a facility-wide risk score.
Limits. The committee describes the adopted pause. The signed final substitute and its precise sunset remain unverified. January 7 is the separate executive-review checkpoint.
Loudoun defers discussion of a proposed pause on data-center and substation votes
Loudoun County · Loudoun County legislative applications for data centers and electrical substations. Administrative applications fall outside the proposal.
Regulatory milestones
The Board deferred discussion of the proposed pause. November 17 is its next scheduled consideration date.
Event / milestone date
County announces deferral to November 17
Primary report published
Eco TerraVault reviewed
Loudoun County announced on October 20 that its Board of Supervisors would take up the proposed pause on November 17. The proposal concerns final Board votes on applications that require legislative approval. The deferral gives county staff more time to prepare information.
Land use & ecosystemsCommunity engagement
Recheck after:
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The county scheduled further consideration of a proposal it began developing on September 15.
Interpretation. A source documents a concern, proposal, or review. An allegation is not a confirmed impact.
Limits. Adoption and final terms still require a Board decision. The proposed process would allow application submissions and planning review to continue.
Puerto Rico House committee receives a data-center energy and water proposal
Puerto Rico, territory-wide · Proposed energy, water and public reporting requirements for qualifying operations in Puerto Rico. The bill defines which requirements apply to each category of operator.
Regulatory milestones
The referral puts PC 1523 before the committee. Its energy and water provisions remain proposals.
Event / milestone date
House refers bill to Government Committee
Primary report published
Date not established
Eco TerraVault reviewed
On October 19, the Puerto Rico House referred PC 1523 to its Government Committee. The bill would set power supply and interconnection conditions for large data centers and require disclosures on energy and water use.
Energy & affordabilityWater resourcesCommunity engagement
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The legislative history documents a committee referral for review. In a report published November 5, Metro Puerto Rico quoted former senator Ramón Luis Nieves urging the House to pause or withdraw the bill over concerns about available generating capacity.
Interpretation. A source documents a concern, proposal, or review. An allegation is not a confirmed impact.
Limits. The latest verified legislative action is the October 19 referral. Proposed power and water requirements describe possible future obligations. Facility-level demand and effects on customers require separate evidence.
Forest Grove pauses new data centers and certain expansions
Forest Grove · Development within Forest Grove city limits. Projects that previously received land-use approval are excluded.
Regulatory milestones
The city reported adoption on October 13 and identified the projects covered during the 120-day review.
Event / milestone date
Council adopted temporary development pause
Primary report published
Eco TerraVault reviewed
After an October 12 public hearing, the Forest Grove City Council adopted a 120-day pause on new data centers and expansions of 20% or more. The city will use that period to review its development regulations and seek public input.
Land use & ecosystemsCommunity engagement
Recheck after:
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The city confirmed the council’s vote and the limited duration and scope of its planning action.
Interpretation. Reviewed authority evidence documents an action requiring follow-up. This is not a finding of health harm or a facility-wide risk score.
Limits. The vote concerns planning policy. It establishes no facility violation or measured environmental effect. The February checkpoint prompts a status review near the end of the stated 120-day term.
Oregon governor requests a pause on specified data-center permits
Oregon, statewide · Specified air and water discharge applications involving new or expanded Oregon data centers, including municipal wastewater treatment plant renewals or modifications sought to accommodate those discharges.
Regulatory milestones
The governor asked DEQ to use its discretion on a defined set of permits. The department later described how far staff would process applications before the pause.
Event / milestone date
Governor sends permitting request to DEQ
Primary report published
Date not established
Eco TerraVault reviewed
On October 9, Governor Tina Kotek asked the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to use its existing authority to pause specified air and water discharge permit work for new or expanded data centers until July 1, 2027. The request also covers certain municipal wastewater permits for data-center discharges.
Air & emissionsWater resourcesCommunity engagement
Recheck after:
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The governor’s dated letter documents a request for a temporary administrative pause while Oregon evaluates policy recommendations.
Interpretation. A source documents a concern, proposal, or review. An allegation is not a confirmed impact.
Limits. On October 29, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported that a DEQ spokesperson said staff would work through preparation of a draft permit, then pause before public comment pending further direction or July 1, 2027, whichever comes first. A specific project’s permit disposition requires its own agency record.
Virginia DEQ opens comment on a proposed Microsoft air-enforcement order
Leesburg, Loudoun County · The proposed consent-order proceeding for the named Leesburg IAD01–05 facility; not all Microsoft facilities.
Regulatory milestones
A proposed enforcement proceeding is open for comment. The cited notice alleges permit violations; it does not establish the date of a violation, final liability or measured harm.
Event / milestone date
Public comment opened
Primary report published
Date not established
Eco TerraVault reviewed
Virginia DEQ announced a proposed enforcement action concerning air-permit and regulatory violations alleged by the agency at Microsoft’s Leesburg IAD01–05 data center, with comments accepted September 14 through October 14, 2026.
Air & emissionsCommunity engagement
Recheck after:
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. A dated agency notice documents a formal proposed enforcement action whose comment period remained open on the review date.
Interpretation. The source-based recheck deadline has passed. The earlier proceeding remains in the historical record; its current status needs newer evidence.
Limits. The notice concerns a proposed order, not a final adjudication; it does not establish exposure, injury, environmental causation, or the present safety of the facility.
Wisconsin DNR documents Lighthouse campus environmental and permit review
Port Washington, Ozaukee County · The Lighthouse campus permit and environmental-review record in Port Washington. Agricultural land use is included; campus and ownership boundaries differ.
Regulatory milestones
The agency records a permitting and environmental-review milestone. Permit issuance alone establishes neither environmental benefit nor an adverse compliance finding.
Event / milestone date
Air permits issued and supplement released
Primary report published
Date not established
Eco TerraVault reviewed
Wisconsin DNR documents a June 12, 2026 air-permit decision following public comments, alongside environmental review covering wetlands, stormwater and municipal-service extensions for Vantage’s Lighthouse campus. DNR also describes development on previously agricultural land.
Air & emissionsWater resourcesLand use & ecosystemsCommunity engagementAgricultural land & water
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The agency provides dated permitting and public-comment context, but the cited page does not establish a formal adverse finding or a verified resolution of community concerns.
Interpretation. The reviewed evidence does not support an action-state classification.
Limits. Permit issuance is not an exposure measurement, proof of absence of environmental impacts, a compliance certification or a violation finding. The page has no publication date; the status date is the explicit dated permit and supplemental-report milestone. A campus footprint is not a verified total of prime farmland converted or an agricultural production loss.
?Current status unconfirmedOperator statement · OR
Municipal reporting corroborates completion and transfer of The Dalles water-storage project
The Dalles · The named aquifer storage and recovery infrastructure project associated with Google’s The Dalles investment.
Reported benefits
Completion and transfer are reported by the operator and corroborated by the municipality. The stated water-security purpose is distinct from a measured net water outcome.
Event / milestone date
Completion announced by operator
Primary report published
Eco TerraVault reviewed
Google announced completion and transfer of the aquifer storage and recovery system on October 22, 2025. The City of The Dalles’ 2025 water-quality report, issued in May 2026, corroborates completion and transfer and reports that the Riverside wells became operational during 2025.
Water resourcesCommunity engagement
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The operator’s dated announcement is corroborated by subsequent municipal reporting. This establishes an infrastructure milestone, not a measured net water benefit or resolution of all local water concerns.
Interpretation. The dated status evidence is missing or more than 365 days old. A new review date alone cannot refresh it.
Limits. The exact physical completion day, net basin benefit and recovery volumes are not established here. The city report also describes separate 2025 ASR-location water-quality sampling and continuing monitoring; it does not attribute a cause to Google or establish current project-wide environmental clearance.
AEP Ohio service territory · The AEP Ohio tariff proceeding, case 24-508-EL-ATA; not every Ohio utility or a finding against a specific facility.
Mitigation & safeguards
The regulator adopted a safeguard intended to protect other customers from infrastructure cost shifting. Adoption is documented; resulting household savings are not measured in this record.
Event / milestone date
Regulatory order issued
Primary report published
Eco TerraVault reviewed
The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio adopted a settlement and ordered AEP Ohio to file data-center tariffs intended to protect other customers from the cost of underused infrastructure investments.
Energy & affordabilityCommunity engagement
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The regulator announced an adopted order addressing cost-allocation risk, rather than a proposed operator pledge.
Interpretation. The dated status evidence is missing or more than 365 days old. A new review date alone cannot refresh it.
Limits. An adopted tariff safeguard is not measured proof of household bill savings or elimination of future cost shifting. The dated decision is historical under the dashboard freshness rule.
Gilroy approval records an unavoidable agricultural-land impact
Gilroy, Santa Clara County · AS 20-23 project boundary; agricultural land-use finding and mitigation conditions.
Adverse impact findings
The environmental-review record identifies a projected, unavoidable farmland-conversion impact despite required mitigation. This is a planning finding, not the date of physical conversion or proof that mitigation has been completed.
Event / milestone date
Project approval issued
Primary report published
Date not established
Eco TerraVault reviewed
The city’s project approval includes agricultural mitigation conditions while retaining a significant, unavoidable farmland-conversion finding. This is an environmental-review finding, not an enforcement violation or a finding of health harm.
Land use & ecosystemsAgricultural land & waterCommunity engagement
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The dated municipal approval and environmental-review record identify a scoped agricultural impact; they do not establish an enforcement action.
Interpretation. The dated status evidence is missing or more than 365 days old. A new review date alone cannot refresh it.
Limits. The finding date is historical. Approval conditions do not verify completed mitigation. Property area, soil classifications and converted or impervious area are different measures. A later building permit does not refresh the date of this land finding.
Virginia DEQ withdraws a proposed data-center generator variance
Loudoun County · Closure of the specific 2023 proposed local variance proceeding in Loudoun County; not closure of a facility or all local environmental concerns.
Regulatory milestones
The agency withdrew the specific generator-variance proposal after public comment. This procedural outcome does not establish a measured improvement in air quality.
Event / milestone date
Proposal withdrawn
Primary report published
Eco TerraVault reviewed
Virginia DEQ recorded withdrawal of its proposed local data-center variance on April 12, 2023, following public comment, and closed that proposal’s comment process.
Air & emissionsEnergy & affordabilityCommunity engagement
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. An official state notice expressly says the proposal was withdrawn and the agency was not moving forward with that proposed variance.
Interpretation. The dated status evidence is missing or more than 365 days old. A new review date alone cannot refresh it.
Limits. Closure applies only to this historical proposal, not a current facility air-quality rating, an emissions measurement, or a finding that all generator concerns were resolved.
Chandler confirms adopted data-center noise and community-notification safeguards
Chandler · Citywide data-center safeguards adopted through Ordinance 5033; not an identified facility violation or a verified resolution of a named complaint.
Mitigation & safeguards
The municipality adopted sound-study, mitigation and public-notification safeguards. Policy adoption is distinct from completed facility mitigation or measured noise reduction.
Event / milestone date
Ordinance adopted
Primary report published
Date not established
Eco TerraVault reviewed
Chandler’s signed Ordinance 5033 records final adoption on December 8, 2022. The municipality’s January 11, 2023 announcement confirms requirements for baseline sound studies, sound mitigation, subsequent acoustic studies and community-notification provisions.
NoiseCommunity engagement
Evidence context & limitations
Basis. The signed ordinance and subsequent municipal announcement establish adoption of scoped safeguards, rather than only a staff proposal.
Interpretation. The dated status evidence is missing or more than 365 days old. A new review date alone cannot refresh it.
Limits. Adoption is documented; actual acoustic performance, facility compliance and resolution of individual complaints are not. The historical ordinance and announcement do not independently establish the current amended code or its legal effective date. This milestone remains historical under the dashboard freshness rule.
Your location. Your decision. A deeper investigation.
Commission an Eco TerraVault study that combines source qualification, geospatial analysis, issue history, infrastructure context, and a documented decision framework.
Community and municipal evidence dossiers
Water, energy, noise, and land-use research
Above-ground and underground option comparisons
Scoped monitoring, evidence-gap analysis, and advisory workshops
Scope, source rights, specialist requirements, and delivery cadence are agreed before an engagement. Public records do not replace site measurements, engineering assessment, or health investigation.
