The Data CenterGold Rush

Data center proposals are landing on planning commission agendas across America. In 2025 alone, we tracked 734 municipal meetings across 260 cities where data centers were a topic of discussion.

This represents a broad geographic footprint: from Chandler, Arizona to DeKalb, Illinois, communities are grappling with similar questions about power, water, jobs, and quality of life.

Many of these municipalities have never evaluated a data center project before. They’re building the regulatory playbook in real-time.

Forget the average—it tells you nothing useful. What matters is the distribution: of 156 cities, 38 show clear skepticism toward data center development (sentiment below 45), while 40 express openness (above 55).

The remaining 78 cities—exactly half—sit in the genuinely undecided middle. Their meeting transcripts reveal communities weighing real tradeoffs, not rubber-stamping approvals or reflexively opposing.

The transcripts read like cost-benefit analyses performed in public: economic development versus resource constraints, job creation versus quality of life, tax revenue versus infrastructure strain.

The transcripts reveal which technology giants are most frequently discussed in local government chambers. Meta leads with 25 mentions across 8 cities, followed by Microsoft (17 mentions, 13 cities) and Amazon (15 mentions, 11 cities).

Microsoft appears in more cities than Meta despite fewer total mentions—a broader but less concentrated footprint. Google, despite its massive existing portfolio, shows up in only 7 cities.

When Meta comes up in a DeKalb meeting, it’s not abstract. Residents are calculating: what happens to my water bill? My property value? My commute?

When residents speak at public hearings, four concerns dominate.

Power consumption tops the list, raised in 87 of 156 cities. The numbers explain the attention: U.S. data centers now consume 4.4% of national electricity, up from 1.9% in 2018. Projections suggest 12% by 2028. In The Dalles, Oregon, Google’s facilities consumed over 355 million gallons of water in 2021—more than a quarter of the town’s annual supply. That number had tripled since 2016.

Water usage ranks second, mentioned in 78 cities. A 2024 Lawrence Berkeley report estimated U.S. data centers consumed 17 billion gallons directly in 2023, with projections to double or quadruple by 2028. When a Chandler resident asks “how much water will this use?”—the question that opened that city’s debate—they’re asking something answerable with material stakes.

Jobs drew comment in 46 cities—from both sides. Proponents cite construction jobs and permanent positions; skeptics note that a facility requiring hundreds of megawatts may employ only dozens of people once operational. Both are correct.

Noise emerged in 18 cities, particularly those considering facilities near residential areas.

Communities aren’t reflexively opposed. They’re asking for answers that companies have historically declined to provide. A Data Center Watch report found $64 billion in projects blocked or delayed by local opposition between May 2024 and March 2025.

The municipal meeting transcript offers something press releases cannot: unscripted candor. These are the actual words spoken by citizens, planners, and elected officials as they deliberate.

On water: “Water in Texas is becoming scarce with AI data centers.” — Edinburg, TX

On jobs, the divide is stark: “450 jobs on the data center campus” (Shelbyville, IN) versus “How many jobs do they really bring?” (DeKalb, IL)

No PR team wrote these lines. They came from people who showed up.

The data center debate isn’t uniform across America. Three states account for nearly 40% of all mentions in our dataset.

Arizona leads with 887 mentions across 19 cities. No surprise—it’s already a data center hub. The average sentiment of 48.9 (below neutral) signals that familiarity has bred skepticism.

California (534 mentions, 14 cities) shows similar wariness at 48.5, perhaps reflecting the state’s acute water concerns.

Texas (514 mentions, 18 cities) sits almost exactly neutral at 49.9—fitting for a state that prides itself on business-friendliness while grappling with grid reliability.

The most skeptical major state? Illinois, at 43.8.

Some cities have become focal points for particularly intense debates.

Chandler, Arizona leads our dataset with 336 mentions and a skeptical 38.9 sentiment score—a community clearly wrestling with data center proliferation.

DeKalb, Illinois (210 mentions, 39.3 sentiment) and Lancaster, California (139 mentions, 37.5 sentiment) show similar patterns: high engagement coupled with significant doubt.

Chandler, DeKalb, and Lancaster have something in common: they’ve already hosted multiple data center discussions. Other cities are just starting. The pattern—curiosity, then caution—could repeat.

Easy approvals are over. Communities that once welcomed data centers as economic wins are now asking harder questions. Grids are strained. Water tables are dropping. Residents near proposed sites are organizing.

Data centers will still get built. But the cost—in time, in community engagement, in location compromises—is rising.