As you mentioned, water is a very significant issue which has many aspects that we would like to learn more about and can divide into three phases. There's understanding the current site hydrology, potential construction impacts, and operational water use.
Will there be a baseline study of the current site hydrology to determine riparian buffer zones, streams, flood mitigation and quantify groundwater recharge? How will construction operations prevent sediment contamination of groundwater that can impact water supplies and private wells? On operating the data center cooling with treated wastewater, did the developer apply for a local, state or federal permit and identify the amount of water that would be required? I've seen estimates ranging between 300,000 gallons per day (according to someone who spoke to the developer) up to about 3 million gallons per day as reported by WRAL: "Industry estimates show a 250-megawatt data center can use about a billion gallons of water each year, or 2.7 million gallons a day." https://www.wral.com/news/local/ai-data-center-water-supply-september-2025/
This underestimates the proposed 300 MW data center and many believe once the land is rezoned that would open the door to many other proposed data centers coming to the area. For the land size area of about 190 acres, there are proposals to build 500 MW data centers worldwide.
A large amount of the treated wastewater would be evaporated, even in a closed loop heat exchanger, so perhaps 1 million gallons per day would be evaporated. We need to understand both the impacts on downstream Cape Fear River users, like the Lillington town, farmers, fisherfolk etc. We also need to know potential health impacts to people, domestic animals, and wildlife in the New Hill community.
Here's an example of health impacts from using treated tap water on home humidifiers: "Mineral water quality significantly affects the distribution and concentration of emitted and inhaled indoor air particles. Consumers may unknowingly be degrading their indoor air quality when using tap water of acceptable drinking water quality as humidifier fill water." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020318572
As we know, there are many issues with wastewater treatment including microplastics, PFAS forever chemicals, and biofilms. What controls will be made to ensure that Legionnaires' disease and other airborne contaminants would not become a problem? eg. https://www.cdc.gov/control-legionella/php/toolkit/cooling-towers-module.html
The other issue with operational water supplies is the need for backup sources when the wastewater treatment plant is down for repairs using storage tanks or pumping surface or groundwater. Where will that water come from? Will potable water supplies be required as backup?
Please send me the UDO comments when they are completed.
I cannot see how one of the largest data centers planned to be built in the United States could be considered light industrial(LI). Please see my slides for questions on zoning and conditional use (CU) requirements to minimize impacts including visual and environmental. The proposed data center does not conform to the intended land use. Sharon Harris NPP as you know is Industrial zone 2 and the developer will need to build substations as part of the data center operations so how can LI-CU be granted?
Email response on September 30, 2025 to Apex Planning Department from Bruce Venable
Good afternoon, Bill,
Thank you so much for sending me all of this information. I have come across similar details during my research on data centers as well. It is invaluable to have educated and informed citizens such as yourself, who are eager to share information and expertise with others.
I do want to point out that this is, of course, a complicated issue. While the use of data centers is not inherently negative, and there is a real need for additional data and cloud storage given our reliance on such technologies, I believe this has created an opportunity for all involved to learn and enhance our understanding of the process and all that it entails as we develop standards and regulations that benefit both our community and future development. Please be assured that nearly everything mentioned in your email is being actively considered and weighed by different Town departments at this time.
Regarding your question about the Light Industrial zoning district, it is currently the only district within the Town’s regulations that would allow for an intensive land use such as a large-format data center. There may be additional conversations about creating another industrial zoning district for uses such as these, but at present, staff’s goal is to establish standards for the use that would limit its overall impact on the land to something comparable to other uses permitted within the existing Light Industrial zoning district.
Again, thank you for your email. As I mentioned before, I will provide you with a copy of the UDO amendment comments once they have been delivered to the applicant. I appreciate your continued patience.
Please feel free to reach out if you have any additional questions.
My Email October 1, 2025 to Shawn Taylor, Information Officer, with NC DEQ Air Quality Division
Thanks for calling me back and great to hear the NC DEQ is getting inquiries from other concerned citizens around the state about proposed data centers. Copied on this email are two other neighbors volunteering to understand the proposed data center in Apex-New Hill.
Here's background information including a link to the application on the data center posted on The Peak Way newsletter: https://thepeakway.com/apex-data-center-explained/
As I mentioned, the developer proposes a conceptual design of 300 megawatts on 190 acres pulling from the grid plus 100 backup diesel generators at 3 MW each making it potentially one of the biggest sites in the U.S. If one site is approved, we believe many more will be allowed as is the experience of centers in Northern Virginia.
I'm glad you showed me there is one data center in Lenoir, NC that has a major source Title V permit operated by Tapaha Dynamics, LLC.
We're wondering if the applicant for the Apex-New Hill Data Center would be required to request an air permit with DEQ (minor or major source) and understand it's their responsibility to apply but they have not done so yet?
Please send me an email link to making a public records request for keeping track of this application and other data centers being proposed in NC.
How is DEQ tracking the related air-quality issue of future data centers increasing energy demands on the grid including from coal generation by Title V sources that could challenge state and federal compliance standards?
Thanks for offering to send me other DEQ contacts in program offices such as for wetlands 401 permitting.
Updated October 8, 2025
Email response from NC DEQ’s Shawn Taylor
Bill,
Thank you for sharing this information with me. I’ve forwarded it along to several folks in DEQ. To answer some of your questions:
This proposed data center has not been in contact with the Division of Air Quality or submitted an air quality permit application.
For large projects like this, DEQ attempts to coordinate with the facility through pre-application meetings and discuss regulatory requirements.
You can submit a public records request using our online form.
You can use DEQ’s Application Tracker online tool to find information about current projects seeking permits from the state.
You can use these resources about air quality applications to track the status of projects seeking an air quality permit.
I’m working to find someone who may be able to answer questions you have about water permitting.
Thanks,
Shawn
Shawn Taylor (he/him)
Interim Deputy Communications Director
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: (919) 707-8446 | Cell: (919) 816-6086
shawn.taylor@deq.nc.gov
Update: October 29, 2005
Over the past month, our Protect Wake County Coalition group developed a list of data center conditions and recommends. While our position for responsible growth means we do not support building data centers in our neighborhood we recognize they are pursing many areas in the state and globally. We hope this list will not only serve our community but other groups and municipalities as well. My focus continues to be on the water section, item 8 below, and I contributed to discussions in all areas of concern.
Here is the Rev. 0 version:
Data-Center Conditions & Recommended Ordinance Elements
For presentation to Town Council & County Commissioners — proposed for a 300 MW Data Center project
Data centers can deliver jobs and tax revenue but also bring significant local impacts (noise, lighting, traffic, water use, air emissions, fire risk, and eventual decommissioning). The Town/County should require a focused, enforceable conditions package — including pre-approval studies, strict operational limits, monitoring, penalties, and developer financial guarantees — before zoning/annexation or use permits are granted.
1. Clarify: data-center definitions, types & sizes
Requirement: Adopt a clear, local definition for “Data Center” and create sub-classifications (e.g., small, medium, large; or Tier-1/Tier-2 zones) tied to maximum gross floor area and permitted uses. Example thresholds you may consider:
Small: ≤ 40,000 sq ft;
Medium (industrial): ≤ 80,000 sq ft;
Large / special data-center zone: ≤ 150,000 sq ft by right; anything larger subject to special use permit/conditional use and community review.[(Engage Albemarle)]
Rationale: Clear definitions avoid loopholes, allow appropriate siting, and enable size-based mitigation rules.
2. Noise — mandatory studies, limits, monitoring & penalties
Requirements (ordinance language suggestions):
Pre-approval: Prior to site plan approval, the applicant must submit a comprehensive pre-construction sound model performed and stamped by a licensed acoustical engineer demonstrating compliance with the local Noise Ordinance for all operating modes (normal operation, generator operation, and testing).
Post-construction verification: Prior to issuance of any Use Permit, the applicant must deliver a post-construction (as-built) noise study showing actual operation meets the modeled limits.
Operational limits: Maximum facility noise (all equipment running at design load) shall not exceed 45 dBA (9:00 PM–6:00 AM) and 55 dBA daytime, and 65 dBC as a low-frequency limit at the property line where adjacent to residential/rural uses — with no exception for routine generator usage. (Local numeric limits may be set to match your county/town code — see Wake County code for format and precedent). (American Legal Publishing)
Monitoring & enforcement: The developer must fund and allow installation of a local government-owned, continuously operating noise monitor (or monitors) at/near the most affected property line(s). Data must be publicly accessible and delivered monthly to the town.
Penalties: Strict, high financial penalties for exceedances. Suggested: a base fine (e.g., $50,000) for any exceedance event plus escalating daily fines for continued non-compliance; for major repeated breaches at night, consider substantially higher penalties ($500K–$1M per day) when exceedances last beyond a cumulative 30 minutes in a 24-hour period (or other locally acceptable metric).
Mitigation technologies: Require low-frequency mitigation (e.g., sound enclosures, acoustic louvers, silencers, vibration isolation, barrier walls) if modeling shows potential to exceed limits. (Goochland County)
Rationale: Data centers frequently use large fans and backup generators that create continuous and low-frequency noise; continuous monitoring plus pre/post studies and strong penalties create enforceable deterrence.
3. Outdoor lighting & light-trespass controls
Requirements:
Zero foot-candle rule at sensitive property lines: When abutting residential/civic/recreational uses require essentially no measurable light at the property line (0.0 fc) or adopt very low max boundary lux/foot-candle values and full cutoff fixtures.
Setback for exterior fixtures: No exterior light sources closer than 50 ft to residential/recreational property lines.
Comprehensive lighting plan: All exterior lighting requires detailed plan (photometric drawings, fixture cut-sheets) and community approval; require full cutoff, downward-aimed fixtures and timers/motion controls. (American Legal Publishing)
Rationale: Reduces glare, preserves night-sky, and protects neighboring residential properties.
4. Building setbacks & buffers
Requirements:
Minimum building setback: 200 ft from the lot line for principal structures.
Equipment setback / screening: All HVAC/cooling/power/generator equipment shall be sited ≥ 300 ft from any lot line or wholly blocked from view by permanent earth berms and vegetative screening.
Residential buffer: Minimum 500 ft buffer from data-center structures to existing residential structures effective on the ordinance adoption date; otherwise require conditional use and more stringent mitigation. (Engage Albemarle)
Rationale: Larger setbacks reduce noise/light/visual and perceived impact; provide room for multiple mitigation measures.
5. Building dimensions & form-based design requirements
Requirements (examples modeled on typical UDO language):
Max height: 48 ft above grade (includes rooftop equipment). (Town UDO reference: Apex/U.D.O. uses similar thresholds for comparably zoned buildings). (apexnc.org)
Maximum footprints: If data-center zoning is created, define maximum gross floor area thresholds per zone (see §1 above).
Façade & entrance design: Require differentiated main entrance, changes in material/pattern every 100 horizontal feet, minimum fenestration/faux-fenestration percentage (e.g., 30%), and prohibited inexpensive siding materials (vinyl, T-111) to reduce institutional, bunker-like appearances. Developer must submit architectural elevations from all lot lines. (Engage Albemarle)
Rationale: Keeps large facilities from becoming visual blights and preserves neighborhood character.
6. Generators — fuel, emissions, testing, enclosures & timing
Requirements:
Fuel hierarchy & emissions: Renewable fuel or low-carbon options required when feasible (on-site bioblend/biodiesel, renewable diesel, or on-site renewables with storage). If liquid-fueled generators are used, they must meet EPA Tier 4 nonroad engine standards and local emissions permitting requirements. Annual exhaust testing (stack testing) to confirm emission limits, with a 60-day repair window or daily fines thereafter; Town may grant one 30-day extension on engineering grounds with manufacturer documentation. (EPA)
Generator enclosures & noise: Level III (or higher) enclosures with acoustic attenuation; generator testing limited to business hours (e.g., 10 AM–4 PM Mon–Fri) unless a validated emergency occurs and with prior notice to neighbors. (AQMD)
Fuel storage & spill containment: All liquid fuel tanks must have secondary containment sized per applicable standards and monitored for leaks.
Fire & water review: Fire Department/Fire Marshal to review required GPM, hydrant distribution and capacity — if insufficient, require developer to fund improvements or demonstrate alternate suppression systems and resources.
Rationale: Generators are the largest local sources of NOx/PM and can run frequently; strict emissions and testing requirements protect air quality and public health.
7. Battery energy storage systems (BESS) & lithium-ion restrictions
Requirements:
No Lithium-ion for UPS/battery backup without written consent of the local Fire Chief and Fire Marshal AND demonstration of required BESS fire suppression and mitigation systems acceptable to local emergency services. If approved, require an approved BESS fire mitigation plan, third-party hazard analysis, and additional financial assurance for remediation. (Local authorities should reference NFPA/OSHA/EPA/BATTERY BESS guidance when evaluating). (NFPA)
Rationale: Lithium-ion fires are unusual, can be extremely hot, toxic, and can reignite; many fire services lack specialized training or equipment.
8. Water: potable use, wastewater, wells & stormwater
Requirements:
Public utilities: Data center must connect to public water and sewer where available (no new reliance on private wells for potable water). (Engage Albemarle)
Regional Wells: Developer provides funding to Wake County for funding USGS or equivalent qualified group to update data and models including an inventory and sampling/analysis of water wells located onsite and for at least a five mile radius to determine aquifer vulnerability. Update USGS models to include surface water-groundwater transient models simulating anticipated conditions before and after development to estimate changes to infiltration, water levels, storage, and runoff including onsite and impacts to community wells. (Wake County website) (USGS)
Onsite wells: The Town of Apex and Wake County will determine if current onsite wells must be capped and monitored to prevent contamination. Developer will provide new test wells as needed to determine location of diabase dikes that increase groundwater permeability compared to surrounding soil.
No potable water for evaporative cooling: Prohibit use of potable water for evaporative cooling; require closed-loop or reclaimed/recycled water systems for any water used in cooling.
Cooling-Water testing: Wastewater used for cooling is tested and if needed treated to remove contaminants (e.g. biocides, corrosion inhibitors, metals, PFAS, TDS) prior to use to limit producing smog and other pollutants from evaporation. Periodic (annual) testing of effluent and neighboring water, soil and groundwater for contaminants; if contaminants exceed detection limits or thresholds, require mitigation and remediation plan funded by developer. (USGS and federal studies show PFAS are a real groundwater concern). (USGS) (2nd reference)
Infrastructure financing: Developer pays for any water/wastewater infrastructure upgrades required to support the facility (including easement procurement).
Stormwater & retention: Developer must provide onsite retention/infiltration sized for 100-year storms per local standards and provide engineered plans for wastewater and spill containment.
Rationale: Protects public water supplies and sensitive groundwater from contamination and avoids imposing cleanup costs on residents.
9. Cooling systems & chemical controls
Requirements:
Closed-loop preference: Any water-based cooling must be closed-loop or use captured/recycled water with strict discharge controls; unpermitted releases subject to large civil penalties.
Acidification mitigation: If evaporative cooling is used, require monitoring and chemical controls to avoid acid formation and monitoring of local air impacts.
Rationale: Water use and chemical additives in cooling can have both local water resource and air quality impacts.
10. Renewable energy & onsite generation targets
Requirements:
Require a minimum percentage (e.g., 10–25%) of facility electrical load to be supplied by onsite renewables (solar or other) or by contractually secured renewable energy.
Require that backup generator biodiesel blends or renewable fuels be used where feasible (and demonstrated in a cost-benefit analysis).
Rationale: Reduces local air emissions and aligns the facility with community climate resilience goals.
11. Testing, lifecycle & emissions modeling (mandatory technical submittals)
Requirements: Applicant must provide:
Comprehensive life-cycle assessment (embodied + operational carbon; IT and infrastructure);
Operational emissions modeling (energy use, carbon intensity, CUE/CUE modeling scenarios, generator burn rates under test/emergency scenarios);
Air dispersion & health risk modeling (AERMOD or equivalent) for normal, test, and emergency generator operation with proposed mitigation technologies modeled (SCR, DPF, DOC, etc.). (AQMD)
Rationale: Transparent, independent modeling lets decision-makers and residents evaluate air quality and greenhouse gas impacts.
12. Tax & incentives policy
Recommendation: If state incentives already apply, do not offer additional local tax abatements or incentives unless (a) a transparent cost-benefit analysis justifies them and (b) benefits are tied to enforceable local commitments (local hiring, continuing community benefits, guaranteed decommissioning bonds, etc.).
Rationale: Avoid giving away local revenue for projects whose community cost is uncertain.
13. Decommissioning & demolition financial assurance
Requirements:
For projects with an estimated cost > $100M, require a demolition / decommissioning bond or escrow sized to cover full demolition plus site remediation should the owner default.
Require a decommissioning plan and timeline, plus procedures for remediation of environmental contamination discovered at closure. Also reference state CDBG Demolition program rules and typical local matching requirements if town intends to apply for state/federal demolition funds. (EDPNC)
Rationale: Protects taxpayers from bearing cleanup/demolition costs if the developer abandons the site.
14. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) & public process
Requirement: A full EIS using the facility’s exact specifications, with public comment period, public hearings, and independent review of key technical reports (noise, air, water, traffic, economic impact). Make permit issuance contingent on EIS approval.
Rationale: Large facilities have community-wide impacts that warrant full environmental review.
15. Cost–benefit & damage quantification (independent review)
Requirements: Town/County shall commission an independent cost-benefit and fiscal impact study (paid for by the applicant or by the town with applicant reimbursement) to quantify: tax revenue, utility system costs, infrastructure upgrade costs, traffic impacts, noise/sound mitigation costs, potential property value impacts, and emergency service costs. Developer submissions must be peer-reviewed.
Rationale: Ensures decisions are based on objective, independently verified numbers.
16. Utilities & annexation terms
Requirements: If annexation/zoning or use of town utilities is requested:
All electric, water and sewer infrastructure upgrades required to serve the site are paid for by the developer (including substation upgrades); substation ownership shall be determined by the town prior to approval.
All utility easements and rights necessary to serve the site must be granted to the town by the landowner, using town easement language without modification unless approved by town counsel and the utility manager.
Rationale: Prevents the town from absorbing capital costs and clarifies long-term operations and rate impacts on residents.
Implementation checklist (enforcement & public protection)
Recommend the ordinance include mechanisms for: permit revocation, daily monetary fines for non-compliance, independent third-party auditors for technical studies, town-owned continuous monitoring of noise/air, mandatory annual compliance reports, and community grievance/response procedures.
Sources & selected legal/technical references (key citations used)
Albemarle County — Read the Draft Ordinance: Data Center Regulations (examples of tiered size/permitted use and special use triggers). (Engage Albemarle)
Wake County Code — Chapter 92: Noise (Noise Pollution Ordinance) (for example ordinance structure and measurement approach). (American Legal Publishing)
Goochland County / Technology Overlay District — recent change lowering noise limits to 55 dBA and adding 65 dBC low-frequency limit at the property line (illustrative precedent for strict boundary limits). (Goochland County)
EPA — Tier 4 standards and nonroad diesel engine regulation overview (applicable standard for generator emissions). (EPA)
South Coast AQMD — emergency generator permitting and source test guidance (practical model for local stack testing, scheduling and limits). (AQMD)
USGS — PFAS occurrence & tap water studies and interactive dashboard (supports periodic groundwater/effluent PFAS monitoring requirement). (USGS)
NC Department of Commerce / CDBG Demolition Program — description of state demolition funding and local matching requirements (relevant to decommissioning/demolition bonds). (NC Commerce)
Apex, NC — Unified Development Ordinance and Table of Intensity & Dimensional Standards (useful local template for height/setback wording). (apexnc.org) (Wake County website)
NFPA / OSHA / EPA materials on lithium-ion battery hazards and emergency response guidance (supporting conservative BESS restrictions and Fire Marshal review). (NFPA)
At the October 28 Town of Apex Council meeting, several speakers spoke out about their concerns with the proposed data center. Here’s the meeting on YouTube starting at minute 0:35.
Patrick Campbell, who works in industry, provided the PWCC Rev 0 document and generally stated (paraphrased), “we request data centers be zoned under their own ordinance, their own zoning, it’s not fair to have light industrial obey ordinances meant for data centers, like having a tap station using the same rules as a lemonade stand.”
Terry Ganley, a retired school principal, shared her concerns when hearing about hazards of responding to data center fires which brought back memories of 9/11. What does responsible growth look like to her? “We already have incredible developments approved by you, a world renowned children’s hospital and innovative higher-education campus. Why not build on that momentum? Imagine a medical supply warehouse, medical offices to support doctors, a reasonably priced hotel, a Ronald McDonald House for families visiting those sick children…”
Lee Howell shared his professional experience as a mechanical engineer working on NIH HVAC chiller systems that evaporates about 38 million gallons per year which pales in comparison to that of the data center proposal, in which an estimated one million gallons will be used per day and about one-third will evaporate (roughly 122 million gallons per year). They will need to use both reclaimed and potable water along with numerous chemicals including biocides and filtration processes to remove fecal coliform, prevent algae formation, and if not treated properly could potentially spread deadly aerosolized Legionella bacteria into the atmosphere.
Jason Wadsworth owns a landscaping business. He and his family live near old Highway One across from the proposed data center location where his two daughters catch the school bus. They are very concerned about heavy traffic especially during construction. The topographic map shows water will drain from the proposed site down to the adjacent lakes, he asked, “so what about runoff and groundwater contamination as we use well water? …Who’s going to remediate pollution, the town or the county? You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of reality.”
Derek O’Neill, a cloud engineer, stated the economics of AI are simple: on one hand you have machines that produce words, images and videos and on the other hand you have companies that pay for these products. AI companies are spending $220 billion per year due to speculative investments but the buyers of these products are only spending $20 billion per year. Even if revenues grow ten times over the next five years, that is equal to the expected lifetime of the data center’s hardware. He said MIT estimates only 5% of AI rollouts meet their revenue targets, and there have been many public failures. The amount of investment into AI infrastructure cannot continue at the same pace.hen the market ultimately crashes, we will be left with a glut of abandoned data centers across the country that provide no revenue but are financial and environmental liabilities.
Salahudeen Sulthan, an HR manager, reflected on the developer’s presentation to the 10/16/25 Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) (starting at 17 minutes) where they proposed to use one million gallons of water per day and about one third would be evaporated and two-thirds would be sent back to the facility. The annual loss of water to the Cape Fear River is about 122 million gallons per year which will impact downstream users including wildlife and people. “Is there going to be a legal impact?” he asked.
Devin Hedge, who owns a sustainable energy technology company, focused on data center development said his theme is “Not this data center, not yet.” Duke Power plans to extend the life of three coal fired power plants due to the increase in demand for electricity from data centers for at least the next ten years to allow for new generation capacity. This developer also got several issues confused at the EAB meeting including stating closed systems would be used with reclaimed water when both are not possible in combination.
Ralph Ripper, a Raleigh Fire Captain, gave an update to his previous testimony to the Town of Apex focused on fire suppression systems. He is doubtful that a data center fire could be extinguished successfully. Additionally, a fire could lead to a potential environmental disaster. One issue is the size and routes of water mains and locations of hydrants.
David Pfeiffer, an IT project manager, expressed his profound disappointment with the Apex Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) voting to approve zoning conditions despite the developer’s very poor presentation and lack of responding to questions by board members. EAB did not have enough information to make an informed decision on general zoning conditions and did not consider all the environmental impacts. The EAB should have deferred the vote to gather much more information until the end user and developer define the specifications.
Michelle Hoffner O’Connor, a Ph.D. molecular biologist and clinical development scientist, who believes the process was not carried out in good faith by the EAB. She stated direct quotes from the meeting that indicate some EAB members do not believe their input is valuable to the process and that the 6-3 vote was based on incomplete information. She asked Mayor Gilbert to speak to the EAB members, evaluate their commitment, and, if needed, ask for their resignation from the board so other more capable people could serve the community with passion.
Barbara Collins, a retiree from Duke University as Director of Strategic Initiatives, spoke next to her adorable “little princess” granddaughter Charlotte. Barbara wore a white shirt on which she wrote “No Data Center Apex”. She compared the advent of AI data centers to when she attended college and electric typewriters were considered innovative technology. “Best available technology has not come to fruition - we’re at the typewriter stage of data centers.” She is not a fan of rezoning by stating that once land is zoned with a purpose, that’s a commitment to the community. But rezoning is changing the past promise which will result in a future different than we originally wanted. She asked, “Where is such a proposed data center of similar size and magnitude working well? What is an example of a well working data center? I don’t know; I hope you do.” She also asked who cares about a lawsuit? It is worth spending $5 million to get out as it will cost more in the long run. The economy favors “No data center.” Her overall message was, “Not now, maybe some day” - but until the best available technology takes care of many detrimental issues expressed by the previous speakers, she said the council has all the information they need to reject the application.
DRAFT LETTER in progress that I may send to elected officials with copies to news outlets)
I am sure it’s not news to you that our democracy - government of the people and for the people - is under attack. We are being threatened by an authoritarian Executive Branch supported by tech billionaires disregarding our system of norms and laws that protect our “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” The fight for democracy is taking to the streets as witnessed during the No Kings protest marches nationwide.
Big Tech donors contributed millions to the 2024 inauguration and the White House ballroom project that demolished the East Wing starting at night. They are spending billions on acquisition of land for new artificial intelligence (AI) hyperscale data centers. This major federal action should have, in my opinion, invoked the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). But wait, the is being revoked by Executive Order (reference 1). There is not one federal agency managing the AI hyperscalers which involves many agencies. Unfortunately, each town and state in America must expend resources to evaluate individual proposals and determine impacts based on vague applications and undefined end users. At the same time many of our environmental protections are being abolished, which has already started to and will continue to affect our health.
While I am not a lawyer, I am expressing my personal views as an environmental scientist with over 40 years experience focusing on water quality issues and managing NEPA projects nationwide. We chose to move here from Colorado to the Apex-New Hill community at Jordan Manors based on the excellent public schools, proximity to health care, RDU airport hub, and rural feel close to lakes and woodlands. I have been a resident of New Hill (2556 Finkle Grant Drive) since 2022, and joined a safety committee for the HOA to discuss roads, traffic, and the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
I felt very surprised when I attended the first presentation by the developer (Natelli Investors) on August 19 and that the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) had already provided preliminary comments. I became a founding member of the Protect Wake County Coalition (PWCC; i.e., the red shirts) seeking to better understand the proposed development and potential impacts on the community, who prioritized responsible growth. After attending a planning staff meeting on September 18, I provided several comments to Apex staff for the proposed rezoning from residential to light industrial and potential requirements for the ordinance update.
On September 28, I gave a presentation at the New Hill Community Center on the environmental impacts and the rezoning proposal. One of our biggest concerns is the vague conceptual plan by the developer with undisclosed details on resource demands as well as the potential for initiating a data center corridor as is occurring in Virginia. Several leaders attended the meeting including at least one person on the EAB who said for us to work with the planning staff. I continued to reach out to the planning department. The PWCC thought we had much more time to develop our recommendations.
On October 14, Bruce Venable from the Planning Department wrote to me the following:
“I wanted to share the initial staff comments on the Data Storage Facility UDO amendment proposed by the applicant. This represents the first of several anticipated reviews, and we expect further discussion and negotiation. As such, these suggestions are preliminary and may be revised as the process moves forward.”
However, two days later, the Natelli developer group gave an opaque, sales presentation and after discussion the EAB immediately voted to approve the recommendation for the environmentally-driven rezoning conditions! Obviously this application is too hot to handle! See the developer’s presentation and EAB discussion at the 10/16/25 Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) meeting (starting at minute 0:17).
This is outrageous! The developer could not answer many of the questions posed by the board. In addition, we did not hear any concerns expressed by the EAB in association with many unanswered questions; these include those I posed to the planning staff, such as site investigations and potential construction impacts. No public comments were allowed before the vote by six men for and three women (including the chairperson) against the motion. The video provided by the town cut off when several people voiced their outrage. This is not democracy in action!
At the Town council meeting on October 28 (on YouTube starting at minute 0:35), eleven citizens spoke about their concerns with the proposed data center application. The PWCC provided a rushed version of conditions and recommendations that should have been considered by the EAB, planning staff and town council. Two of 11 speakers specifically discussed the EAB debacle providing comments without discussion or getting feedback:
David Pfeiffer, an IT project manager, expressed his profound disappointment with the Apex Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) voting to approve zoning conditions despite the developer’s very poor presentation and lack of response to questions by EAB members. As no end user has been identified, the EAB did not have enough information to make an informed decision on general zoning conditions and did not consider all the environmental impacts, particularly with respect to commitment(s) to renewables. The EAB should have deferred the vote to gather much more information until the end user and developer define the specifications.
Michelle Hoffner O’Connor, a Ph.D. molecular biologist and clinical development scientist, who believes the process was not carried out in good faith by the EAB. She stated direct quotes from the meeting that indicate some EAB members do not believe their input is valuable to the process and that the 6-3 vote was based on incomplete information. She asked Mayor Gilbert to speak to the EAB members, evaluate their commitment, and, if needed, ask for their resignation from the board so other more capable people could serve the community with passion.
After the Town Council meeting, that included Bruce Venable discussing UDOs for other issues, I spoke to Bruce about the EAB process and he suggested I reach out to you. Why did the EAB bypass the planning staff efforts to negotiate environmental conditions for the UDO?
I am new to local government so please forgive me if I misunderstand the process- I know Mr. Mayor that you are an advocate for transparency and this process cannot be treated like an invisible hot potato!
I implore you to take action to organize two-way conversations to restore our local democracy to allow for community input. As I said, the fight for democracy is taking to the streets. I cannot predict what comes next for our group of over 3000 people who signed the petition stating Apex-New Hill is not the location to place hyperscale industrial facilities next to neighborhoods. Peace be with you,
Bill Dam
Reference:
White House Fact Sheet, June 30, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/06/fact-sheet-president-trump-is-delivering-historic-permitting-wins-across-the-federal-government/
“The White House, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), coordinated a historic effort to dramatically reduce the burdens of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance across the Federal government so that America can get back to building again.”
Update November 10, 2025
I’ve not sent the draft letter shown above as I’m needing more information and leverage for supporting my concerns. Several activities are keeping me busy on the data center topic including leading a tour of the wastewater treatment plant to learn more about how reclaimed water might be used for cooling data center hardware. Here’s some emails between the Town of Cary manager Josh Cummings, operating the plant and Town of Apex’s water manager Jonathan Jacobs as a partner sharing the plant resources:
Hello Josh:
On behalf of myself and four other neighbors, I want to extend our thanks and appreciation to you and your staff for the outstanding tour last Friday of the WWRWRF. Spending about 3.5 hours, you gave us a short course on Wastewater Treatment 101 so I could probably pass the WW-1 test now! These are important issues to the adjacent Jordan Pointe and Jordan Manors communities to learn how much progress is being made to improve technology and decrease issues like odors. We're also interested to learn more about plans for upgrades including the clarifier structure with membrane technology.
I'm glad Jonathan and his colleagues from the Town of Apex could also join us to discuss the proposed use of reclaimed water to supply cooling water for a future potential data center complex. We're trying to become better informed citizens and not alarmists sharing objective information with our 6,000 neighbors in the growing New Hill community.
Can your department please share any insights or data calculations supporting the developer's proposal to build a 300 megawatt data center using up to one million gallons per day of which an estimated one-third will be lost to evaporation? This could be an underestimate of their actual requirements as I've seen estimates ranging up to about 3 million gallons per day (mgpd) as reported by WRAL: "Industry estimates show a 250-megawatt data center can use about a billion gallons of water each year, or 2.7 million gallons a day." https://www.wral.com/news/local/ai-data-center-water-supply-september-2025/
Even one-third of mgpd adds up quickly to about 122 million gallons lost per year. How does this comply with the Town of Cary's Water Conservation and Demand Management Policy 111? Is there an upper limit to how much reclaimed water could be supplied if this site grows or more data centers are proposed for the area? Is there a written agreement so far made with the developer and the Town of Cary?
Please let us know if there are opportunities to discuss these topics at future meetings.
All the Best,
Bill Dam
Josh replied:
Dear Mr. Dam,
It was a pleasure to meet you and your neighbors, and we greatly appreciate your taking time to learn more about our operation at Western Wake Regional Water Reclamation Facility. With respect to the data center project in Apex, it’s very early in the Apex Plan Review process. You’ve asked some great questions, and this is exactly why both Cary and Apex have comprehensive development review procedures. As the process continues to evolve, these important considerations will be evaluated very carefully by a team of experts. I would advise staying engaged with the Apex development review process and we will stay engaged as well. We’ll have better information to share with you on specifics as the process progresses.
Best regards,
Josh
Jonathan replied on November 6,
Bill - I apologize for the delay. I was out of the office the first part of this week. I have responded to your questions below in Bold.
Let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you!
Can your department please share any insights or data calculations supporting the developer's proposal to build a 300 megawatt data center using up to one million gallons per day of which an estimated one-third will be lost to evaporation? This could be an underestimate of their actual requirements as I've seen estimates ranging up to about 3 million gallons per day (mgpd) as reported by WRAL: "Industry estimates show a 250-megawatt data center can use about a billion gallons of water each year, or 2.7 million gallons a day." https://www.wral.com/news/local/ai-data-center-water-supply-september-2025/ The quantities quoted in the article to not match what information that has been formally submitted to the Town, which is the most accurate and official information that staff can confirm for you. As noted during our discussion, all discussions with the applicant have been limited to no greater than 1 million gallons per day. Since this is a rezoning, staff has not received any formal permit applications which determine the maximum flow based on what has been reviewed and approved. If the rezoning is approved, the applicant would submit a site plan for review and approval by the planning department, after no further comments from the entire technical review committee. Once the Site Plan has been approved, meaning it is compliant with the conditional rezoning and unified development ordinance, the applicant will submit full construction drawings which is when the infrastructure, capacity, profiles, etc. are reviewed by Water Resources. This is also when the utility permit applications will be submitted, water modeling is explored, and wastewater design and capacities are finalized. The permits will specify the permitted allowance of both water and wastewater, including a pre-treatment requirement to meet our and Cary's Sewer Use Ordinance.
Even one-third of mgpd adds up quickly to about 122 million gallons lost per year. How does this comply with the Town of Cary's Water Conservation and Demand Management Policy 111? Is there an upper limit to how much reclaimed water could be supplied if this site grows or more data centers are proposed for the area? Is there a written agreement so far made with the developer and the Town of Cary? Since this is a Town of Apex project, it would not be applicable to follow the Town of Cary's policies, with the exception of their Sewer Use Ordinance/Pretreatment requirements. There will be no agreements directly between the Town of Cary and the applicant. All permits and approvals will be done by the Town of Apex. Western Wake is a co-owned facility by Apex and Cary, with Cary being the majority owner and lead agency operating the facility on our behalf. The Town of Cary is involved in our review process for projects that affect co-owned infrastructure, and our approval includes their review also. We have been very firm on the maximum allowance of both domestic (none outside of restrooms and emergency conditions, to be defined in a legal agreement) and reclaimed water. Limits on reclaimed are in spirt of our agreements with drown stream partners to ensure our intended flow is provided to meet their long-range plans for the Cape Fear River.
Subsequent to these emails I’m corresponding with a Haw River Assembly organizer who is concerned about water issues:
I got a responses after visiting the water treatment plant from managers in Apex and Cary. They are gathering very minimal data from the data center developer - in my opinion- prior to rezoning and saying they will get more design details if the land is rezoned as light industrial.
The Apex manager said they don’t need to follow Cary’s water conservation plan but failed to share the Apex ordinance described in 2023 Water Shortage Response Plan. This appears to deal only with outdoor landscape irrigation.
You’re the only knowledgeable person I know to share these water issues with and I appreciate your advice and suggestions!
Thanks,
Bill
Update November 13, 2025
Last night our community packed a meeting room with 100 people who were allowed inside to meet with the data center developers as reported by Christian Hendricks (email) with the Holly Springs Update. We have the audio of the meeting transcribed and here’s what I had to say as speaker 22:
“Speaker 22 55:56
So let's thank you for you know, coming here tonight, we've had a lot of questions. A lot of us had questions. We've been working hard. Been working hard to understand what's happening. We wish you had been able to meet with us before the Environmental Advisory Board meeting, where that was a one-way conversation. We give one-way conversations to the Town Council, but we don't get any feedback. This really is the first good interaction we've had, except the first meeting that you had, about 20 of us showed up. It was announced the same day, pretty much. And so one question I have is, in the future, if you could show, you know, the 1000s of homes that are around this site, because you're really not showing our neighborhood at all. You're not showing the impacted community or affected community. Got a lot of questions about how you came up with it being called a digital campus, because everything you've mentioned tonight is called data center. It's not a digital campus, unless you're going to offer courses, university courses, or something that's related to a campus, not a digital campus, right? I don't know how you came up with that name. I would love to know you mentioned about sound, human hearing. There's other animals, there's wildlife that have to be with more sensitive hearing. Tell us how you're going to deal with the animals, how you're going to deal with pets, how you're going to deal with wildlife, how are you going to deal with there's a lot of issues here. We're going to focus tonight on sound, but please tell us you're not just thinking about our ears.”
The sound engineer Jeff Szymanski with Ramboll (from Kansas) said, “As far as wildlife is concerned, that would be out of my that's out of my area of expertise. I deal with sound impacts to humans. Is my, is my specialty. So you know, wildlife impacts and those types of things. Those are, those are biological. There's biological specialists that would get involved in this project, were that to become an issue like what we've talked about, we're creating a more robust sound ordinance, and so I appreciate that comment, like, we will take that that's not something that isn't in a typical ordinance, but we'll take that and we'll, we'll think about it and figure out how we can try to address that concern.”
I continued with my questions. “Normally, by the way, this could be a national issue. National Environmental Policy Act requires, when there's a major federal action, we are required to do an environmental impact statement. There is not one being done. This is being pushed through by the administration, pushed through by the state we're being and, by the way, who's paying for AI? Who's going to be paying for, you know, Google, if you do a Google search, it's coming up with AI. If Facebook is now saying, Do you want to do an AI assisted message, everything is AI these days, AI buzzwords. So who's paying for that, not the users? We're going to be paying for it with the data center coming to our neighborhood. And so you have to understand that this was not part of the town's vision to have a 300 megawatt data center. That was not what they envisioned when they're talking about light industrial what they're talking about is a community, something that would help us, like something that's going to help the hospital, something that's going to help doctors, medical professionals. So it just is important to understand we live in a community here. We bought homes, we have families, we have pets, we have wildlife. We love the birds. We love the animals. You're not even thinking about that. And don't tell me that it can't be only if the town wants it in the ordinance, which we don't have a sound ordinance. You guys got to be doing environment impact statement or not, it's got to be a much bigger thought. And if you're really thinking about. Said, caring about the community, you really have to be understanding this is we're looking at environmental impacts, not only human health. The other question I had was, evaporative air is going to 1/3 it's like 244 million gallons per year that's going to be evaporated. Where does that water go? It's become smog. You're going to be creating smog from these evaporative generators, right? And so where does that become the Biohazard? There's a lot of issues. Just rely on evaporating wastewater and putting it into the atmosphere. That affects our community.”
The Developer Michael Natelli said, “Thanks. And yeah, there's a lot to answer there, and maybe we should like meet with you separately to go through all those things it's hard to like.”
Developer’s consultant Kraig Walsleben with Rodgers Consulting said: “Treatment facility comes onto site. It gets polished on site yet again, so that it's pure water, because they can't put anything through the cooling system that has any kind of contaminants in it. So it gets polished on site, sent through the evaporative cooling system, and then back out again in terms of chemicals that may be added to it. I don't have that answer, because that is dependent on each specific end user has a different process. So once we know more on the end user, we can answer that question. But to build on what was mentioned earlier, we're not evaporating off wastewater, it's water that's been cleaned up, the plant been brought on site, polished up.”
So we have a major disagreement on the water issues. My number of “244 million gallons per year” was based on higher usage numbers reported previous by WRAL. "Industry estimates show a 250-megawatt data center can use about a billion gallons of water each year, or 2.7 million gallons a day." If one million gallons are used and one third are evaporated that’s about 122 million gallons per year.
The article by Christian Hendricks stated unanswered questions include:
“Whether Apex will adopt A-weighted, C-weighted, or dual noise limits, and at what levels.
Actual modeling results for homes, schools, and wildlife areas.
Details of comparable data centers developed by the team.
A clear explanation of polishing and associated chemicals.
Water-use projections tied to climate conditions.
Wildlife-impact assessments.
Any mechanism to insulate residents from potential grid-related rate impacts.
What began as a noise meeting made one thing clear: noise is only the beginning of the debate.
The developers say they will return with more information and in a larger room. The residents made equally clear: they will return, too.”
Update November 18, 2025
Received this followup email from Bruce with the Apex Planning Department:
Hi Bill,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The applicant is still working on how to incorporate the feedback provided on their UDO amendment application. I believe I sent you a copy of the first draft last month. We anticipate they will either submit revisions to the proposed language or remove certain standards and include them as zoning conditions with their rezoning application. At this time, however, I do not have any additional updates to share.
Regarding the EAB: the applicant will review the requested zoning conditions and, in their next submittal, will provide a list of the environmental conditions they are proposing.
They have not resubmitted as of today (11/18/2025), but I anticipate receiving their next submittal during the first week of December. Please feel free to check in with me around that time, and I should be able to provide more information.
I also want to remind you that there will be a joint Planning Board and Town Council Work Session on January 22, 2026, to discuss the Data Center. I do not believe public comment will be taken at this meeting, but you are welcome to attend and listen. It may also be broadcast, and I will follow up to confirm that for you.
Thanks again for reaching out!
Update December 21, 2025
Recently, over 200 environmental groups signed a letter to Congress demanding a stop to data center development nationwide. Several national and statewide groups signed on including these groups from North Carolina and as a result myself and another person composed the following email:
Dear 350 Triangle Leadership Team, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Center for Progressive Reform, NC Climate Justice Collective, NC Environmental Justice Organization, NC WARN, and River Guardian Foundation
We greatly appreciate your organization’s leadership and activism, including endorsing the December 8th letter to Congress signed by more than 200 environmental groups calling for a national moratorium on data center development. That letter powerfully underscores what communities across North Carolina are now experiencing firsthand: data centers are expanding faster than environmental safeguards, energy planning, and public oversight can keep pace.
We are a volunteer, community based coalition in the western Raleigh area town of Apex (including New Hill), North Carolina, working to stop the rezoning and approval of a proposed 300 megawatt hyperscale data center immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods, rural lands, and sensitive environmental resources. To put this in perspective, this single facility would require approximately three times the electricity currently used by the entire Town of Apex.
While this proposal is being framed as a local zoning matter, its impacts extend far beyond town boundaries. The scale of this project raises urgent concerns about energy consumption, water use, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, climate emissions, emergency preparedness, and environmental justice, making it a matter of statewide and regional importance.
The proposed site lies within the Cape Fear River Basin, a watershed already under increasing stress from development, nutrient loading, and climate driven droughts and flooding. Large data centers introduce multiple environmental risks, including:
Massive water demand for cooling, often drawing from stressed surface waters or aquifers
Thermal and chemical discharge risks to nearby streams and downstream ecosystems
Land clearing and habitat fragmentation, threatening local wildlife corridors and biodiversity
Stormwater runoff and erosion from large impervious surfaces
In addition, the project relies on extensive diesel backup generators and lithium-ion battery storage systems, creating risks of air pollution, fuel spills, toxic runoff, fire, and emergency response challenges particularly troubling given the site’s proximity to homes, wells, and ecologically sensitive areas. Local emergency services are not currently equipped or staffed to respond to large scale battery fires or prolonged generator operation events.
From a climate and energy perspective, the proposed facility would lock in decades of extraordinary electricity demand, likely increasing reliance on fossil fuel generation and grid expansion at a time when North Carolina communities are being asked to conserve energy and transition to cleaner sources. This imbalance raises serious questions about who benefits from this development and who bears the environmental and health burdens.
We are also deeply concerned about the precedent this project would set. Approving a 300-MW data center in a semi rural, residential adjacent area under zoning not intended for heavy industrial use opens the door for similar projects across North Carolina without adequate environmental review, cumulative impact analysis, or public accountability.
In response, community members quickly organized the Protect Wake County Coalition, establishing a website and public outreach platforms to educate residents and decision makers. Since August, we have:
Collected over 3,700 petition signatures from concerned residents
Delivered public comments and expert informed testimony at town council and community meetings
Raised awareness about regulatory gaps, environmental risks, and long term land use consequences
Given our shared concerns and goals, we believe there is a meaningful opportunity to collaborate. We would welcome the chance to connect with your organization’s point of contact on data center, energy, or land use issues to:
Share research, data, and policy analysis
Coordinate advocacy and public education efforts
Elevate this issue as part of a broader, statewide conversation about responsible development
Explore joint letters, statements, or expert engagement
Our community’s fight reflects a much larger question facing North Carolina: Will short term corporate interests dictate land use, energy consumption, and environmental risk—or will we prioritize sustainable development that protects people, ecosystems, and future generations?
Thank you for your leadership and for considering collaboration in this critical effort. We look forward to the opportunity to work together to protect North Carolina’s communities and natural resources.
Sincerely,
Protect Wake County Coalition
Facebook Page
