Core Scientific navigates permitting and local governance dynamics in North Dakota for data center expansions, emphasizing community input and transparent oversight.
As former chair of the Dakota Resource Council, which works with communities facing proposed or existing data centers, I read Terry Effertz's recent guest piece with interest. While we agree that transparency, genuine local input, and skepticism of proposals are essential—and that local zoning is central to North Dakota's future—I must respectfully challenge her claim that the industry is "actually doing this work."
The effort she describes includes data center industry representatives and members of TechND, whose core champions include Applied Digital, Core Scientific, Dakota Carrier Network, Geronimo Power, Midco, and Microsoft. The collaborative "model ordinance" they have produced is not a victory for local democracy. It is a preemptive defensive strike designed to give industry a predictable path to government approval.
True local control requires county commissioners and township boards to treat this model as a bare-minimum floor, not a ceiling. North Dakotans have already witnessed model ordinances—such as the concentrated animal feeding operation framework—become embedded in state law through measures like Senate Bill 2174 from the 2025 legislative session, progressively weakening local authority over industrial facility siting. The same risk exists here. The industry template contains three fatal flaws.
**First, the "by-right" fast track silences neighbors.** The model allows data centers to bypass public hearings if they locate in general industrial zones. A data center, however, is not a typical warehouse—it is a massive, resource-intensive facility with countywide impacts. No project over one megawatt should receive automatic approval. Communities must require conditional use permits and public hearings for every facility, regardless of zoning classification.
**Second, the "ghost town" risk leaves taxpayers exposed.** The industry model says nothing about what happens when a crypto or AI venture fails, relocates, or becomes obsolete. Rural North Dakota has seen this pattern before with extractive industries. If a company abandons a massive, windowless concrete shell, taxpayers should not bear demolition or cleanup costs. Communities must require upfront decommissioning bonds, ensuring developers—not local taxpayers—pay for future site restoration.
**Third, toothless noise and resource enforcement offers no real protection.** The template relies on pre-construction acoustic reports signed by the developer's engineers. Paper promises do not prevent a 24/7 low-frequency hum from disrupting nearby livestock, farm families, and rural residents. Communities must require continuous third-party monitoring at the property line, backed by automatic daily fines and immediate shutdown provisions for violations.
Our broader concern involves protecting local water resources and electrical grid capacity. These mega-projects consume enormous amounts of North Dakota's water and electricity. Our aquifers and electrical grid should serve local agriculture, residents, and existing businesses before powering hyperscale data demands.
The Dakota Resource Council welcomes economic growth, but only on North Dakota's terms. County commissioners writing their AI zoning ordinances should not let an industry-promulgated model establish a maximum ceiling—treat it instead as a bare-minimum floor. Take the industry's model ordinance, rip it open, and insert the structural guardrails necessary to protect your communities, your taxpayers, and your way of life.