The debate over data centers in American communities has reached a fever pitch, but cooler heads are now pushing back against what they call unnecessary alarm.
Writing in The Hill, Pacific Legal Foundation’s Josh T. Smith and Megan Jenkins argue that data centers are simply a new industrial challenge requiring practical solutions, not panic.
Smith, the senior fellow for abundance and environment and natural resources at Pacific Legal Foundation, and Jenkins, PLF’s strategic research director, say the hand-wringing is disproportionate to the actual problem.
Data centers are large facilities that consume significant amounts of electricity and require cooling systems, with water and power representing the two primary engineering challenges operators must address.
The authors acknowledge these are real concerns, but point out that major industries like steelmaking and computer chip fabrication far outstrip data center water use by any serious measure.
Rather than treating data centers as an unprecedented threat, Smith and Jenkins argue they should be handled the way America handles every other major industrial operation that enters a community.
Their proposed approach is deliberately unglamorous: require transparency, make companies pay their own way, and apply existing legal frameworks that already govern industrial neighbors.
The authors specifically argue that bans and moratoria on data centers ignore far more effective tools already available to communities concerned about noise, congestion, and resource consumption.
Existing nuisance law, they note, already provides legal protection for neighborhoods seeking to preserve peace and quiet without resorting to outright prohibition of new facilities.
The piece closes with a pointed appeal to American pragmatism, with the authors writing that “America has never moved forward by fleeing in terror every time a new technology demanded a bigger plug.”
Smith and Jenkins insist that transparency requirements and established legal principles are sufficient to protect communities while still allowing infrastructure development to proceed.
Their argument reflects a broader debate in U.S. policy circles over how aggressively local governments should restrict data center construction amid surging demand driven by artificial intelligence workloads.
The authors frame the solution as both protective and constructive, arguing communities can “demand that big tech pays its bar tab, and build the future” simultaneously.
Their conclusion places faith in what they call proven American institutions rather than reactive legislation driven by fear of an unfamiliar technology.
