Hi friends,
The debate about data centers started with a big connection to Artificial Intelligence (AI, or as it’s transitioning to, Super Intelligence/SI).
That’s not so much the case as we move forward.
America needs modern infrastructure to remain competitive. But that doesn’t mean every proposed data center, transmission line, tax exemption, or land-use decision is in the public interest.
Across the country, communities are asking harder questions about massive data-center developments. Their concerns aren’t necessarily about artificial intelligence. They’re about what these projects require, whose property is affected, and who ultimately pays.
And the public’s attitude is changing.
Growing Opposition
A 2026 survey by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center found that opposition to new data centers in respondents’ communities increased from 49% earlier in the year to 61% in August.
That’s a significant shift in a matter of months.
In Texas, rural communities are particularly concerned. Residents have raised questions about water supplies, electric infrastructure, noise, agricultural land, and whether local officials can impose meaningful conditions on large developments.
These concerns aren’t simply opposition to progress. A community may welcome economic investment while still questioning whether a particular project belongs in that location or whether its costs and consequences have been fully disclosed.
The Data Center Is Only Part of the Project
A proposed data center may occupy hundreds or even thousands of acres. But the physical footprint doesn’t necessarily end at the property line.
Supporting infrastructure can include substations, high-voltage transmission lines, natural-gas pipelines, water facilities, access roads, and sometimes separate power-generation facilities.
Those additions can affect neighboring farms, ranches, homes, and businesses—even when the owners have no interest in the data-center development.
A private developer doesn’t automatically have eminent-domain authority. However, utilities constructing supporting infrastructure may have legal authority to acquire easements or property through condemnation.
That makes it essential to examine the whole project, not simply the acreage purchased by the developer.
Texas provides examples of the scale involved. The Texas Tribune reported in August that three proposed major developments—Project Matador, Project Pacifico, and Project Meta—together involved at least 16,000 acres.
That doesn’t mean 16,000 acres of productive farmland have been lost. Proposed acreage, actual construction, and agricultural land conversion are different measurements. But it demonstrates why land use deserves serious attention before decisions.
Texas Officials Are Beginning to Respond
Texas is one of the most popular locations for these developers.
Governor Greg Abbott has directed state agencies to scrutinize large data-center development more closely.
His August directive called for an audit of data centers seeking connections to the ERCOT electric grid. Subsequent September directives addressed water-use reporting and regulatory approvals.
These actions reflect growing concern about whether proposed projects are realistic, whether the necessary infrastructure can support them, and whether developers are accounting for the demands they place on public resources.
But there are important jurisdictional questions. Parts of Texas lie outside ERCOT, and not every data center depends on the public grid in the same way.
State directives are an important beginning. Their effectiveness will depend on implementation, enforcement, and whether communities actually receive the information needed to evaluate proposed developments.
Who Pays—and Who Benefits?
Large data centers may bring investment, construction jobs, and additional tax revenue. Some may also create permanent technical jobs and support other businesses. Or they may not.
But the financial arrangement is only one consideration.
A project may require new generation, substations, transmission lines, or water infrastructure. Even when developers pay certain connection costs, other expenses may eventually be recovered through utility rates or public financing.
Existing residents and businesses should not unknowingly subsidize infrastructure built primarily to serve a private development.
Texas lawmakers are also examining the state’s generous data-center sales-tax exemptions. The Senate Finance Committee has questioned whether benefits awarded based on future investment and employment commitments are delivering what was promised.
The state’s projected cost for these exemptions has increased enormously since the original program was established in 2013.
The question isn’t simply whether tax incentives attract development. It’s whether taxpayers receive sufficient benefits, whether promises are verified, and whether the state recovers benefits when requirements aren’t met.
Farmland and Food Security Must Be Addressed
Texas has lost substantial agricultural acreage to development over the years. Data centers are only one possible source of land-use pressure, and we do not yet have reliable figures establishing how much productive farmland has actually been converted specifically for them.
Nevertheless, the location of new industrial development raises several questions.
A project built on productive agricultural land can permanently change its use. New utility corridors can also affect surrounding property, even when farming or grazing continues beneath transmission lines.
Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller has proposed encouraging major developments toward less agriculturally valuable sites through an Agriculture Freedom Zones approach.
Meanwhile, Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham has announced a partnership with Texas A&M and Texas Farm Bureau to help beginning farmers and ranchers gain access to agricultural opportunities.
Both initiatives reflect an important principle: Food security is national security.
Preserving America’s ability to produce food must be part of the discussion when evaluating large industrial projects and their supporting infrastructure.
Growth and Property Rights Can Coexist
Not every data center needs to connect to the grid in the same way. Some developers are pursuing on-site natural-gas generation, including a proposed 400-megawatt project near Abilene.
Other alternatives may include existing industrial locations, different transmission routes, or infrastructure arrangements that reduce effects on neighboring landowners.
None of these approaches is automatically the best solution. Each has costs, benefits, and consequences that should be compared before major decisions are made.
Public officials should insist on realistic projections, transparent financial arrangements, meaningful public participation, and enforceable safeguards.
America does not have to choose between technological leadership and protecting its farms, ranches, private property, and communities.
But achieving both requires multiple considerations, oversight and transparency.
It requires making the right decisions about where projects are built, what infrastructure they need, who is affected, and who pays.
Sources:
Annenberg Public Policy Center — Opposition to Local Data Centers Rises Sharply
Texas Tribune — Data Center Boom Threatens Texas Agriculture
Texas General Land Office — New Agricultural Producers Partnership
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.
White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land (8/13/2025)
United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.
VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html
Disclaimer:
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.
No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.
While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.
If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.
Until next time…
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?
Some housekeeping…
Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.
You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.
Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!