Editor’s note: This article is adapted from a version published Aug. 27, 2025 by the Minnesota Women’s Press
Minnesota is poised on the brink of a precedent-setting situation as it comes to the future of the state’s water. A hyperscale data center is currently in construction in Rosemount, and projects are in various stages of approval in cities such as Apple Valley, Cannon Falls, Farmington, Hermantown, Lakeville, and Pine Island. There have been few protections in place so far about how the state chooses to set boundaries with corporate interests building the centers — often with nondisclosure agreements that prevent the details from being shared with the residents affected.
A recent report published by the Alliance for the Great Lakes, titled “A Finite Resource,” assesses threats to water in the Great Lakes region: “if states, local governments, and economic development agencies do not begin incorporating water availability and demand into their decision-making processes, it may lead the region down a dangerous, unsustainable, and inefficient water use path that impacts drinking water supplies, businesses, and food production.”
The report highlights a lack of understanding about natural resource extraction and consumption, indicating that “the use of nondisclosure agreements, lack of water-use reporting requirements, and gaps in existing state water management laws all pose challenges for states and local governments,” due largely to efforts made by developers.
Understanding the Water Footprint
Dr. Carrie Jennings, Research and Policy Director for Freshwater, a nonprofit organization dedicated to conserving clean and sustainable water in Minnesota, warns that significant gaps in state water governance have become convenient loopholes for developers looking for the cheap and easy way to get projects approved at the city level. “We don’t understand [their] total water footprint at all,” Dr. Jennings says of the proposed hyperscale data centers. “There is opacity and nondisclosure [from developers] all along the way.”
In cities such as Farmington, citizens involved in the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development are currently fundraising for a grassroots legal battle against Tract, an out-of-state development company. The coalition is concerned, for starters, about water demands of the data center proposed in their neighborhood. Cathy Johnson, chair of the coalition, believes that Tract has worked to limit public knowledge.
The coalition learned that water demands for the proposed data center campus would require 2.93 million gallons per day, according to the agreement the city signed with Tract in December 2024; normally, the city’s total daily consumption is 2.3 million gallons a day.”
Residents worry that the data center will overshadow their own water needs, especially in the summer months. Tract developers convinced city officials to let data centers use municipal water supplies — despite the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ statutes governing water use — meaning that household water needs will not necessarily be prioritized over data center water consumption. Minnesota’s water allocation priorities name domestic water supply as the state’s first priority for the consumptive use of water, and specifically excludes industrial and commercial uses of municipal water supply.
Commercial Over Residential Water Needs
Dr. Carly Griffth, Water Program Director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, explains that “when large-volume industrial and commercial water users get their water supplied through municipal water permits, water allocation priorities become harder to enforce. This puts other high priority water uses, such as agricultural irrigation, at risk, [especially] in times of drought or water shortage, which are increasingly frequent as the climate continues to change.”
In other words, exorbitant data center water use will be difficult to distinguish from daily domestic use under a single municipal appropriation permit, and it will potentially be valued above agriculture and other commercial industries in times of water shortage.
Cities worried about local issues of revenue and debt might fail to consider the long-term consequences of resource extraction, Jennings says. Developers force city officials — who might not be experienced or educated in negotiations of this environmental scale — to make decisions quickly and sign nondisclosure agreements. After that, “they cannot ask questions anymore,” says Jennings. “These big companies have done their homework, and they know that they can approach these cities directly,” she says, avoiding scrutiny from the public and the DNR.
Griffith explains: “Wastewater permits, feedlot permits, stormwater permits, and many other standard processes include public comment periods where the public can give feedback and raise concerns before a final decision is made, but “that is not the case for water appropriation permits.”
The MCEA is advocating for public comment periods on water appropriation permit decisions, so that community members can weigh in on what serves the public interest, ensuring “that the factors that inform a given permit decision are transparent.”
Although the public has thus far been largely barred from data center discussions, it will be communities that take the fall for data center’s irresponsible and unsustainable water practices. Griffith says that when data centers get their water through municipal water appropriation permits, “that also means that the liability and cost for any private well interference caused by their high capacity use falls on the city rather than on the company.”
Jennings warns that city residents will also foot the bill for the upgrades needed in order for local wastewater treatment facilities to accommodate the sanitary discharge from data centers. Griffith views this as a larger “problem that could disincentivize responsible water use.”
Jennings warns that city residents will also foot the bill for the upgrades needed in order for local wastewater treatment facilities to accommodate the sanitary discharge from data centers. Griffith views this as a larger “problem that could disincentivize responsible water use.”
Jennings points to Farmington as a clear example of a gap in governance. “I think what [Cathy and the coalition] have made clear is that we have laws that help with groundwater governance, we have science, and we have these groundwater managing agencies, like the DNR and the health department — but what we currently lack is a very clear path for stakeholders to figure out who to talk to” when it comes to standing up for their communities. “Instead what we see is people like Cathy spending their retirement years trying to figure out how to engage and do a lot of learning on their own,” she says. “If you call a state agency, you’re going to get an operator, and often it just doesn’t go anywhere.”
“Governance – it’s for the citizens, right?” asks Jennings. “So it should [involve] a very clear pathway for citizens to provide their input.” If citizens had been invited into the decision-making process — and if the impact of data centers on water was better understood — communities would not be pitted against billion-dollar corporations, she indicated.