Developers Face a Choice: Disclose or Lose the Next $46 Billion

Meta has broken ground on a 1 GW, $10 billion data center campus in Lebanon, Indiana (Boone County), purpose-built for AI workloads. The site will support 4,000 construction jobs at peak and 300 permanent positions. Meta pledged 100% clean energy matching and closed-loop liquid cooling, though it disclosed no specific water sourcing or consumption figures.

This is Meta's second Indiana campus and part of a national buildout spanning Texas, Wisconsin, and Louisiana, backed by nuclear procurement deals with TerraPower, Oklo, and Vistra targeting up to 6.6 GW of capacity by 2032. Every gigawatt Meta locks down reshapes the competitive map for ERCOT-connected projects fighting for the same constrained resources: power capacity, transformers, skilled labor, and political goodwill.

Grassroots data center opposition is organized and growing from Amarillo to Harlingen. Near Waco, Infrakey's proposed $10 billion, 520-acre campus in Lacy Lakeview (population 7,000) has generated 3,000 petition signatures, with state Rep. Pat Curry (R-Waco) and Texas Senate District 22 candidate Rena Schroeder attending strategy meetings. In Harlingen, residents confronted the City Commission only to learn the project sits outside city limits. In Hood County, commissioners killed what would have been Texas's first county-level data center moratorium by a 3-2 vote after state Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston) sent a letter to Attorney General Ken Paxton arguing counties lack moratorium authority under HB 2559. Commissioner Dave Eagle called it "just a threat" with suspicious timing.

Meanwhile, Weatherford has banned data centers within city limits outright. The political tension is structural: Texas law sharply limits county land-use authority, meaning projects outside city boundaries fall into regulatory gaps precisely when hyperscale ambitions are biggest. Whether state lawmakers move to expand local tools or preempt them entirely will define the trajectory of every major datacenter proposal in the state.

West Texas Has the Gas but Can't Move It, and a Federal Bill Wants Operators to Generate Their Own

The Permian Basin produces 40% of U.S. crude yet lacks pipeline and transmission infrastructure to feed AI data centers. Ed Longanecker, president of TIPRO, warned that 6.5 billion cubic feet per day of pipeline capacity faces heavy congestion, and federal permitting can take seven years. FrontierGen CEO Jason Jennaro said the Eagle Ford and Haynesville shales are better positioned due to stronger transmission networks and less congestion. ERCOT's forecasts show the Texas grid may need to nearly double by 2030.

Separately, Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Guaranteeing Rate Insulation from Data Centers Act on February 11, requiring facilities consuming 20 MW or more to procure dedicated generation, disclose consumption publicly, and yield grid priority to residential customers during shortages. The 20 MW threshold is low enough to catch mid-tier colocation, not just hyperscale. If this bill gains traction, operators banking on grid-served power across ERCOT territory may need to accelerate behind-the-meter generation plans. The bipartisan signal alone suggests the political window for unchecked datacenter grid reliance is narrowing.

Water opacity is emerging as the single most combustible issue across every geography. In Santa Teresa, NM, Stack Infrastructure disclosed for the first time that its $165 billion Project Jupiter would use 20,000 gallons per day via closed-loop cooling, a fraction of the 750,000 gallons daily planned for Meta's El Paso facility. But community trust is destroyed: the local Camino Real Regional Utility Authority has delivered arsenic-tainted water for years, and residents only learned of the project weeks ago. The Doña Ana County Board of Commissioners faces a vote on the deal.

In Round Rock, Texas, Skybox Datacenters won unanimous council approval for a 75 MW facility despite protest marches, pledging closed-loop cooling with 300,000-400,000 gallons annually. In Montana, NorthWestern Energy has signed preliminary agreements with three developers but disclosed almost zero water data. In Queretaro, Mexico, residents of Viborillas receive water only three days per week while US$12 billion in data center capital pours in, and facilities in industrial parks are exempt from environmental impact reports.

A Cornell study published in Nature Sustainability quantifies the stakes: unchecked AI growth will consume 731 to 1,125 million cubic meters of water annually by 2030. Smart siting in low water-stress regions, including Texas's wind belt, could cut demand by 52%, but only if disclosure keeps pace with development. Wherever developers withhold water data, opposition hardens fastest.

Beyond Texas, the opposition playbook is sharpening. In Van Buren Township, Michigan, Panattoni Development's 1 GW "Project Cannoli" faces 1,400 petition signatures and scrutiny over township officials signing nondisclosure agreements with the developer. State Rep. Reggie Miller (D-Van Buren Township) introduced legislation to ban public officials from signing NDAs on data center deals and called for a statewide development pause. In Canton, North Carolina, aldermen unanimously approved a 12-month moratorium targeting the former Pactiv Evergreen paper mill site after learning Duke Energy was courting data center tenants.

Across 24 states, nearly 150 organized groups are pushing back; roughly $18 billion in projects have been halted and $46 billion delayed. CyrusOne SVP Gene Alessandrini acknowledged the scale problem: "Our facilities are getting so large that they are being noticed." The risk for Texas developers is contagion. Opposition tactics refined in Michigan and North Carolina will migrate south. Could the NDA transparency fight, in particular, arrive in counties that have signed similar agreements with hyperscale developers?