Neighbors press county over proposed Bonner data center, raising water, noise and transparency concerns

Missoula residents and community organizers on June 14 pressed local officials to scrutinize a proposed data center in the Bonner industrial park, saying the developer’s filings are inconsistent on water, energy and operational safeguards and that the project could threaten a sole‑source aquifer and nearby cold‑water fisheries.

“Given how fast this industry is growing, we want to emphasize that we're not opposed because we're scared of new technology. We're opposed because we don't like unregulated and inefficient industrial processes in our neighborhood,” said Moira, a co‑organizer with Missoula Neighbors United, during a slide presentation that organizers distributed as a 48‑page booklet.

Organizers focused on several technical and policy points. They said the applicant’s most recent filing (cited in outreach materials as May 11) lists capacity up to 29 megawatts; organizers presented a year‑long energy use estimate for a 29 MW facility of roughly 254,000 MWh, compared with about 285,869 MWh for Missoula County, to underscore the facility’s scale. They also reported what they described as inconsistent claims in company materials—examples ranging from initial filings that mentioned 3–7 MW to later statements of 20–29 MW.

Water use and cooling were central concerns. Organizers said the application describes a closed‑loop coolant in some places while elsewhere acknowledging evaporative coolers that require ongoing makeup water and periodic blowdown. “If they say the cooling fluid is never flushed, but then note exchanges every four to six months and potential discharge to pre‑treatment, that is an important gap that needs clarification,” Moira told the meeting. Presenters contrasted the applicant’s claim of about 50,000 gallons per month with industry reference figures for a facility of this scale that can be orders of magnitude higher; organizers cited an estimate of roughly 10 million gallons per month for comparable operations.

Attendees raised ecological and public‑health questions. Organizers highlighted that Missoula’s shallow, unconfined aquifer is designated a sole‑source aquifer by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and warned that cooling‑tower blowdown can concentrate biocides, corrosion inhibitors, dissolved solids and metals that would normally trigger pre‑treatment or regulatory oversight. They also said discharges that raise water temperature or introduce chemicals could harm cold‑water species including bull trout, a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Residents described how the site’s proximity to schools and rivers matters on a personal level. Caroline, speaking for the Blackfoot river community, invoked Montana’s constitutional guarantees of clean water and urged emergency zoning and pressure on county commissioners: “We all have the right to clean water, health, and air,” she said, and urged the group to call commissioners and land‑use boards.

Local tech workers at the meeting warned of non‑environmental risks as well. “You should be scared,” said Matt, who described two decades in the tech industry, warning that large cloud operators can consolidate small facilities and that surveillance and data‑monetization concerns can accompany rapid infrastructure growth.

Organizers also questioned transparency and accountability. They said the applicant has declined to provide third‑party operational data on energy and water use and that materials reference an unnamed pre‑treatment facility without describing its location or treatment processes. The presentation noted partnerships with industry vendors cited in outreach materials, including Nvidia, and said the applicant operates a much smaller 1 MW site in another state but has not provided comparable operational data.

On taxation and local benefit, organizers explained that Montana’s property assessment for certain facilities can effectively be lower than typical commercial rates and that equipment purchases may be exempt from sales tax, raising questions about how much local tax revenue the county would receive if the project is approved or if infrastructure costs were subsidized through tax increment–type arrangements.

Organizing and next steps were emphasized throughout the meeting. Organizers said a petition tied to the effort has thousands of signatures and that a coordinated strategy—public comments at consolidated land‑use hearings (the group noted these typically occur on the first Wednesday of each month), sentinel monitoring of filings, rallies and a possible ballot or moratorium campaign—was being mobilized. Based on county timelines referenced by presenters, the earliest consolidated land‑use hearing on the proposal could be in early August.

The meeting did not include county officials or a developer representative. Organizers said they will continue to press for clearer, independently verified data in the application and for stronger, binding conditions if the county decides to move forward with permitting.

A county consolidated land‑use hearing is expected to be the first formal venue where residents can deliver public comment on the special‑use permit; organizers urged attendees to watch the county docket and participate in the public‑comment process.