Spokane council debates interim moratorium on large data centers amid questions about water and energy impacts

Spokane’s Urban Experience Committee spent its June 15 meeting focused largely on a proposed interim moratorium that would pause permitting for large data centers while the city updates zoning and related code provisions.

Staffer Spencer outlined the draft ordinance’s intent: buy time to define data centers in code, assess potential environmental and infrastructure impacts, and develop mitigation standards rather than rely on ad hoc interpretations of existing rules. The draft uses an electrical capacity threshold (roughly 20 MVA/W in the proposal) to distinguish projects that would be subject to the pause.

Council members pressed staff on gaps in the record. Councilmember Dillon said the council needs answers about whether a project would draw from the city water system or an alternative source, how it would affect energy rates, and whether onsite generation or closed‑loop cooling would change impacts. He said he had not seen a work plan that would resolve those issues before a vote.

Councilmember Colletti asked what thresholds the city could legally regulate (power draw, gallons of water, noise, heat emissions) and whether those measures belong in a moratorium or in permanent code. Spencer and other staff said electrical capacity is often used elsewhere as a practical proxy for scale but that the city needs to consult utilities and water partners to determine effective measures.

Several members, including Cathcart and Dixit, supported a temporary pause but cautioned that small, essential data infrastructure (for hospitals or schools) should remain allowable. Some raised concern the moratorium language mirrors Seattle’s recent ordinance and may not fit Spokane’s local water‑centric regulatory environment.

Multiple council members suggested alternatives or complements to a broad moratorium: a shorter moratorium with a clear, time‑bounded work plan; a council resolution to define study priorities and coordinate with affected water districts; or targeted standards focusing on water consumption and thermal/noise impacts. Councilmember Colletti asked legal staff to prepare litigation risk analysis if the ordinance is adopted.

The administration said it is prepared to perform the research and recommended a six‑month initial moratorium with the option to extend as the code update proceeds. No final vote on the moratorium was recorded in the meeting; council members requested a clearer, itemized work plan outlining the specific technical questions to be answered and which departments and external agencies would be engaged.

What’s next: staff offered to develop the work plan and coordinate with the Water Department and other regional partners; councilmembers requested time to review that plan before any vote.