Residents press Rock County to push coordinated review of hyperscale data centers; supervisors weigh limits to county authority

Members of the Rock County Board of Supervisors heard multiple public pleas on June 25 to slow consideration of large data‑center projects and increase transparency about negotiations with developers.

"Panaton hasn't constructed a single data center, not one," said Aaron Edzac, a Jainsville resident, urging the board to scrutinize a company public commenters identified as Panaton Development and to question how any developer would secure cost‑reimbursement programs. Linda Wallace of Rock County Neighbors for Responsible Development asked the board to pursue an 18‑month moratorium, saying the Rock River Valley's aquifers, surface waters and farmland are at risk.

The board then received a 45‑minute briefing from Andrew Baker, Rock County's director of planning and land conservation, who explained the county’s planning role and statutory limits. "In Rock County, we don't have general zoning authority anywhere in the county," Baker told supervisors, saying that cities, villages and towns hold primary land‑use and zoning power and that the county's ordinances (shoreland, floodplain, airport overlay and land‑division rules) generally apply only in unincorporated areas.

Supervisor Sher Schwarz introduced a resolution to create a coordinating committee of municipal representatives and subject‑matter experts to study hyperscale data‑center impacts on agriculture, electric demand, water usage, wastewater, drainage, transportation, emergency services and overall livability. "We want to put the county in the front instead of the back," Schwarz said, framing the measure as a vehicle for county leadership and intergovernmental coordination.

Board members and county counsel emphasized the legal constraints. Corp counsel noted that statutory rules in chapter 59 and the historical choice to defer general zoning to towns mean the county cannot unilaterally impose countywide zoning or an enforceable moratorium across municipalities; enforceable pauses or new county powers would require municipal adoption of ordinances or a change in state law. Several supervisors said the most practicable near‑term options are to (1) provide model moratorium or ordinance language the county could offer towns, (2) coordinate technical studies on water and power capacity, or (3) advocate to state legislators for statutory change.

The discussion also flagged the county's dual role: while some supervisors urged caution, others noted county economic‑development staff engage with prospective projects, prompting calls for a future briefing on how the county balances attraction of development with resource protection.

What happens next: the board heard the proposal for a coordinating approach and public concern but did not adopt a countywide moratorium; supervisors said they would pursue outreach to municipal partners and state representatives and consider producing model ordinance language and technical studies for towns that request assistance.