Residents urge Siskiyou County to block data centers, offering housing, farming and stewardship alternatives

Public commenters filled much of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors’ meeting to press the board to block large-scale data centers and to pursue alternative economic uses for the Crystal Geyser facility.

Glenn Kaufman, a Mount Shasta small-business owner, proposed "Mount Shasta Organics," an 18-page plan for a large-scale integrated aquaponics and hydroponics operation. Kaufman said the project would employ about 30 full-time workers, generate roughly $2,000,000 in annual wages and — he asserted — use “less than 10,000 gallons per day” with a “98% water recirculation rate.”

Why it matters: Commenters argued a data center would place new, sustained pressure on local water supplies, the electrical grid and emergency services in a county already experiencing drought and wildfire risk.

Several other residents offered alternative redevelopment ideas. Heidi George urged the county to consider annexing the Crystal Geyser property to Mount Shasta and to pursue a state factory-built housing pilot as an alternative; Jack Trout described outreach with the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and suggested cultural or performance-space development as tourism infrastructure. Mark Rogers recommended cold storage or food-distribution reuse and suggested tribal land-transfer options tied to revenue generation.

Concerns and calls for review were strongest from residents who live next to the plant. Brian Peterson cited national data-center energy trends and warned of local impacts: “Data centers consume enormous amounts of electricity and water,” he said, adding a 2023 figure that “data centers use 4% of the nation's electricity,” with projected growth. Nate De Tomasi, who lives across the street from the facility, warned that frequent power outages in the region would force reliance on diesel backup generators and said the generators’ emissions pose health risks for local children.

Several speakers asked the county to require transparency from any developer and to subject any proposed project to a full California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Holly Thomas asked the board to demand identification of the applicant, complete project descriptions, independent water and groundwater analyses, disclosure of cooling technology and backup power plans, wildfire and emergency-response reviews, independent economic-benefit analysis and, most importantly, “a CEQA review at a level appropriate to the scale of the proposal.”

Board response and next steps: Chair (speaker 1) reminded the audience that formal projects typically go first to the planning commission and then through CEQA public review, noting complex proposals can take more than two years from initial filing. The chair said the board will ‘‘listen to the public’’ and ‘‘follow the law,’’ and that, at present, the county had no formal project on the docket.

Closing: Residents asked the board to consider a temporary moratorium while the community studies impacts; several volunteers offered to help research moratoria and alternative uses. The board deferred any immediate land-use decision and reiterated that any formal application would trigger established public-review procedures.