A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Residents and tech workers urge council to curb data-center growth over water, noise and privacy concerns

July 28, 2026 | Crossville, Cumberland County, Tennessee


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Residents and tech workers urge council to curb data-center growth over water, noise and privacy concerns
Three residents who signed up for public comment warned the Crossville City Council that rapid data-center development could strain local water and utility systems and create persistent noise and privacy concerns.

Randall Kidwell told the council he’s watching regional trends, noting Columbia, Tennessee, is seeking large federal and state financing to move a Duck River intake and that the intake was operating near "92%" capacity. "We're talking about 500,000,000," Kidwell said, urging the council to understand the scale of projects that can arise regionally.

John Murray cited several out-of-state cases — including alleged contamination tied to data-center construction and a California facility pursuing Colorado River water — and said those precedents show cross-jurisdictional impacts. "We need to preserve Crossville and the Cumberland County farmland for future generations," Murray said, urging a permanent ban on data centers in the city.

Jacob Gonigle, who identified himself as an IT director and security services provider, gave technical context, noting most data centers draw "between 20 and 30 megawatts" of power and describing one reported hyperscale project at "1,500 megawatts." He emphasized persistent noise and continuous operation: "It's never off."

Council members, responding during and after comments, acknowledged the concerns and said staff and the council have been tracking utilities, noise standards and water conservation. Mayor (speaker 2) summarized the policy trade-offs and said the proposed municipal ordinance is meant as a moratorium to provide time for planning coordination with the county and to avoid costly litigation.

The council did not adopt any permanent ban during the meeting; instead, the discussion fed into the council’s pending ordinance process and follow-up hearings that the council said it will use to gather more information.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee