Why rural, why now

Developers target rural areas for the same reasons manufacturers once did: cheap land, speed to permit, and eager economic-development agencies. Add in fiber backbones along rail and highway corridors and substations with theoretical capacity, and you get a powerful siting cocktail. State and county tax abatements sweeten the deal, even though independent audits repeatedly find outsized public subsidies for relatively few permanent jobs.

What’s new is the AI wave: denser racks, hotter chips, and far larger, faster deployments. That’s driving grid strain—and pushing developers toward locations where they can build quickly or bolt on dedicated generation.

Where the water really goes

Most headlines focus on on-site cooling water. That matters, but it’s only part of the picture. A data center’s full water footprint includes direct cooling, power generation water use, and upstream chip manufacturing. Analyses show that a large share of cooling water evaporates; the rest returns as heated discharge that must be treated.

Google’s data center in The Dalles, Oregon, used ~274 million gallons in 2021 alone. After a public records fight, it became a national example of how hard operators fight to keep water data confidential.

The counter-trends:

• Reclaimed water systems, which recycle treated wastewater instead of using potable supplies.
• Zero-water-for-cooling designs, now rolling out from major hyperscale players like Microsoft, which eliminate evaporative cooling entirely.

Bottom line: Not every data center is a water hog — but your contract and design choices determine whether it is.

What communities get (and don’t)

Data centers promise “jobs and investment,” but the numbers often tell a narrower story. A $500M facility might create only 150–200 permanent positions. Tax abatements can stretch for a decade, leaving school districts and counties waiting for a payback that never quite arrives.

On the plus side, new fiber lines, substations, and treated-water infrastructure can strengthen local systems — but only if cost-sharing and transparency are written into the deal.

Operational risks you can’t hand-wave

1. Water rights and drought tension – Competing with agriculture and households.
2. Opacity and NDAs – Secrecy clauses that hide public resource use.
3. Grid strain and stranded assets – When capacity is built for one client, not community growth.
4. Ratepayer exposure – Utility upgrades subsidized by the public.
5. Compliance risk – Discharge and permit oversight that small counties can’t enforce.

What “good” looks like

A strong, future-ready agreement includes:

• Water-neutral design or verified reclaimed water use.
• Public dashboards for withdrawals and discharges.
• Developer-funded infrastructure upgrades, not ratepayer subsidies.
• Curtailment and demand-response clauses to protect grid stability.
• Clawbacks tied to job creation and sustainability metrics.
• Water resilience co-benefits, such as aquifer monitoring or watershed restoration.

Potential benefits—when structured well

• Infrastructure resilience through shared reclaimed-water systems.
• Fiber and vocational training that outlast the project.
• Demand-response incentives that stabilize local grids.
• Tax contributions that strengthen over time when abatements sunset and accountability clauses are enforced.

A due-diligence checklist for rural leaders

• Is the cooling water-free or reclaimed-only?
• Who owns the water rights and bears curtailment risk?
• Are interconnection costs fully covered by the developer?
• What’s the real job count and incentive stack?
• Does the agreement include clawbacks, transparency, and audit rights?

‍

The Sovereign Stakes: What Data Infrastructure Means for Native Nations

Data center expansion isn’t just a local planning issue anymore — it’s a sovereignty issue for Native Nations across the United States. These projects intersect directly with tribal water rights, land stewardship, and digital sovereignty, forcing a new kind of negotiation between infrastructure growth and self-determination.

1. The resource sovereignty dilemma

When outside developers build large-scale data infrastructure on or near tribal lands, they often seek long-term access to water, power, and land—resources central to Native Nations’ autonomy. These agreements can unintentionally privatize public or sacred resources, shifting control away from the Nation’s governance structures. The real question becomes not “how many jobs will this bring,” but “who controls what sustains our people?”

2. Digital sovereignty vs. resource extraction

Native Nations have long led the discussion on data sovereignty—ensuring their own data is governed, stored, and accessed under tribal authority. But as data centers expand, a new dimension arises: resource sovereignty. Even if compute power is built on tribal land, ownership, control, and profit often flow outward while water, land, and energy are consumed locally.

3. The infrastructure paradox

AI-driven data infrastructure promises opportunity but can create asymmetrical benefits—local impacts, global profits. Without careful governance, a project that appears to advance digital access may erode environmental resilience or limit future tribal resource use. The result is dependency disguised as progress.

4. A responsible framework for Native leadership

For tribal governments, councils, and development authorities, technology counseling must include:

• Tribal resource impact assessments before approving external technology infrastructure.
• Water and energy allocation limits written into tribal ordinances and MOUs.
• Mandatory transparency and reporting on resource use, emissions, and benefits.
• Equity or co-ownership clauses ensuring data and infrastructure value remain within the Nation.
• Interdepartmental governance across environmental, economic, and digital councils.

In short, data centers on or near tribal land should strengthen self-determination, not dilute it.

Executive reflection

For Native Nations, the path forward isn’t about rejecting technology—it’s about ensuring that technology aligns with tribal values, ecological balance, and sovereign control. Digital infrastructure must serve the Nation, not the other way around.

About us

Since 2006, DeSoto Consulting has helped sovereign nations and enterprise leaders make disciplined, psychology-aware technology decisions — balancing innovation with resource stewardship.

If your government or organization is evaluating data-center investments, technology infrastructure partnerships, or national digital strategies, our Technology Counseling Framework provides the independent, integrity-driven analysis you need.

Contact DeSoto Consulting to ensure your next technology decision strengthens — not compromises — your sovereignty, sustainability, and strategic advantage.

‍