ELLSWORTH – The Pierce County Board 16-1 approved an ordinance Aug. 25 amending the zoning code and table of uses regarding data centers and contractor yards. Supervisor Claire McCarty (District 5, River Falls) voted against.

Several citizens spoke to the ordinance prior to the board vote. While many applauded the county’s efforts in trying to get ahead of a hot button issue, others requested the county consider a moratorium on data centers altogether even though there are no known data center proposals in Pierce County.

The ordinance defines “data center” and outlines the submittal requirements for a conditional use permit for such a facility. It defines a data center as “one or more buildings, structures, modular units, shipping containers, or similar enclosures designed or used primarily to house computer servers, data storage systems, networking equipment, or other electronic equipment for the processing, storage, transmission, or hosting of digital information or high-density computing operations. Data centers include facilities providing cloud computing, colocation services, artificial intelligence computing, cryptocurrency or digital asset mining, blockchain validation, or similar computing services.”

“This use would only be allowable in an industrial zoning district and would be subject to issuance of a conditional use permit,” Land Management Director Andy Pichotta wrote in a memo. “Currently, there is a limited area within the County/towns zoned for ‘heavy industry’ and any proposed rezone would need to be supported by the affected town and also be consistent with that Town's adopted comprehensive plan.”

Rock Elm resident Teresa Davis spoke first, saying the data center ordinance language is a good start but urged the board to pass a 12-month moratorium such as Chippewa, Polk and Rusk counties have.

“The City of Eau Claire, Eau Claire County and St. Croix County are working on their own moratorium efforts,” Davis said. “Putting a moratorium in place, especially when surrounding counties have them, keeps a target off Pierce County’s back for data centers coming in during those moratorium periods. Please use a moratorium to take the time to thoroughly study what is happening in other Wisconsin communities that have data centers such as Beaver Dam and Mount Pleasant.”

She asked the board study the impacts of data centers on local communities, the power grid and the county’s natural resources.

Judy Kroh, town of Maiden Rock, echoed Davis’s gratitude to the board for discussing the issue.

“I would urge you to take the time and consider a moratorium to study neighboring county ordinances and other issues,” she said, asking for public transparency on the process.

Juliet Tomkins, a retired beef and hog producer, member of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau and GROWW, asked the board to consider the Farm Bureau’s stance on data centers, which reads “…the long-term effects on agriculture and community infrastructure warrant careful assessment and planning. As data centers continue to proliferate, it is crucial for farmers and policymakers to engage in ensuring that these developments align with sustainable practices and mutually beneficial outcomes for all stakeholders involved.”

Tomkins asked the board to vote against the ordinance because she found it “woefully inadequate” with insufficient planning. 

“In fact, quite the opposite, it is opening the door wide to data centers by saying that if you simply address these 14 items you can be granted a conditional use permit,” she said. “As a member of GROWW, I, in conjunction with other members, are working to ensure that our communities have clear protections and accountability BEFORE these massive data centers try to move in by stepping up to work with you here on the county board to create our local protections and accountability.”

She said approving the ordinance would be an abrogation of the board’s responsibilities to protect Pierce County communities.

“In particular, as it relates to you Mr. During, who I recalled, campaigned in opposition to data centers in Pierce County, I would expect you to vote against this ordinance language that opens the door to data centers,” she said.

Prescott Bergh, a member of the Martell Planning Commission, said the township updated its comprehensive plan last year with the number one resident concern being water quality.

“The water used by some of these hyperscale use data centers is massive, hundreds of thousands of gallons a day,” Bergh said. “I appreciate the update on the waste and brush portion (of the ordinance) but ask you to reconsider the data center portion. It’s too broadly defined.”

Bergh said the ordinance also does not take into account the different types and scales of data centers, and any regulation should differentiate between modular, small scale and hyperscale sized centers. 

“For these reasons and others, I would ask the Board to reject this Ordinance until such time that this and other concerns can be properly vetted and reviewed,” he said.

Supervisor Mel Pittman (District 17) said that while the language isn’t perfect, having something in place is better than nothing.

“One thing that concerns me is that there is an industrial zoned area by the old sand plant near Grange Hall,” he said.

“We have to start somewhere and we need a starting point,” said Supervisor Frank During (District 8).

Pichotta’s memo also noted that “a town under county zoning that has an adopted comprehensive plan essentially has veto authority over rezones proposed within that town's borders. This means that any request to rezone land to enable the permitting of a ‘data center’ would need to supported by a town board as well as specifically supported in their comprehensive plan.”

Any such rezone request would also be subject to Land Management Committee and County Board review and approval.

“A town's ability to control any industrial rezoning within its borders would likely limit the potential for any future applications,” Pichotta said.