DATA CENTER REPORTS AND STUDIES

Our team has spent countless hours reviewing the data regarding data centers and the safety and impact to the local communities that they have been built near. We have collected this data and summarized it here for our citizens, with links to the full reports provided, so that anyone can be informed about what they are voting for when advocating for or against these centers being built in our community.

Read the Studies on Data Centers

Here, peer-reviewed studies can be found regarding the impact of data centers, summarized for easy reading, with links to the full studies. In addition are websites from credible sources as well as data reports from credible sources. We have vetted the sources so you know that the data it credible and based on legitimate research and not opinion.

The Unequal Burden of Data Centers

Kapor Foundation

This is a large report with a lot of data. It's data primarily centers around data centers in California, but the research shows air pollution with higher rates of asthma in those communities, groundwater threats, and the presence of hazardous waste. It gives insight to what could happen to our community if we open the door to allowing these data centers in.

Global data center expansion and human health: A call for empirical research

Yu Tao, Peng Gao

This article states that data centers are growing fast to support the digital world, but they can also harm nearby people and the environment. They use a lot of electricity and water, and they create noise and air pollution that can significantly affect health, especially in surrounding communities. It suggests that empirical research, or information/knowledge grounded in direct observation and measurable data rather than abstract theory or intuition, is necessary to inform policy as little is known about long term effects of data centers. The main point of the article is that the data center boom is emerging as a significant public health concern.

The carbon and water footprints of data centers and what this could mean for artificial intelligence

Alex de Vries-Gao

This article says AI is causing a growth in data centers and they use much more electricity, with the power demand of a country about the size of the United Kingdom. Data center operators do not publicly disclose the required inputs to run these facilities and therefore the environmental impact remains unclear. The author estimates AI systems could be responsible for very large emissions and water consumption with a carbon footprint equivalent to New York City in 2025 and a water footprint equivalent to the global intake of bottled water. The main message is that data center operators need to be transparent about where AI runs and how much energy and water it uses, so people can better understand and reduce its environmental cost and impact.

Health Consequences of Large Data Centers: Air Pollution, Noise, Water Use, and Environmental Justice

Babu George, PhD

This article discusses the growing concern of the implications on human health that the rapid expansion of data centers has caused. Studies have shown increased emissions of air pollutants, chronic environmental noise from cooling infrastructure, significant water needs that strain public supplies, and land-use changes that create disparities in social determinants of health. Modeling studies estimate that data centers could be responsible for approximately 1,300 premature deaths and up to 600,000 asthma symptom cases annually by the late 2020s. Furthermore, it is anticipated that this will result in a public health burden of almost $20 billion. This air pollution, noise pollution, and water stress has been and will tend to continue to disproportionately occur in vulnerable communities. Health equity needs to be considered when looking at the needs for the future of AI.

Analyzing air pollution health, economic risks from AI data centers

Karen Feldscher

This article is an interview with a PhD educated Harvard scientist analyzing the impact of data centers. The interview explains that as AI grows, data centers need huge amounts of electricity. Some are planning to generate their own power with fossil fuel plants, which could increase air pollution and harm nearby communities. Researcher Michael Cork studies how fine particle air pollution affects health. He says discussions about AI infrastructure often focus on energy use and climate change, but the public health effects of air pollution receive less attention. His team estimates how pollution from data centers and power plants could lead to more hospital visits, respiratory illness, premature deaths, and economic costs. They have analyzed several proposed AI-related projects, and their findings have been used by communities and regulators during permitting decisions. Cork says measuring these health impacts is essential so they can be considered alongside economic benefits. He also suggests that smarter use of renewable energy and shifting computing work to cleaner-powered data centers could help reduce pollution while meeting AI's growing energy needs.

Data Centers Are Contributing to PFAS Forever Chemical Pollution

Andie May Hardin with the Environmental and Energy Study Institute

This article discusses potential negative impacts of data center expansion on carbon emissions, water usage and electricity bills are relatively well documented, but PFAS pollution, both direct and indirect are less known. PFAS, also known as forever chemicals, are very durable and do not break down easily. Instead they accumulate - both in the environment and in the body. This poses significant concern for environmental and human health long-term. Data centers host tens of thousands of servers that run day and night, non-stop. These servers require numerous components, including semi-conductors, cooling systems and fire suppressants. All of these components are sources of toxic PFAS chemicals. This e-waste is a concern for the public health and ecological systems affected by these data centers.

The Hidden Dangers of Data Centers Delaware City Mega Data Center Factsheet

Sierra Club Grassroots Organization

This fact sheet argues that the rapid expansion of AI-driven data centers is creating growing environmental and community impacts. It highlights concerns about soaring electricity demand, increased greenhouse gas emissions, heavy water consumption for cooling, and the use of large diesel backup generators that can emit harmful air pollutants and affect nearby residents' health. The fact sheet also emphasizes that data center growth can strain electric grids, increase utility costs, and put pressure on local infrastructure if not carefully planned. It recommends stronger transparency, environmental review, clean energy requirements, and policies to ensure data centers minimize impacts on communities while paying the full cost of the infrastructure they require.

California data center health impacts tripled in 4 years

UC Newsroom

This article discusses research from the University of California, Riverside which found that California data centers are using much more electricity and the pollution-related health impacts from that electricity roughly tripled between 2019 and 2023. If current trends continue, those impacts could increase another 72% by 2028. The report says the main causes are increased electricity use, continued reliance on natural gas power plants, and diesel backup generators, which release harmful air pollutants. Data centers also use huge amounts of water for cooling, with annual water consumption potentially more than doubling by 2028. The researchers recommend improving transparency about data centers' environmental impacts and adopting stricter emissions and siting standards. They argue that stronger policies need to be put in place if AI growth is going to continue.

Environmental Cost of Artificial Intelligence: Carbon, Water, and Land Footprints

United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU INWEH)

This is another large report with a lot of data. The report argues that AI's environmental impact is much broader than carbon emissions alone. The report examines carbon footprint, water footprint, and land footprint. Its central message is that AI is a physical industrial system, not just software, relying on data centers, power grids, cooling systems, semiconductor manufacturing, and mineral extraction. By 2030, global AI-related data centers could consume roughly 945 TWh of electricity annually, water equivalent to the basic domestic needs of about 1.3 billion people, and more than 14,500 km² of land footprint, largely associated with electricity generation. The report emphasizes greater transparency from AI companies about energy, water, and emissions, more efficient model and data center design, incorporating AI into national energy, water, and land-use planning, and considering environmental justice, since the benefits of AI may be global but environmental burdens (water use, mining, land use, e-waste) often fall on specific, more vulnerable, communities.

Zoning, City, and DAMAC Digital Data Uncovered

DAMAC Appeal Letter

This is DAMAC’s appeal letter from their attorney at Husch Blackwell. It is long, here is our short take on the matter. What happens in Edgerton DOES AFFECT surrounding communities.

This #4 “BY RIGHT” and #6 “NO DECIBEL STANDARD” in Edgerton’s code shows that City Staff wrote a letter for a project WITHOUT a public hearing and vote by Planning Commissioners and City Council. The City should have required both in order to change the UDC to address the UNIQUE CONCERNS of data centers BEFORE accepting an application from a contractor that would try to legally hold them to site plan regulations that were incomplete for a project as unique and in need of further restrictions, like data centers.

The city should have required the proper process per KSA 12–757 in order to change the UDC

Zachary Moore would not have written that letter unless it was approved by the Mayor, Donald Roberts and/or City Administrator, Beth Linn.

City Council Member Potential Conflict of Interest

City Council Member, Joshua Lewis, is a Senior Government Audit & Contract Analyst at Burns & McDonnell. This firm is a major provider of engineering, substation design, and infrastructure services for data centers nationwide.

Burns and McDonnell was mentioned in the Planning Commission Agenda Packet on June 9th, 2026 in a One KC “Data Centers in the KC Region” flyer. In the flyer under “FACT CHECK” it states “Data center projects also generate thousands of construction and professional-service jobs - an area where Kansas City excels thanks to firms like…Burns and McDonnell…”

While Josh Lewis’s personal work may or may not involve this specific project, his employer has a SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS INTEREST IN THE DATA CENTER INDUSTRY and has done projects with the City of Edgerton in the past.

Under K.S.A. 75-4304, local governmental officers may not participate in the making of contracts or decisions with the business that employs them. Zoning and site plan decisions that could advance a large data center project fall squarely into this area of concern.

It is of note that Joshua Lewis made an immediate motion to deny the 6-month moratorium resolution on data centers without any discussion.

It is our recommendation, based on these facts, in order to uphold public trust and comply with state ethics requirements:

1. Council Member Lewis needs to fully disclose his employment on the record at this Thursdays Special Meeting.

2. He needs to recuse himself from any discussion, deliberation, or vote on this appeal and any related data center matters.

NorthPoint requested data centers to be added "by-right" to the L-P district and the City of Edgerton delivered using the exact same language. Look at the two letters and read the sentences that include the words "by-right."

This meant:

• No public hearing.

• No planning commission input.

• No city council vote.

NorthPoint and the City PURPOSELY took the public's due process away.

Additional information:

The building DAMAC purchased from NorthPoint is currently appraised at $26,265,510.

NorthPoint made millions off of Zachary Moore's signature.

City Zoning Emails/Letters

Meeting Purpose

This special meeting has one primary item: the City Council will hear DAMAC Digital Solutions Kansas, LLC's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of its final site plan for a proposed data center (Project Heartland) at 31800 W. 196th Street.

Background

• The Planning Commission denied the site plan on June 9, 2026.

• The denial was based on a provision of the City's Unified Development Code requiring fuel storage tanks to be installed underground.

• Commissioners determined the submitted site plan was inconsistent with City policies because it did not clearly comply with that requirement.

What the City Council Will Decide

The Council is not reconsidering the entire data center project. Instead, it is acting in a quasi-judicial role to determine whether the Planning Commission's decision was:

• Legal (consistent with the law and City code), and

• Reasonable (not arbitrary or outside the bounds of reasonable judgment).

The Council has three options:

1. Uphold the Planning Commission's denial.

2. Overturn the denial and approve the site plan.

3. Send the application back (remand) to the Planning Commission with instructions for further review.

Key Arguments from the City

The meeting packet includes a legal memorandum supporting the Planning Commission's decision, arguing that:

• The Planning Commission has broad discretion when reviewing site plans.

• The underground fuel tank requirement is an adopted City policy.

• The Commission was legally allowed to deny the application rather than approve it with conditions.

Key Arguments from DAMAC

DAMAC's appeal argues that:

• City staff originally recommended approval of the site plan.

• The underground fuel tank issue was not identified during staff review.

• When the issue was raised during the Planning Commission meeting, DAMAC immediately agreed to install the tanks underground if required.

• Because the applicant agreed to comply before the vote, DAMAC contends there was no valid basis for denying the project.

Meeting Procedures

• This is not a public hearing.

• No public comments or new evidence will be accepted.

• Council members are instructed to consider only the existing record from the Planning Commission.

• The Council may enter executive session to deliberate before voting.

Bottom Line

Although the proposed data center has generated broader public discussion, the Council's decision is narrowly focused on whether the Planning Commission properly denied the site plan because of the underground fuel storage requirement. Issues such as noise, water use, or other community concerns are not part of this appeal unless they were part of the Planning Commission's official basis for denial.

Although this is not a public hearing, CITY HALL SHOULD BE FULL. We recommend that the town and surrounding communities show their disapproval for this project by PRESENCE. Let them SEE that this IS NOT WANTED, even if they are not willing to hear you.

City Council Special Meeting July 16, 2026

City of Edgerton Recommends Against Passing Petition - Recommends Court Review

July 23, 2026

A petition was circulated around Edgerton registered voters. This petition requested that the citizens of Edgerton have the ability to vote for or against future data center projects. The city of Edgerton attorney made the recommendation that the city council deny the petition on the grounds that the petition "is not legal." Instead, he recommended that they submit it to the Johnson County Courts for a "review of legality." The city attorney would represent the city. Who would represent the citizens? No one. You can see the video below:

There was public comment regarding the benefit of a public vote. Benefit of a Democratic public vote against OR for data centers could be considered for the following:

1. Resource Scarcity and Utility Bills:

   Data centers require extraordinary amounts of electricity and water, which can stress local power grids and threaten to increase residential utility bills. Data center operators often are not transparent in their exact processes, has been shown through this process. Citizens asked questions during this process. DAMAC answered in circles, never clear answers. Citizens rightfully want to vote to ensure tech companies are not monopolizing resources or passing operational costs onto taxpayers.

2. Environmental Impacts:

   Citizens should be able to have a say in their health and the impact on their environment. Numerous studies have shown that data centers contribute noise pollution, air pollution, light pollution, and impact local water resources. This again goes with data center operators not being transparent in their operations and exactly how they plan to operate. DAMAC, in this case noted in the process that this would be a closed loop, then there would be a combination of systems, "but this could change at any time." What system will they end up with?

3. Government Accountability and Transparency:

   Tech companies frequently use nondisclosure agreements, vague language, and demand tax breaks. They use these to push their projects through. Once this project is implemented, does a small town like Edgerton have the resources to push back on a giant corporation like DAMAC when they start building things against code and doing things that suit the better interest of their corporation? Citizens often feel that elected officials do not fully represent their interests. This has been the case in this project since this effort has started. Direct voting acts as a mechanism of checks and balances. In addition, it takes the heat off of the council when it comes to this hot button issue.

4. Economic Trade-offs:

   While developers promise jobs and property tax relief, the long-term economic benefits are heavily debated and have not been shown to be as beneficial as claimed. The city staff who pushes this project as most beneficial don’t even live here and won’t be impacted the most. Voters want the final say on whether the proposed “economic boost” is genuinely worth the land usage and potential environmental burden, health burden and burden to the infrastructure as well as the potential cost to the community.

Mayor Roberts, however, did mention that it would be a good idea to "start the process on citizen involvement." The city's idea for giving the citizens involvement would be for the city to hire a third-party contractor of the city's choosing. That contractor would then do a "public survey" to get "input" from the citizens prior to decisions being made. Therefore, the city would still ultimately be making the decision. A vote would not be had. The city would be in charge.

Do not allow for your voices to be muted! Ensure that we are heard! Please donate to the cause so we can fight against this happening. THEY DO NOT WANT TO ALLOW YOUR VOTE.

Update:

City of Edgerton APPROVED DAMACs appeal request and site plan is approved.

City of Edgerton Planning Commission denied the final site plan for the DAMAC data center due to the fuel tanks being belly tanks above ground. Edgerton Code states that fuel storage tanks must be underground tanks. DAMAC appealed this decision. Video of this meeting is available online and will be linked below. At approximately 6:41 the DAMAC attorney states "Our text clearly stated that we would have fuel tanks supporting the generators that would be underground in accordance with your code."

If reviewing the Planning Commission meeting on 6/9/2026 where the final site plan was denied, at 43:31, Planning Commissioner asks DAMAC representative, "Diesel generators all mounted on foundations above ground, correct?" The DAMAC representative responds, "Correct."

Going back to the appeal video on 7/16/2026, the DAMAC attorney soon contradicts himself, stating "...this is what our application says. As a fuel storage, each generator pod is equipped with an integral belly tank, a sub-base fuel tank housed within the generator skid for onsite diesel storage." A belly tank is an above ground tank. He states it right there in the video. He goes on to state, "Took me a while to figure out what all that meant, and I've got a picture for all of us at the end that I'll show you. It basically means they've got tanks that are attached to the generators for fuel. Where are those tanks? Well, they're below ground, and we acknowledge that. The applicant acknowledges the requirement under the LP district regulations that exterior fuel tanks be located below ground. They're underneath the generator, and so you'll see that as well. There's really nowhere on the site plan looking down on a generator structure or the location of the structure on the site plan that was in front of the plan commission that you would even see that." This DAMAC attorney essentially stated that they are using belly tanks - still - to the city council, but claimed that they were below ground. He continued to go on using the terms "below ground" and "below grade" interchangeably, and they are not the same terms. Reviewing the initial site plan, the fuel tanks do not appear to be addressed in the site plan images. Despite this, the city council approved the appeal. They are clearly not listening, not paying attention, and seemingly not caring if this data center operator is actually following code or not. Below the planning commission meeting will be linked where the plan was denied. The DAMAC appeal will be linked as well. A copy of the initial site plan presented will be linked for download.

This article reports that DAMAC Properties, a Dubai-based company and longtime Trump business partner, paid Trump-related companies $12.5 million while another part of the company, DAMAC Digital, was pursuing major data center projects in the United States.

It also highlights that President Trump publicly supported faster federal permitting for data centers while DAMAC announced plans to invest $20 billion in U.S. data centers, including projects in Canton, Ohio, and Edgerton, Kansas.

According to the article, the timing of the payments, new Trump-branded developments in the UAE, and federal support for DAMAC's U.S. data center expansion raises questions about potential conflicts of interest. It also notes that communities near proposed data centers have raised concerns about noise, pollution, electricity use, and rising utility costs.

Dubai developer paid Trump $12.5 million while bringing data centers to the U.S.

By Walker Davis

August 10, 2026

City of Edgerton Lawsuit

Find information on the lawsuit that the city of Edgerton has filed against the Public Trust Collective and two citizens after a petition was presented to city council requesting a motion against future data center building or to allow Edgerton citizens the opportunity to vote for or against future builds.

The city of Edgerton city council voted to submit the petition to the court system to determine the "legality" of the petition. Instead, two citizens and this nonprofit organization were personally named in a civil lawsuit claiming that the petition issue is a zoning restriction and not a nuisance ordinance. The city further claims that the petition falls into an administrative category and, therefore, would not fall under the process in which citizens can petition. It is to note that the city of Edgerton Unified Development Code, Article 5.2, section E clearly states the acceptable uses for zoning in the Logistics Park district. The city of Edgerton wrote a letter stating that data centers fell into zoning category "6. Manufacturing, processing, fabrication or assembly of commodity - limited." There was no public hearing to address zoning changes. Their final site plan was denied due to zoning failures. They appealed and the city motioned to approve the appeal despite distinct misinformation of facts and misuse of terms (see above). However, the city wants to sue individual citizens over the petition being "legally and factually deficient." Is the city trying to use scare tactics to prevent citizens from using their constitutional rights? Lawsuit petition can be downloaded below.

The City of Edgerton took two citizens along with this nonprofit to court over a petition which was submitted asking to given the residents of Edgerton the right to vote for or against future data centers in their town. In this lawsuit, the defendents requested a motion to strike, in which they, the citizens, only had to prove, that this lawsuit against the petition fell within the right of association, free speech, or petition. They were easily able to prove this burden. By doing so, this then shifted the burden to the City of Edgerton to show evidence of their position. The City was unable to provide evidence, using only their own lawsuit as their evidence. The presiding Judge ended up granting the Motion to Strike and the case against the citizens and the nonprofit was dropped. The legality of the petition was not determined at that time.

Of note, mayor of Edgerton, Donald Roberts, sat at the Plaintiff's table with the city attorney, Todd Luckman, and city administrator, Beth Linn. This made a very public statement sitting on the side of those suing their own citizens, sitting on the side against his constituents.

A citizen turned around and took the City of Edgerton back to court after the motion to strike was granted and filed a writ of mandamus request for the petition be put on the November 3 ballot. On September 24, 2026, The City of Edgerton was back in court arguing against the citizens of Edgerton, stating that the petition should not be granted. DAMAC Data Center joined them in court, having filed a motion to intervene, also joining the fight against the citizens of Edgerton. DAMAC claims that they have an interest given that they have already purchased a building that they plan on converting into a data center, all which was done without any knowledge to the residents of the town or neighboring communities. The City of Edgerton claims that this petition opens them up to the liability to litigation. What they failed to mention, however, is that they would not be open to litigation if they had followed the proper process. In court, Mr. Luckman stated, "the City cannot do just whatever they want." He went on to say, "they must go through the statutory process set by the state in 12-756 and 12-757..." But the city did not do this when allowing hyperscale data centers into their zoning regulations. As seen in the images below, Northpoint Development asked Zachary Moore, Edgerton Development Services Director, if the City would write a letter adding data centers to the Logistics Park District "by right," because they were getting interest from "end users," and then asked Zachary to “sign it.” Eight business days later Zachary Moore added data centers into those districts under the use of “manufacturing, processing, fabrication or assembly of commodity - limited,” based off of his opinion and signed the letter. There was:

1. No public hearing,

2. No planning commission input,

3. No city council vote, and

4. NO APPEAL PROCESS available to citizens.

The City of Edgerton violated Kansas Statute 12-757. The citizens followed the law and the City did not.

The Judge has heard the arguments. The attorney for the citizen fighting for the citizen who is trying to get the petition to vote made the argument that this is a legislative issue as this is a new law. There is no zoning law in place for data centers. No decision has been made at this time. Documents can be found below.

The motion to strike can be downloaded below.

In The News

News Stories and Social Media Posts Related to Lawsuit

Americans Fighting Data Centers Face Lawsuits From Local Communities

By Hannah Parry and

Joshua Rhett Miller

"They Started A Petition. Their City Sued Them For It."

The Brockovich Report

Erin Brockovich, Suzanne Boothby

Newsweek News Article

Accountability isn't a buzzword; it's a paper trail of public records and open meetings.

Public Trust Collective Inc.

Public Trust Collective

Data-backed analysis for balanced growth and transparent local government.

Sitemap

Home

Focus Areas

Reports

About

Take Action

Get in touch

publictrustcollective@gmail.com

© 2026 Public Trust Collective-Documenting public records and advocating for balanced growth and transparent local government.

Public Trust Collective

Follow Us on Socials

Based in your community