AI data center

Fearful the data center will surround her development; asked how the board will protect residents and invited all to a July 6 town hall.

Cited a New York Times report on groundwater contamination and water-rate spikes near a Meta data center in Georgia, and said Google denied involvement in the Imperial project.

Demanded yes-or-no answers from supervisors running for office on a data center moratorium, setbacks, full environmental review, and independent verification of water and power impacts.

Opposed the data center, said residents showed up in court to defend their quality of life, and called on Supervisors Hawk and Kelley to be accountable on their Form 700 disclosures.

A Brawley constituent who said the board's common-ground rhetoric falls flat, citing sign bans, withheld CEQA documents, air quality memories from her school days, and better alternatives like nursing programs.

Questioned the developer's lack of experience and argued the claimed $10 billion investment is inflated — real math suggests closer to $3 billion, meaning far less tax revenue than promised.

A 45-year resident and retired teacher who strongly opposes the data center and wants the question put to a countywide vote.

Asked who's paying for the pile of data center lawsuits, criticized an unagendized Lithium Valley promotional video as a possible Brown Act violation, and questioned a county official's high pay.

A 21-year-old from El Centro at his first board meeting asked why developers won't build in their own backyard and urged investment in education, healthcare, and the local economy instead.

An Imperial Valley native and bio-design researcher warned the data center would be among the largest in the US, worsening air pollution and healthcare access problems for future generations.

Asked the board to direct the CEO to conduct CEQA analysis, citing the air district's position that the project is discretionary, and objected to character attacks from project supporters.

Said the data center would use water equal to 606,000 residents and more power than the whole county used in 2024, and called the project environmental racism.

An Imperial resident living one block from the site said she's not opposed to data centers generally but asked the board to reassess the CEQA exemption and conduct the required environmental study.

Criticized the board and developer for losing public trust, questioned water rights and IID agreements, and warned the board will 'lose big time' politically over the data center.

Recapped the community's opposition since November and asked why no supervisor has made a public statement on the project or why the county directed residents to the developer's website.

A high school student who lives 2.9 miles from the site said data center noise carries two to three miles and asked the board to think about young residents' futures.

Accused the board of undemocratic behavior on the data center, citing ignored expert testimony, CEQA bypass, and suppression of signs at meetings.

Said her public records request shows the county cannot produce documentation of firefighter training or emergency plans for the 862-megawatt battery system, arguing public safety claims must be evidence-based.

Argued the board's 'neutrality' is complicity, criticized the $2,000 IVEDC dinner sponsorship, and questioned the Kelly family conflict of interest and CEQA exemption.

Argued the data center will rely on 132 fossil-fuel generators because it can't depend on non-firm grid power, citing up to $10-12 million a year in local public health costs and the valley's worst-in-state asthma rates.

Opposed the 950,000-square-foot AI data center 116 feet from Victoria Ranch homes, demanding CEQA/EIR review, removal of data centers from M-1 zoning, and special conditions near schools and residences.

Urged the Board not to override the Planning Commission's tabling of the data center rezoning, condemned a company lawyer's visits to coalition members' homes as intimidation, and asked Chairwoman Price to prioritize transparency.

Criticized the Planning Commission's 5-2 lot merger recommendation and its decorum, and argued the data center health risk assessment wrongly excluded full generator-farm operation, urging a complete CEQA analysis.