Data Centers Need Impact Studies

Proof Before Permits

The Texas Commissioner of Agriculture has the duty to “conserve, protect, and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products.”

Data centers, many of which really should be called mass surveillance centers (more posts about this soon), directly threaten our water and land. As Texas Ag Commissioner, I will demand Ag Impact Studies before more data centers come for their land, their water, and their tax dollars.

Photo by Bryan Dickerson on Unsplash

Let’s talk about how Ag Impact Studies work.

The Ag Impact Study will give locals a chance to put the brakes on uncontrolled, irresponsible data center development. It gives time to go behind the flimflam technospeak being sold to state legislators in Austin. It provides real information on the impact on a community, including jobs, water usage, pollution, electric rates, and property values of adjacent land.

Currently, most officials are just trusting the Tech Barons on how much resources their mass surveillance systems take. This is the equivalent of a police officer pulling over someone for drinking and driving, handing them a breathalyzer, and telling them, “Just test yourself and let me know what the number is. I trust you, bro.”

Any officer who did this would be fired. So why do we let our politicians get away with it?

The difference between me and my opponent (along with most other Texas elected officials) is that I want to test the Tech Baron’s claims myself. I demand proof.

As a farmer, I know firsthand how higher electricity rates, water scarcity, and noise pollution hurt farming operations. An Ag Impact Study helps local residents determine whether an AI Data Center is a good fit for their community or whether modifications could make it a good neighbor.

In other words, Ag Impact Studies empower locals to make informed decisions for their communities.

The Texas Ag Commissioner also serves as an advisory member of the Texas Water Development Board and all local water development boards. My team and I will be asking the hard questions and will not serve as yet another rubber stamp for the Tech Barons.

Sadly, we cannot say my opponent will do the same.

Tech Barons are pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into my opponent’s campaign, Nate Sheets. Fatcat donors flooded his primary election war chest with more than $310,000. Of that, $225,000 came from two donors’ purely AI interests. Two big real estate developers together gave $40,000. Another $45,000 came from five investments, private equity or development consultants. This tally does not include dark money support, which is certainly astronomical.

In Texas, we want good jobs. Data centers are unlikely to give us those. The average data center only employs 25-150 permanent people, in return for massive electricity and water usage. Instead, we need real rural economic development, led by people from Texas who know what we need.

Instead of Wall Street or Silicon Valley telling us what “we” need in our communities, how about we determine what we need in our communities.

When Jim Hightower was the Commissioner of Agriculture, he led the way in developing county-specific development plans focused on small and locally owned businesses. The Texas Department of Agriculture helped promising businesses develop plants and build facilities. It also proposed helping with marketing, financing, and developing a county-based business incubator. These small projects did far more to create sustainable jobs than data centers can, and without as onerous an impact on our community.

I know that when We the People show up, instead of They the Billionaires, we will beat them.

Texas doesn’t need more rubber stamps for billionaires. We need real investment in local businesses, local jobs, and communities that actually benefit the people who live there.

If you’re tired of watching the Tech Barons buy influence while regular Texans get ignored, chip in and help us fight back.