Desert data center developer challenges county moratorium in court

An Imperial County Superior Court judge questioned whether the California county identified a sufficient emergency to justify a halt on data centers in a lawsuit filed by the developer of the frozen project.EL CENTRO, Calif. (CN) — The developer with plans for California’s biggest data center argued Tuesday that Imperial County unlawfully froze data center projects without identifying an immediate threat to public health or safety.Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing filed a lawsuit in June after the Imperial County Board of Supervisors approved a freeze on data centers in the county. Sebastian Rucci, the attorney behind the Imperial Valley Data Center, argued the county’s moratorium must only be used for specific emergencies, which he says his nearly 1 million-square-foot project does not pose.The project has become a flashpoint in Imperial County, where water-intensive industrial projects like data centers are seen by some as incompatible with the region’s limited water resources and agricultural economy. Rucci, however, claims the data center will provide new jobs and millions in tax revenue in the economically stagnant region.The Imperial County Board of Supervisors initially approved Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing’s lot merger for the project, located near a neighborhood in an industrial area just south of the city of Imperial. But the plan was walked back in June when the county approved the 45-day moratorium on data centers, which was then extended to 10 months and 15 days — or until June 2027 — so that the county could evaluate its land use rules.Rucci, who is also the engineer and developer for the Imperial Valley Data Center, argued in Imperial County Superior Court that the county can’t just change its mind on the data center due to public pressure under the pretense of what he described in his petition as a “manufactured emergency.” There must be an immediate threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public, he argued.“There’s no harm identified,” Rucci told the court.California allows local governments to freeze projects that might conflict with their general plan within a reasonable amount of time so that they can study them.The county can’t legally use the freeze on data centers as an excuse to study a project that has been almost two years in the making, Rucci said.“Counties always study uses,” he continued. “The moratorium is something more special that requires you to freeze it, and for you to freeze that use you need to have a current immediate threat.”The county has only said that it wants to study data centers and that it’s aware of concerns, Rucci argued.“It doesn’t mean that the county can’t go back and do an ordinance that’s proper,” Rucci said.He asked Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Jones to determine whether the county sufficiently claimed the data centers pose a current and immediate threat.Jones was skeptical of the county’s argument that it had met this standard.“Where is the irreparable harm, if you will, or the serious risk to the health, safety and welfare of county residents?” Jones asked county attorney Nathan George. “If the answer is that a whole bunch of people don’t want this, is that a threat to public health, safety and welfare? Is that legally cognizable? The idea that a segment of the public is concerned about something, does that mean that is, in and of itself, their concern?”George argued the immediate threat in this case is the development itself.“You don’t really have to be absolutely certain about what the harms are, because that’s part of what you’re studying,” George, of Remy Moose Manley, told Jones. “If I tell you that there’s a tornado coming, is that enough of a warning for you to understand that there’s a threat, or do I need to lay out all the horrible things that could happen.”But the judge did not appear convinced by this argument.“But telling me that a bunch of people are worried that your tornado will come and pass, I would say that is not sufficient,” Jones said, referring to the public outcry over the data center. “Is it enough to just recite the recipe, if you will, or do you have to go further and actually identify, once you’ve used the descriptive terms, threats to health, safety and welfare?”George reiterated that the county’s goal with the freeze is to find the potential harms and ways to mitigate them. Applications can still be processed during that time, he added.“Until they can reach that solution, that’s why we put the temporary moratorium in place,” he said.The lawsuit is just one of several filed by Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing in Imperial County. The company has also pursued legal action against the Imperial Irrigation District in an attempt to secure more water rights, as well as lawsuits against local public officials, journalists and activist groups.In its lawsuit against the Imperial Irrigation District, the company is seeking 260 million gallons of water from the Colorado River per year. That amount is only a small fraction of the 3 million acre-feet of water the Imperial Irrigation District gets from the river each year, but the majority is reserved for roughly 500,000 acres of farmland in Imperial County.The project is part of a larger national effort to support the technological infrastructure for artificial intelligence.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads