Durham County Passes Data Center Moratorium, 4-1
The Durham County Board of Commissioners celebrates a major library foundation grant, fields concerns about transparency in commercial tax refunds, and then spends hours debating a nine‑month data center moratorium, carving out exemptions while wrestling with water, energy, RTP’s economy, and how far local rules can really go. 75mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Monday, August 24th, 2026
17310.454438
Board of County Commissioners on 2026-08-24 7:00 PM - Regular Session
In This Video
-
-
A library representative outlined plans for a countywide facilities master plan to assess where new or expanded libraries are needed, discussed how the project would tie into the capital improvement plan, and noted ongoing study of amenities like the main library café and potential merchandise sales through the Friends of the Library.
-
-
Tax Administrator Doyle clarified that requested meeting minutes had been provided through public records requests rather than posted online, explained that confidential information in those minutes must be legally redacted, and invited the public to seek them via the county’s public information process.
-
-
Commissioners discussed how to provide clearer public guidance on tax administration and meeting records, agreeing to coordinate with the County Attorney’s office to protect confidential information and to return at a future work session with timing, context, and best practices for increased transparency.
-
Deputy County Manager Jones explained a proposed nine‑month moratorium on large data centers to address environmental and neighborhood impacts, aligning with the City of Durham’s moratorium while allowing limited smaller facilities up to 100,000 square feet to proceed, particularly in Research Triangle Park.
-
-
Deputy County Manager Jones and a commissioner discussed anticipated data center applications in Research Triangle Park, staff’s ability to manage differing exemption criteria, and concerns that carving out exemptions for potential projects before completing research on data center impacts put policy decisions ahead of the moratorium’s intended study.
-
Commissioner Michelle Burton explained they had initially questioned the need for exemptions in the data center moratorium without realizing their comments were guiding staff, and described how conversations with residents, stakeholders, and experts between meetings led them to change their position.
-
Commissioners publicly clarified their prior positions on data center exemptions and the 100,000‑square‑foot threshold while Deputy County Manager Jones explained why staff recommended that size limit to allow smaller centers but prevent hyperscale facilities during the moratorium, noting legal and practical limits on regulating based on power usage.
-
-
Commissioner Jacobs and Deputy County Manager Jones clarified that the draft moratorium language incorporated the City of Durham’s exemption for incidental office-scale server rooms and data centers under 100,000 square feet, while keeping cryptocurrency mining and artificial intelligence computing facilities prohibited countywide during the nine-month moratorium.
-
-
Vice Chair Allam highlighted emerging best practices such as closed-loop cooling systems and emphasized using the moratorium period to study their impacts for future UDO changes, while Deputy County Manager Jones confirmed the moratorium language was written to cover the total size of a data center development so multiple sub‑100,000‑square‑foot buildings could not be used to circumvent the size limit.
-
-
Vice Chair Allam questioned exemptions for data centers using closed-loop cooling and potential PFAS and diesel generator health impacts, while Deputy County Manager Jones responded that no complaints had been received from existing facilities and said that informed staff’s comfort with allowing certain exemptions, particularly for development in Research Triangle Park.
-
-
-
Wanda Allen, a Durham residence with data center construction experience, urged commissioners to conduct a thorough study before approving new facilities, highlighting that solar installations might not meet energy demands and raising concerns about drought, water use, infrastructure needs, project costs, and impacts on taxpayers.
-
Astrid Cook Dail, serving on the Environmental Affairs Board, speaking as a county resident, urged commissioners to reject the proposed data center moratorium with carve outs and instead adopt a clear, comprehensive pause on all data center approvals to protect land and community health while new guidelines are developed.
-
Leslie St. Dre, speaking for Community Land and Power and the Stop Data Centers in Durham coalition, urged commissioners to adopt a moratorium without the 100,000‑square‑foot loophole, arguing that all data centers—large and small—could consume excessive energy and water, use toxic chemicals, and harm residents who should be prioritized over corporate interests.
-
-
A speaker identifying as a Lumbee Tribe member criticized the proposed data center moratorium for including exemptions, arguing that the county lacked clear regulations and impact knowledge, and urged commissioners to adopt a full, loophole‑free pause to allow time for research and community protection.
-
A speaker identifying as a local riverkeeper and water advocate warned that closed-loop cooling systems at data centers still used and discharged contaminated water containing biocides, heavy metals, and PFAS, and urged commissioners to adopt a strong, comprehensive moratorium on all new data center development until adequate scientific safeguards were in place to protect water and communities.
-
-
A representative of the Research Triangle Foundation emphasized Research Triangle Park’s reliance on enterprise-scale data centers, cited its long-standing partnership with Durham County, and urged commissioners to adopt the data center moratorium as written on behalf of RTP companies and employees.
-
Commissioner Burton asked about the size, use, and water and energy consumption of existing enterprise data centers in Durham, and county staff responded that one 400,000‑square‑foot facility was a commercial data center, that detailed water usage data was still being gathered, and that research to support new ordinance language was expected to yield a preliminary draft by December.
-
Commissioner Jacobs asked what existing RTP data centers were used for, and planning staff explained they often could not determine specific functions because past projects were not categorized as data centers in the ordinance, were permitted under other use types, and many conversions were not clearly documented in site plan records.
-
Commissioner Jacobs asked how new RTP 3.0 zoning would apply to future data centers, and planning staff explained that projects currently came through as general industrial light uses with few specific standards while Chair Mike Lee paused the discussion to address an interruption from a staff member.
-
Commissioner Jacobs expressed opposition to hyperscale and AI data centers, emphasized protecting northern Durham’s watershed, farmland, and rural residential areas, and asked planning staff to confirm that because data centers required city annexation and water and sewer service, the current city moratorium effectively protected unincorporated parts of the county.
-
-
Director Young explained that because the city controlled municipal water service for annexed data centers, it could adopt stricter water‑use and noise regulations, but also noted that tracing specific wastewater impacts to individual facilities would require discharge‑point testing the county was not authorized to mandate.
-
Deputy County Manager Jones and Commissioner Jacobs discussed that data centers in Research Triangle Park would draw power from existing Duke Energy substations, noting current limits under state law on county regulation of these facilities while staff continued researching potential oversight options.
-
Vice Chair Allam asked whether projects could bypass the data center moratorium by permitting as other uses and converting later, and planning staff explained they had added a disclosure requirement on applications to flag data center use and noted that while situations would vary, future enforcement actions against undisclosed conversions could be possible under new regulations.
-
-
Commissioner Burton clarified that the moratorium debate was aimed at hyperscale AI data centers, called for research on water and energy impacts from existing enterprise facilities to protect communities, and described visiting data centers in Research Triangle Park and Person County while affirming opposition to mega‑sized data centers in Durham County.
-
Vice Chair Allam criticized exemptions in the draft data center moratorium for closed-loop cooling, non-diesel backup, and facilities under 100,000 square feet, arguing the county lacked PFAS impact data and that the ordinance contradicted itself by allowing certain projects to vest under outdated regulations it claimed to pause.
-
Vice Chair Allam warned that contradictions and narrow screening criteria in the draft data center moratorium could undermine its legal defensibility under state law and argued that a static 100,000‑square‑foot exemption failed to account for rapidly increasing energy loads from evolving server technology.
-
Vice Chair Allam highlighted that approving data centers during the nine‑month moratorium could have long‑lasting impacts on residents’ health, finances, and water use, stressing the contrast between drought-driven conservation demands on households and the high water consumption of these facilities.
-
Vice Chair Allam argued that exemptions for 100,000‑square‑foot data centers should be set later through UDO amendments rather than the moratorium, warning that including carve‑outs now undermined the pause’s purpose, further limited county authority, ignored unknown impacts, and conflicted with broader bipartisan concerns about data center incentives amid projected property tax increases.
-
Vice Chair Allam cautioned that powerful industry lobbying and profit-driven corporate interests could shape weak data center regulations, urging commissioners to use the moratorium and upcoming UDO changes to prioritize community protections and avoid repeating harms seen in sectors like fast fashion and overseas sweatshops.
-
Vice Chair Allam warned against waiting for widespread health and environmental harms before acting on data centers, argued that strong regulation was needed to push industry toward safer technologies, and emphasized using the nine‑month moratorium to research impacts, define data center uses, and develop UDO changes with staff.
-
-
Commissioner Valentine reaffirmed a commitment to support a park in Research Triangle Park, emphasized RTP’s role as an economic driver, rejected turning Durham into a Loudoun County–style hub for hyperscale AI mega data centers, and described the 100,000‑square‑foot exemption as one of the few guardrails available while a permanent solution is developed.
-
-
Commissioner Jacobs highlighted county investments in workforce programs like Bulls Academy, described stakeholders’ concerns about unintended impacts from enterprise and edge data centers that support day-to-day business operations, and cautioned against overpromising regulatory solutions—especially around water impacts—under the eventual post-moratorium ordinance.
-
Commissioner Jacobs cited new state limits on county downzoning and suggested RTP 3.0 might offer more control over data center regulations, highlighted how Research Triangle Park revenues funded projects like a multimodal hub, bikeway, and sheriff space, and stressed weighing a ban on hyperscale data centers against potential unintended impacts on local jobs and economic activity.
-
Chair Lee affirmed board support for banning hyperscale AI data centers, clarified that the moratorium’s purpose was to address confusion over which types of data centers were being targeted, and noted that the 100,000‑square‑foot threshold originated in a meeting discussion rather than from the chair.
-
-
Chair Lee expressed support for the moratorium as written while acknowledging concerns from other commissioners about the 100,000‑square‑foot threshold, emphasized the board’s responsibility to avoid unintended consequences, and agreed to consider adjustments that would preserve the moratorium’s core goal of blocking AI hyperscale data centers while allowing regular data retrieval facilities.
-
-
-
A commissioner moved to amend Section 4 of the data center moratorium to aggregate separate buildings or phases on the same parcel under common ownership and to amend Section 4A to require applicants to publicly certify expected electrical load, cooling system type and working fluid, and backup generation fuel so staff could verify exemption compliance and support future UDO research, with Commissioner Jacobs clarifying the purpose of collecting this information.
-
Commissioners debated whether they could legally require data center applicants to certify expected electrical load, cooling systems, and backup generation as a condition of qualifying for exemptions, weighing enforcement challenges against the value of collecting transparent information for future research and community awareness.
-
-
Commissioners unanimously approved a motion directing staff to study how data center size relates to electrical load, evaluate water and energy trade-offs of different cooling technologies and backup generators, and analyze phasing and aggregation practices, with findings to be reported back before new UDO language is presented.
-
More from this government
Nearby governments