The question of where to build data centers in Nevada has grown into a statewide debate over the past year, with residents uniting to oppose their construction in neighborhoods and urban areas.
This discussion became particularly prominent when the Lyon County Board of Commissioners approved an application for the Monarch Data Center, slated for 500 acres of agricultural land outside the county seat. This decision sparked new questions about the appropriate placement of these facilities. David Janakos, a local resident, voiced strong opposition to the Lyon County commissioners in August, stating, "We don't want a data center here. Our locality of Yerington has been assigned a project we never asked for."
Historically, Nevada's data centers have been located in industrial zones. However, recent trends indicate a significant shift: more than two-thirds of nearly 1,500 data centers planned nationwide are now scheduled for rural areas. Almost 40 percent of these plans are in counties that currently have no data centers at all.
For financially challenged counties, this shift represents a potential new source of revenue. Lyon County Administrator Andrew Haskin highlighted the substantial tax income generated by industrial properties. Fred Steinmann, director of the Center for Economic Development at the University of Nevada, Reno, explained that industrial development provides counties with property, sales, and use taxes, along with business license fees, which differs significantly from agricultural land, primarily taxed on property.
Northern Nevada is recognized as a prime global location for data center construction. This appeal is partly due to major infrastructure projects underway, such as the Greenlink transmission line being built through Lyon County. NV Energy is also constructing a substation as part of this project, which is on track to become one of the world's largest. Data center builders are keen to capitalize on these developments, but this creates tensions among agricultural interests, industry, and residents—a repeating pattern, according to Steinmann.
Steinmann also noted that while data center builders, like other industries, seek reasonably priced land with access to the electrical grid, transportation infrastructure, and available labor, the financial impact of such projects differs greatly by location. He stated that the same amount of money "marks a much greater difference in rural communities" than in urban areas. Patrick Donnelly, director for the Great Basin of the Center for Biological Diversity, suggested that the surge of data centers in rural areas indicates builders are targeting "small rural communities that are heavily influenced by relatively modest amounts of money" because these communities are not accustomed to "millions of dollars" injections.
However, community opposition remains strong. Around 200 residents attended the Lyon County commission meeting where the Monarch Data Center permits were advanced, with most expressing opposition. Key concerns included water and energy usage. NV Energy has publicly acknowledged that it does not have enough secure power supply to support a massive influx of data centers in Nevada. A 2024 UC Berkeley report for Congress estimated that data centers used 17.43 billion gallons of water in 2023, a figure that could double by 2028. Supporters of data centers argue that this amount is considerably less than what agriculture uses.
Two miles from the proposed Monarch Data Center site, NV Energy is constructing its large Walker River Substation as part of the Greenlink high-voltage transmission line project. Brian Masini, owner of the 500 acres designated for the Monarch Data Center, communicated in December to Lyon County Commissioner David Hockaday that the landscape changed following the announcement of the new substation and Greenlink. Masini explained that interest from AI and builders grew, presenting a tempting opportunity because "the traditional way of farming simply is no longer economically viable in Mason Valley" at this time. Mason Valley and nearby Smith Valley had previously faced state restriction orders, although these were later resolved in favor of farmers.
Masini concluded by describing two perspectives: one advocating for "progress in economic sustainability, better schools, better hospitals, better recreational facilities and opportunities for all," and another that "just says 'no'." The debate highlights a complex balance between economic development, resource management, and community desires in Nevada's rural landscapes.
