Erin Brockovich on Community Rights and Data Center Transparency

Data centers power the modern internet. They store your photos, run your streaming service, and process every AI query you type. But behind the digital convenience, these facilities consume enormous quantities of water and electricity — and in too many communities, residents are the last to know what is actually happening in their backyard.

Environmental accountability has a well-known champion in Erin Brockovich, the legal clerk who helped expose PG&E’s contamination of groundwater in Hinkley, California. Her story is not just about one case. It is about the principle that ordinary people deserve honest, complete information about what corporations are doing to their shared environment. That principle applies directly to the data center industry — an industry growing faster than the public’s ability to scrutinize it.

This article breaks down the key data center transparency issues communities are facing right now: water usage, energy consumption, environmental impact, disclosure gaps, and what better accountability would actually look like.

What Is Data Center Transparency, and Why Does It Matter?

Data center transparency refers to the practice of openly disclosing how a facility uses natural resources, affects local infrastructure, and interacts with the surrounding community — before, during, and after construction.

Right now, transparency standards across the industry range from inconsistent to nearly absent. Companies are not legally required to disclose water consumption in most jurisdictions. Energy use agreements between operators and utilities are frequently treated as proprietary. Tax incentive deals struck with local governments are often confidential.

The result is a significant information gap. Communities are asked to host large industrial facilities — facilities that operate around the clock and consume resources at scale — without access to the basic facts they need to assess the impact.

That gap is exactly what Erin Brockovich spent her career fighting in a different industry. The same logic applies here: when a corporation holds information that affects public health, the environment, and community resources, the public has a right to it.

The Environmental Impact of Data Centers: A Closer Look

How Much Energy Do Data Centers Actually Use?

The power demand from data centers is significant and growing fast. A large hyperscale facility — the kind operated by major cloud providers — can consume as much electricity as a small city.

The International Energy Agency estimated that global data center electricity consumption reached between 200 and 250 terawatt-hours annually in the early 2020s. That figure has risen sharply since, driven primarily by the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence workloads, which require far more computation — and therefore far more power — than standard data storage or web serving.

In the United States, regional grid operators have had to revise their long-term capacity projections upward because of data center demand. PJM Interconnection, which manages the power grid across much of the mid-Atlantic and Midwest, has flagged data center concentration in Northern Virginia as a driver of projected capacity shortfalls. Texas grid planners have raised similar concerns as facility construction accelerates across the state.

For nearby residents, the data center energy consumption problem is not abstract. It can translate into higher utility rates as grid infrastructure is upgraded to meet new demand. It can strain reliability during peak periods, particularly in summer months. And it can complicate the transition to renewable energy by adding load faster than clean capacity can be built.

Data Center Water Usage: The Issue Most People Don’t Know About

If energy consumption is the visible part of the data center environmental impact story, water usage is the largely invisible one — and in some regions, it is the more urgent concern.

Most large data centers rely on evaporative cooling systems. Heat generated by thousands of servers is transferred to water, which is then evaporated into the atmosphere. The process is effective, but it uses water at a scale that can be difficult to comprehend.

A single large facility can consume millions of gallons of water per day. Multiply that across an industrial corridor with dozens of facilities, and the cumulative impact on local water resources becomes a material concern — particularly in parts of the American Southwest where water scarcity is already a lived reality.

In Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and parts of California, communities have been managing drought conditions and declining water tables for decades. Municipal water restrictions are common. Farmers sell water rights to fund operations. Legal frameworks governing river allocations are strained by over-commitment relative to actual flow. Into this environment, data center operators have arrived with agreements for large water allocations, sometimes negotiated with municipalities that have a financial interest in attracting the development and are therefore not neutral assessors of community impact.

Whether local residents fully understand those allocation terms — how many gallons per day, what triggers additional usage, what emergency protocols exist during drought conditions — is often unclear. That lack of clarity is a transparency failure, and it has consequences for people who depend on those same water systems.

The Data Center Accountability Gap

How Secrecy Becomes the Default

Data center development often begins in secrecy. Companies routinely acquire land through shell entities to avoid tipping off competitors or driving up real estate prices before deals close. The practice is common in commercial real estate generally, but in this context it also means communities are frequently unaware that a major industrial facility is coming until permits are already filed and construction is close to certain.

Once a project is public, the community engagement process — where it exists at all — often falls short of genuine transparency. Zoning variances move through approval processes without meaningful public notification. Environmental assessments, where required, may focus on narrow technical criteria rather than the cumulative resource impacts that matter most to residents.

When communities do raise concerns, corporate responses tend to follow a familiar pattern. Executives emphasize job creation numbers. Communications teams reference sustainability commitments and renewable energy goals. Glossy annual reports describe progress toward net-zero targets. The actual operational data — current water consumption, electricity load by season, specific mitigation measures — is typically absent or framed in ways designed to reassure rather than inform.

This is the accountability gap. It is not necessarily malicious. It is structural: a system in which the incentives favor opacity over disclosure, and where communities lack the legal mechanisms to compel the information they need to make informed decisions.

Shell Entities, Closed Permits, and Confidential Incentives

Three specific practices drive most of the community concerns about data center transparency.

Land acquisition through subsidiaries. When a major tech company purchases hundreds of acres through a holding company with a generic name, neighbors and local officials often have no way to know who is behind the project or what scale of development is planned. By the time the true operator is identified, the permitting process may already be underway.

Non-public utility agreements. Power and water contracts between data center operators and utilities or municipalities are frequently marked confidential as part of the agreement. The community that will bear the infrastructure costs and resource impacts often cannot access the terms of the deal that created those obligations.

Opaque tax incentive packages. Data centers receive substantial public subsidies in many jurisdictions — property tax abatements, sales tax exemptions on equipment, low-cost utility rates. The terms of these agreements, including the job creation commitments and performance benchmarks attached to them, are often treated as proprietary business information rather than public records. When communities subsidize a facility, they have a legitimate interest in knowing what they got in return.

Community Concerns About Data Centers: What Residents Are Saying

Communities near data center clusters are not simply accepting the status quo. Organized pushback has emerged in multiple states, and the concerns being raised are consistent enough to represent a pattern rather than isolated incidents.

Virginia: Landscapes, Noise, and Electricity Costs

Virginia hosts the world’s largest concentration of data centers, concentrated in Loudoun County and expanding outward. Community groups in rural areas adjacent to that cluster have raised concerns about the conversion of agricultural land to industrial use, noise from cooling systems operating continuously, and the visual transformation of landscapes that were not designed or zoned for this type of development.

Electricity cost implications have also drawn attention. When utilities invest in transmission upgrades and substation expansions to serve large industrial customers, the costs flow through rate structures that affect all customers on the grid. Residents who have no relationship with the data center may still find their electricity bills reflecting the infrastructure built to serve it.

Arizona: Water Allocation and Fairness

Water scarcity makes the community concerns about data centers particularly acute in Arizona. When a municipality grants a large water allocation to a data center in a region where residential customers face outdoor watering restrictions, residents reasonably ask whether that trade-off was made transparently and in their interest.

Advocacy groups in Arizona have pressed for clearer public disclosure of water use agreements and for stronger requirements around efficiency and replenishment. The argument is not that data centers should be excluded from water-stressed regions, but that the decisions about resource allocation should be made openly, with full community awareness of the terms.

Georgia: Infrastructure Capacity and Cumulative Impact

In Georgia, rapid data center expansion has raised questions about whether local infrastructure — roads, transmission lines, substations — can absorb the cumulative impact of multiple large facilities in the same corridor. Individual projects may each fall below the threshold that triggers a formal environmental review, while the collective impact is substantial.

The cumulative impact problem is one of the harder issues for existing regulatory frameworks to address, because most review processes are designed to assess individual projects rather than the aggregate effect of an industrial cluster developing over time.

What Data Center Environmental Accountability Should Look Like

The Erin Brockovich model of advocacy is not anti-development. It is pro-disclosure. The Hinkley case was not about shutting down PG&E — it was about making the company accountable for what it knew and what it had done. Applied to the data center industry, the same logic calls not for stopping construction, but for setting and enforcing meaningful transparency standards.

Here is what genuine data center environmental accountability would require.

Mandatory Pre-Approval Disclosure

Before a major data center receives permits, zoning approval, or utility agreements, the project’s full scope should be publicly available in plain language. That means expected daily water consumption, electrical load projections, construction timeline, employment estimates, and the terms of any public subsidies or tax incentives. Not buried in technical annexes, but accessible to a general reader without specialized knowledge.

Regular Operational Reporting

Once a facility is operating, it should report on key environmental metrics — water use, energy consumption, waste heat, emissions — on a regular schedule. Those reports should be filed with relevant state and local agencies and made publicly accessible. Voluntary disclosures to sustainability databases are not a substitute for mandatory reporting with consistent methodology.

Independent Verification of Sustainability Claims

Self-reported data center environmental impact metrics are useful as a starting point, but they are not sufficient for accountability. Third-party audits of water stewardship claims, renewable energy sourcing, and efficiency benchmarks add the credibility layer that voluntary disclosure lacks. Several industries — from fisheries to construction — have developed credible independent certification frameworks. Data centers should be held to an equivalent standard.

Genuine Public Comment Processes

Permit and zoning approvals for large facilities should include real public comment periods — not procedural check-boxes, but processes that give communities adequate time to review documentation, consult with technical experts, and submit substantive input. Approvals that move through bureaucratic channels faster than a community can organize a response do not meet a reasonable accountability standard.

Transparent Incentive Agreements

When public money — in the form of tax abatements, subsidized utility rates, or infrastructure investment — flows toward a data center project, the terms of that arrangement should be public. Performance benchmarks, reporting requirements, and clawback provisions should be accessible to the taxpayers whose subsidy is at stake. Public investment creates a public interest in what was delivered.

How the Industry Can Close the Gap

Some of the largest data center operators have made meaningful progress on environmental performance. Major technology companies have published water stewardship reports, set replenishment targets, committed to renewable energy sourcing, and invested in more efficient cooling technologies. Those efforts are real and deserve acknowledgment.

But the gap between voluntary sustainability commitments and genuine community transparency remains wide. A company can report strong progress on its own terms while a neighboring community still cannot access basic information about how much water the facility used last quarter.

The distinction matters because voluntary is not mandatory, and aspirational targets are not current performance. A corporate sustainability report is a document designed for investors, journalists, and regulators. Community transparency is something different: it is the expectation that the people who live closest to a facility can access, understand, and act on accurate information about its environmental footprint.

Closing that gap requires policy, not just goodwill. Standardized disclosure requirements enforced by state environmental agencies would create a consistent baseline across the industry. Requirements that tie public subsidy to public reporting would align incentives. Environmental review processes updated to account for the cumulative impact of data center clusters would address one of the most significant gaps in current regulatory frameworks.

Why Transparency Is Also Good Business

There is a practical case for data center transparency that does not depend on ethical arguments alone.

Communities that feel excluded from decisions that affect them do not passively accept the outcome. They organize, litigate, lobby their elected representatives, and slow permitting processes that otherwise move efficiently. Several data center projects in recent years have faced sustained community opposition not because the environmental impact was catastrophic, but because the process of arriving felt dismissive. Rebuilding trust after that kind of start is difficult and expensive.

Regulatory risk is also rising. As data centers become more central to daily life and their resource demands become more visible, the political appetite for stronger oversight is growing. Disclosure standards that seem reasonable today may become mandatory minimums as legislators in water-stressed states and energy-constrained regions start drafting new requirements. Companies that have built genuine transparency into their operations will be better positioned than those scrambling to comply.

The organizations that treat community transparency as a standard operating practice — not a communications strategy — will build the kind of durable trust that actually smooths the development process and reduces long-term regulatory exposure.

Read More: Lachie Neale’s AFL Future: The Free Agency Saga That Could Reshape the Competition

Conclusion: Communities Deserve the Full Picture

The core argument Erin Brockovich has made throughout her career is simple: people have a right to know what is happening in their environment, and that right does not disappear because the organization withholding information is large, well-resourced, or economically important.

Data centers are infrastructure. They are not going away, and their expansion will continue as AI, cloud computing, and connected devices become more embedded in economic and social life. That is not the problem. The problem is an industry that has grown at extraordinary speed through a period of limited regulatory scrutiny and developed habits of opacity that are no longer appropriate given the scale of resource use and community impact now involved.

The path forward is clear. Mandatory disclosure before projects are approved. Regular operational reporting filed with public agencies. Independent verification of environmental claims. Meaningful community input in permitting decisions. Transparent terms for public subsidies.

These are not radical demands. They are the baseline standard that communities should be able to expect from any large industrial facility operating in their region.

The data center industry has the resources, the technical sophistication, and — in many cases — the stated values to meet that standard. The question is whether it will build genuine transparency into how it operates, or wait until communities and legislators force the issue.

The Erin Brockovich model says communities should not have to wait. On that point, it is hard to disagree.