Should Norbeck County Approve the Data Center's Wells? A Debate Kit

Resolution: The fictional Norbeck County Board should deny the permit for the two production wells proposed to serve the Halloway Ridge data center.

Background (all figures below describe the fictional Norbeck County)

Norbeck County has about 34,000 residents and draws nearly all of its water from a single sand and gravel aquifer. The county's municipal systems together withdraw about 2.4 million gallons per day. Irrigation in the county's eastern townships withdraws considerably more during the growing season.

A company has proposed a data center on Halloway Ridge and has applied for two production wells. The facility would use evaporative cooling and would withdraw up to 1.1 million gallons per day during the hottest weeks, and less at other times. Evaporative cooling loses most of that water to the air rather than returning it to the ground. A closed-loop cooling design would use very little water, yet it would consume more electricity and cost more to build, and the company has said it would reconsider the site if closed-loop cooling were required.

The county board may approve the permit, deny it, or approve it with conditions. Conditions the staff has drafted include a seasonal withdrawal limit, a requirement to fund monitoring wells, and a requirement to switch to closed-loop cooling if water levels fall past a stated depth.

Static water level, fictional Norbeck County observation well network, five-year averages

Roles

• Affirmative team (4 to 6 students). Argues for the resolution, meaning the board should deny the permit. Files a written case before the debate with a claim, three supporting arguments, and the evidence cited for each.
• Negative team (4 to 6 students). Argues against denial. May defend approval outright or approval with specific conditions, and must name the conditions if it takes that route.
• Moderator (1 student). Keeps time, enforces the speaking order, and stops any speaker who introduces evidence that is not in the file.
• Ballot writers (the rest of the class). Take notes on index cards and write a short ballot naming which side better answered the other's strongest argument, with one sentence of reasoning.

Format: affirmative case, 5 minutes. Negative case, 5 minutes. Preparation, 3 minutes. Negative rebuttal, 4 minutes. Affirmative rebuttal, 4 minutes. Open cross-examination, 8 minutes. Ballots and discussion, 15 minutes.

Every point below is available to either side, though each is grouped under the side it most obviously helps. Points marked as fictional describe the invented Norbeck County scenario, and points with a named outside source describe the world beyond it.

Case for denying the permit

1. The county's own observation wells show the average static water level falling from 42 feet below ground in the 2006 to 2010 period to 61 feet in the 2021 to 2025 period, with the decline continuing in every interval on the table. Source: fictional Norbeck County observation well network.

2. A peak withdrawal of 1.1 million gallons per day is large next to the county's municipal total of about 2.4 million gallons per day. At the commonly cited rate of 80 to 100 gallons per person per day used at home, the data center's peak draw is comparable to the household use of roughly 11,000 to 14,000 people, in a county of about 34,000. Sources: fictional county figures; USGS Water Science School for the per-person rate.

3. Evaporative cooling loses most of the water it uses to the atmosphere, so this withdrawal does not return to the aquifer the way most residential use eventually does. Source: fictional county staff description of the proposed design.

4. A cooling design that would use very little water exists and is described in the application. The affirmative can argue that denying the permit for the evaporative design is the only way the company will build the version the county can afford to supply. Source: fictional permit application summary.

5. The board sets a precedent either way. Approving a large industrial withdrawal while the county asks households to conserve during dry summers is difficult to defend at the next hearing. Source: fictional county board hearing record.

6. Conditions are only as good as their enforcement, and the fictional county has two staff members for all water permits. A condition requiring a switch to closed-loop cooling would arrive years after construction, when the plant is built and the leverage is gone. Source: fictional county staff testimony.

Case against denying the permit

1. The facility would add an estimated $2.9 million a year to the county's tax base, which the fictional county's own capital plan lists as the funding source for two municipal well replacements and a water main project in the county seat. Denial has a water cost of its own. Source: fictional Norbeck County capital plan.

2. Agriculture accounts for roughly 70 percent of global freshwater withdrawals, and irrigation in the county's eastern townships already withdraws considerably more than the proposed wells would. The negative can argue that denying one industrial permit addresses a small share of the demand while leaving the largest share untouched. Sources: FAO and UN Water for the global share; fictional county figures for local irrigation.

3. The board has a middle option. Staff has drafted conditions including a seasonal withdrawal limit, company-funded monitoring wells, and a mandatory switch to closed-loop cooling if levels fall past a stated depth, which addresses the decline without refusing the project. Source: fictional county staff draft conditions.

4. Company-funded monitoring wells would give the county a better picture of the aquifer than it has now, since the fictional observation network is small and averages mask differences between townships. Source: fictional county staff testimony.

5. The declining water level in the table has not been separated into its causes. Irrigation, drought years, and pumping outside the county boundary could each contribute, and the county has published no analysis attributing the decline. Source: fictional county observation well network and staff note.

6. The company has said it would reconsider the site if closed-loop cooling were required, so a denial is likely to move the facility rather than change how it is cooled. Source: fictional permit application correspondence.

Questions each side should prepare to answer

• Affirmative: what does the county do about the well replacements its capital plan expects this tax revenue to fund?
• Affirmative: why deny an industrial withdrawal smaller than the county's irrigation use?
• Negative: what happens if levels fall past the stated depth and the company appeals the required switch?
• Negative: how does approval square with asking households to conserve in dry summers?