Kadyn Wittman

On concerns about hyperscale data centers

The biggest concern I hear is that people feel decisions are being made behind closed doors while local communities are expected to absorb the impacts. South Dakotans are asking: How much water and electricity will these facilities consume? Will local residents end up paying higher utility costs? Are taxpayers subsidizing billion-dollar corporations without seeing meaningful long-term benefits? What happens to farmland, roads, and local infrastructure? How much local control do communities actually have once deals are negotiated? There’s also frustration that the public often learns about these projects after major agreements are already in motion. People are not anti-technology, but they are tired of feeling like ordinary citizens get less information than corporate developers. And frankly, many people are skeptical of promises about jobs. A hyperscale data center can require massive public infrastructure investment while creating relatively few permanent positions compared to other industries.

How they’d address those concerns

First, I believe transparency has to come before incentives. If a corporation wants public support, tax breaks, utility partnerships, or local approvals, the public deserves clear information upfront, including projected energy demand, water usage, tax agreements, and infrastructure impacts. Second, local communities need real authority in the process. Rural residents should not feel steamrolled because state leaders are chasing ribbon cuttings or press releases. Third, I think South Dakota needs stronger safeguards to make sure residents are not subsidizing private profit. That means carefully reviewing utility cost shifts, protecting groundwater resources, and ensuring companies contribute fairly to the infrastructure they depend on. I’m not opposed to data centers. They may absolutely have a place in South Dakota’s economy. But I do not believe economic development should mean blank checks, secrecy, or asking local communities to simply “trust the process.” Good policy requires balance: welcoming innovation while protecting taxpayers, natural resources, and public trust.