Across the country, a new kind of gold rush is underway. From Virginia to Texas, Utah to Iowa, communities are vying to attract what developers now call technology campuses, digital innovation hubs or data infrastructure parks. The terminology is deliberate. These euphemisms are meant to reassure the public that these projects are nothing more than sleek, quiet complexes where servers hum benignly and tax revenue flows freely. 

The reality is vastly different. These are not “tech parks.” They are industrial-scale operations, massive energy consumers, heavy water users and 24-hour mechanical facilities whose demands rival those of factories and refineries.

For states and counties eager to boost revenue without adding residents, the promise is seductive. Developers come armed with glossy presentations and promises of minimal impact, high tax yield and minimal disruption. The phrase “technology campus” sounds far more palatable than “industrial power consumer.” Local boards, under pressure to compete regionally, often agree to generous incentive packages with lowered tax rates, waived fees or even public investments in water and power infrastructure. However,  as these deals mature, a different picture emerges. The benefits are front-loaded, while the costs are deferred.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the situation is particularly striking. Northern Virginia now hosts the largest concentration of data centers on the planet, managing an exponential percent of America’s cloud traffic (local estimates claim that it is more than 70% of the national cloud traffic). To date, Virginia is the center of the digital universe. 

Beyond the glowing statistics lies a sobering reality. This explosion has come with substantial trade-offs. A 2024 report by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), Virginia’s independent, nonpartisan oversight agency, has found that while data centers have contributed billions in private investment, they have also placed unprecedented stress on electricity, water and local infrastructure (https://bit.ly/4s719Hc). 

JLARC functions much like a state-level Government Accountability Office, producing performance audits and policy analyses for the state legislature. Its findings should be required reading for any community considering adopting the same model.

The report outlined an uncomfortable truth. The digital economy’s physical footprint is massive. In Virginia, data centers now consume more than 20% of Dominion Energy’s total electricity sales, and the state’s peak demand is projected to double by 2040. Thousands of acres of forest have been cleared for sprawling facilities, and stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces has increased downstream flood risk. 

Water consumption is another critical issue. Modern cooling systems often draw millions of gallons per day. In 2025, the Rappahannock River, which provides water to multiple counties in eastern Virginia, was named the sixth most endangered river in America, due in part to mounting industrial withdrawals and the lack of coordinated basin management.

For localities, the financial equation is not as straightforward as it appears. The typical data center project starts with enormous taxable value but rapidly depreciates. Server equipment and computing infrastructure lose value quickly, often within as little as 5 years. While land and building values remain, the bulk of the assessment reflects the technology itself, which plummets in value. 

Localities setting low tax rates to attract data centers soon find that their projected revenues decline even as infrastructure demands rise. Roads must be widened, substations built, emergency services expanded and utility networks reinforced. The maintenance of this new industrial grid is a recurring expense that far exceeds the limited number of permanent jobs created by the facilities themselves.

Compounding the problem is the asymmetry in who benefits. Multinational corporations such as Amazon, Meta and Google receive highly customized incentive packages, negotiated with local and state-level economic development agencies. These packages often include temporary tax abatements, infrastructure cost-sharing and direct subsidies for site preparation. 

Meanwhile, the businesses that have sustained these communities for generations — local manufacturers, contractors and wholesale distributors — see none of these benefits. They continue to pay full tax burdens, employ residents and reinvest profits locally. The fairness question is unavoidable. Why are the companies that maintain year-round employment and civic engagement paying the full rate while global corporations extract resources under preferential terms?

Another hidden factor is the strain on public utilities. JLARC’s report emphasized that, while data center operators currently pay for their direct electricity use, the long-term cost of upgrading grid infrastructure will be shared across all customers. This means residential and small-business ratepayers will bear part of the expense for expanded transmission lines, substations and generation capacity. 

Already, Dominion Energy has projected significant increases in capital spending over the next decade, much of it driven by the need to support new data center load. Those investments do not come free; they translate into higher electricity bills for ordinary Virginians.

The narrative of quiet technology campuses also masks the environmental and quality-of-life impacts that arise once construction begins. Noise from cooling fans and backup generators, heat discharge from thousands of servers and constant security lighting transform formerly rural areas into round-the-clock industrial zones. Diesel generator testing, required for redundancy, adds to local air pollution and low-frequency noise that travels miles. Residents who once enjoyed dark skies and quiet nights now report constant hums and vibrations. 

Beyond the physical footprint, the social dynamic shifts. Communities that once marketed themselves for livability or tourism become energy-importing regions, tethered to infrastructure demands beyond their control. Local elected officials, initially convinced that the new facilities would bring financial independence, find themselves managing a complex web of public resistance, rising costs and environmental degradation.

Virginia’s experience offers a preview of what may soon unfold nationwide. The same economic promises that captivated northern Virginia are now being replicated across the country, from Arizona to Ohio. Yet the underlying economic logic remains the same: the boom is front-loaded, the costs are backloaded and the resource impacts are permanent.

Data centers are essential to modern life. The issue is not whether to build them, but how and at what cost. The lessons from Virginia show that language, incentives and oversight matter. Euphemisms like technology campus should not replace honest assessments of industrial impact. Communities should require full disclosure of power, water and noise projections before approving such projects. Without transparency, localities risk signing long-term commitments without understanding the full consequences.

The data center boom will not last forever. As technology evolves through server efficiency, cloud distribution or new cooling innovations, the massive physical campuses now under construction may no longer be viable in a decade. The question is not only how to build them, but what happens when they are obsolete?

The illusion of easy money is powerful, but it comes with a cost. The challenge for every community, and for every business supplying these projects is to recognize that cost before it becomes irreversible.

Data centers: Supplier to steward and the dual responsibility

Behind every data center stands a network of distributors, manufacturers, engineers and contractors who make the projects possible. Our industry provides chillers, valves, pipe, tubing, conduits, pumps and generators that form the skeleton of every modern data hub. This means we also share responsibility for how these projects are designed, built and integrated into the communities where they operate.

Manufacturers and distributors are not passive participants. They must be active partners in shaping outcomes. They hold a dual responsibility: to their customers, who rely on them for expertise and reliability, and to their communities, where their employees live, their families drink the water and their taxes fund the infrastructure under strain.

The key is understanding that responsible growth does not mean rejecting development; it means guiding it wisely. Wholesale distributors and manufacturers have an opportunity and an obligation to educate clients on technologies and practices that reduce harm and enhance sustainability. Many developers and engineering firms operate on tight budgets and timelines. They often prioritize upfront costs or speed over long-term efficiency. Suppliers can shift that conversation by presenting better options.

For instance, when specifying cooling systems, manufacturers and distributors can promote closed-loop or hybrid systems that minimize water consumption and noise. In lighting, they can offer dark-sky-compliant fixtures that reduce glare and light pollution. For backup power, they can advocate for Tier 4 or better generators, which sharply reduce diesel emissions. These are not theoretical gestures. They are practical interventions that shape how a facility interacts with its surroundings.

Manufacturers and distributors should also engage early with data center design teams. Too often, the equipment selection process happens late, after major decisions have been made. By positioning themselves as technical advisors during the conceptual phase, suppliers can influence both the mechanical design and the project’s environmental performance. Providing clear data on system efficiency, noise output and water demand helps specifiers make informed choices that align with both performance goals and community expectations.

Transparency is another area where suppliers can lead. Large-scale data center projects are governed by nondisclosure agreements that prevent public disclosure of energy or water use. While confidentiality has a place in competitive industries, secrecy undermines public trust when it concerns shared resources. Manufacturers and distributors can encourage their clients to voluntarily release nonsensitive data, demonstrating accountability and community respect.

The fairness issue also looms large for business owners. Local distributors and manufacturers rarely benefit from the tax breaks and incentives granted to data center developers. Yet these businesses are the ones that employ residents, sponsor local charities and pay full taxes that keep schools and infrastructure running. When incentives are offered, they should apply to companies that contribute directly to the local economy and uphold sustainable practices, not only to global corporations seeking short-term gains.

Manufacturers and distributors can also serve as bridges between developers and municipalities. By participating in public hearings or stakeholder meetings, they can share technical insights that clarify what a project really entails, including the amount of power it will draw, how it will cool and what it will sound like. Such engagement fosters transparency and builds credibility. When distributors show that they care about the long-term well-being of their communities, they strengthen both their business relationships and their civic reputation.

Finally, the supply chain must think about legacy. What happens to these facilities in 20 years? How can they be decommissioned or repurposed responsibly? The design decisions made today, including the materials used, site layout and infrastructure connections, will determine whether a campus can be adapted or becomes a stranded asset. The supply chain should advocate for modular systems, recyclable materials and scalable infrastructure that enable transition rather than abandonment.

The data center industry will continue to expand, but its direction is not predetermined. The choices of distributors and manufacturers will influence whether this expansion becomes a sustainable enterprise or another industrial boom-bust cycle. The path forward requires a shift in mindset from short-term transactions to long-term stewardship.

Building the future without breaking the community

Turning from principles to practice, the challenge is to translate awareness into action and move from understanding the problem to implementing solutions. The roadmap for responsible development begins with transparency, continues through design and construction and extends into long-term community partnership.

 Start with language and truth. The first step toward accountability is clarity. The phrase technology campus should not be used to describe facilities that consume as much power as small cities. Stakeholders must insist on honest terminology in planning documents and public communications. Accuracy fosters informed consent. Communities deserve to know what they are hosting.

 Engage early in project design. Distributors and manufacturers should seek involvement during the earliest design stages. Early engagement allows them to influence site planning, cooling strategies, lighting design and energy sourcing before the data center plans are set in stone. Recommending low-water, low-noise systems, renewable-ready infrastructure and advanced energy management tools can prevent later conflict and retrofit costs.

 Tie incentives to performance. Local governments should condition tax breaks and abatements on measurable environmental outcomes such as water efficiency, noise limits, renewable energy use and land restoration. Suppliers can advocate for this approach in public forums and private negotiations. Incentives should reward responsibility, not simply scale or speed.

 Promote transparency over secrecy. The use of nondisclosure agreements to conceal resource data erodes trust. Manufacturers and distributors should encourage their clients to disclose nonsensitive information about energy use, water consumption and environmental impact. Transparency builds credibility and prevents backlash. Communities that understand the trade-offs are far more likely to support responsible growth.

 Plan for adaptability and decommissioning. Technology evolves rapidly. Facilities built to current specifications may be outdated in a decade. Contracts should include decommissioning plans and provisions for adaptive reuse. Sites should be designed to transition into other industrial or civic purposes if data operations decline. Suppliers can help by promoting modular, recyclable systems that make future transitions feasible.

 Support community reinvestment. Responsible development means giving back. Developers and their suppliers should invest in the communities that host them through watershed restoration, workforce training, infrastructure upgrades and environmental monitoring. These investments create goodwill and balance the scales between private gain and public impact.

 Prioritize long-term monitoring. Accountability does not end when construction does. Continuous monitoring of noise, water use and emissions ensures compliance and helps communities detect issues early. Distributors can participate by providing monitoring technology or maintenance services that support transparency.

 Advocate for fairness and equity. Manufacturers and distributors should stand together with local businesses to ensure that incentive structures are equitable. Long-standing employers should not be penalized for their permanence while transient megaprojects receive preferential treatment. Sustainable economic policy rewards consistency, reliability and community investment.

 Collaborate across sectors. Industry associations, trade groups and civic organizations can form partnerships to establish voluntary guidelines for responsible data center construction. By uniting the voices of manufacturers, suppliers, contractors and engineers, the industry can self-regulate before heavier legislation becomes necessary.

The broader point is that the data center boom represents both opportunity and risk. It can fuel innovation and economic growth, but it can also overextend infrastructure and deplete resources if left unchecked. The difference lies in how the supply chain behaves and whether it operates on short-term profit motives or long-term community principles.

Manufacturers and distributors have a stake in this outcome. Their businesses depend on public trust, stable infrastructure and healthy communities. They are also among the first to feel the consequences when those foundations erode. By embracing their role as stewards rather than bystanders, they help shape a model of industrial growth that aligns technology with responsibility.

As the digital economy continues to expand, the demand for data infrastructure will remain high. However, the form that expansion takes is still within our control. Each decision to disclose or withhold information, prioritize efficiency or expedience or balance incentives with accountability determines whether the boom strengthens or weakens the communities it touches.

The next decade will define the legacy of this industry. Will we look back and see a period of thoughtful progress and mutual benefit, or a cycle of overreach and regret?

Every business owner, every distributor, and every manufacturer must decide how to answer that question — not only in words, but in actions that shape the communities where we live and work. 

Karen Fox is the residential business manager at Viega.