Legal appeals seek to halt Boulder City data center project on federal land; lawmakers introduce bill for national ban
A data center project by Townsite Solar 2 on federal land in Boulder City, Nevada, is facing multiple legal challenges and appeals. Environmental groups and Boulder City officials argue the project received expedited approval without proper environmental review for its new use, especially given concerns about water and electricity demands. This local controversy has also prompted U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib to introduce federal legislation proposing a nationwide ban on data centers on federal lands.
A data center project by Houston-based Townsite Solar 2, a subsidiary of Skylar Capital Management, on federal land in Boulder City, Nevada, is facing significant legal and environmental challenges. The developer received expedited approval from the Trump administration to convert a site previously designated for a solar project into a data center, a move that opponents argue circumvented proper environmental review.
Both the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club, along with the Boulder City Attorney's office, have filed petitions for a stay with the Interior Board of Land Appeals, seeking to halt construction. Opponents contend that the data center's energy and water demands are drastically different from a solar farm, with the data center projected to require 560 acre-feet of water compared to 25 acre-feet for the solar project. Boulder City also raises concerns about the data center's impact on its city-owned utility, suggesting it could strain the local electrical grid and increase costs for residents, particularly as Hoover Dam's hydropower capacity is expected to decline.
The controversy has also drawn national attention, with U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib introducing the "No AI Data Centers on Federal Lands Act" (H.R. 9939) to ban such facilities on federal property. Critics of the Boulder City project view it as a potential blueprint for data centers across public lands nationwide if not challenged. While the Bureau of Land Management maintains its approval complied with federal executive orders and principles of responsible stewardship, opponents argue federal laws, including NEPA, were violated by not allowing public input or adequately assessing the new project's environmental impacts.