For close to a year, Imperial County officials have been weighing how to best handle growing interest in the region from data center developers — along with furious opposition from many residents.
Now, two county supervisors want to hand that decision over to voters.
During Tuesday’s regular Board of Supervisors meeting, supervisors Jesus Eduardo Escobar and Martha Cardenas-Singh said they would support a ballot measure giving voters the option to ban data center projects on unincorporated county land.
The issue has been front and center for the supervisors since a proposal to build a nearly one million-square-foot data center near the city of Imperial emerged late last year. Supervisors initially approved a lot merger for the project, but then imposed a temporary freeze on data centers after sustained community backlash.
Escobar said he felt he had prioritized administrative concerns over the priorities of county residents earlier this year. He said voters should get to choose the direction of the county.
“Why would we not let the people decide the future in Imperial County?” Escobar asked. “Let’s bring it to the table.”
The three remaining supervisors were more resistant to the proposal. They argued the Board should wait for the county’s new data center advisory committee to issue its recommendations in January.
“It seems to be putting the cart before the horse,” said Supervisor Ryan Kelley. “I do not believe that is an appropriate use at this time.”
The five supervisors didn’t take any formal action Tuesday, but both Escobar and Cardenas-Singh said they hoped to revisit the discussion and vote on whether to develop a ballot measure soon.
The five supervisors also voted unanimously Tuesday to reinstate a temporary moratorium, or emergency freeze, on data center projects on county land. Their previous moratorium was struck down by a court last month.
Residents’ ballot measure faced legal challenge
A group of Imperial County residents tried to get a data center ban onto the November ballot earlier this year.
The Imperial County Data Center Prohibition Act was proposed by five frequent data center critics: Kristian Salgado, Francisco Leal, Christopher Scurries, Jake Tison and Jacob Rodriguez.
It asked voters to consider banning the giant computing warehouses in unincorporated areas — and cancel any projects the county had already signed off on. It cited data centers’ possible energy and water needs and potential air pollution from backup generator facilities.
But that effort faced a swift legal challenge.
Sebastian Rucci, the developer behind the proposed project near the city of Imperial, sued the Imperial County Registrar of Voters, arguing the draft referendum went too far. Rucci filed the suit on behalf of local consultant Tom DuBose and a handful of other residents.
Facing this threat, the measure’s proponents withdrew it. Speaking at the county’s meeting Tuesday, Scurries said they were intimidated.
“As working class residents, we couldn't take the financial risk to pursue a lawsuit of this magnitude,” he said.
Other residents at Tuesday’s meeting questioned whether it would be premature to hold a referendum now.
Susan Paradis supported the idea of a ballot measure but said the county’s advisory committee should get to finish their work.
“This is potential income for our county, income we need,” Paradis said. “If it’s out by Mount Signal, it's not harming anyone and it's bringing 50 million into the county, you need to look at that.”
Fabiola Moreno, an organizer with the electricians’ union IBEW 569, also argued for allowing the committee to complete its studies first. Moreno said the slate of new laws signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last month will also help protect valley residents.
Most speakers, though, praised Escobar and Cardenas-Singh for backing a potential ballot measure and urged the other supervisors to support it as well.
Edna Duarte, who works as a doctor in Mexico, noted that data centers’ backup power systems can produce harmful air particles and other types of pollution. Duarte said those pollutants could affect both the Imperial Valley and Mexicali, just across the U.S.-Mexico border.
“The people should vote,” Duarte said in Spanish, speaking through a translator. “There’s an urgency to discuss this.”
Gilberto Manzanarez, who runs the grassroots advocacy group Valle Imperial Resiste and sits on the county data center committee, addressed Supervisor John Hawk.
Although they both come from different backgrounds — Hawk from influential farmers and Manzanarez from a farmworking family — Manzarez said he believes they both love the Imperial Valley and want to leave it better for future generations.
“Let’s exercise democracy,” Manzanarez said. “Leave it to the people to decide for themselves.”
Supervisors divided on ballot measure question
Cardenas-Singh has been the only supervisor consistently pushing back against data centers.
When the Board of Supervisors voted in April to approve the lot merger, clearing the way for Rucci’s proposed complex, Cardenas-Singh was the lone supervisor to vote against it.
On Tuesday, she said developing a potential ballot measure would take time. She pointed out that the county has faced a series of legal setbacks recently — including a judge overturning that lot merger approval.
“We've had attempts at several items, and unfortunately, we missed a step or it wasn't done correctly,” Cardenas-Singh said. “We want to make sure this is done right.”
Escobar said he felt like he should have taken a stronger stance against data center development during that vote.
“I failed by not listening to my community,” he said. “How do you rectify that mistake? By making sure the people have a voice in the decision making process.”
There are two direct pathways to a potential data center ballot measure, Imperial County Registrar of Voters Linsey Dale told supervisors Tuesday.
The first option would be to hold a standalone special election, which Dale told the Board would cost around $500,000. The second would be to put the measure on the ballot during the next primary election in early 2028. That, Dale said, likely wouldn’t cost anything extra.
Kelley said he worried about the cost of a special election.
Hawk also wanted to focus on letting the advisory committee finish its report. He said wants to hear from experts and travel to see more data center infrastructure in person.
County Chair Peggy Price agreed, arguing the county committee was charged with doing research and fact-finding around the topic. She said their recommendations could very well include banning data centers.
“There’s no rush on this,” Price said. “We put the brakes on things, and we're going to do the research.”
Supervisors restore data center moratorium
“The brakes,” as Price described them, included a new emergency moratorium on data center projects being built on county land.
The five supervisors voted unanimously to approve the moratorium Tuesday on the recommendation of County Counsel Geoffrey Holbrook. The new ordinance describes data centers as a “current and immediate threat” to the Imperial Valley’s water supply and local energy production.
The Board of Supervisors approved its original moratorium back in June. Rucci immediately challenged that moratorium in court.
Last month, Imperial County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Jones ordered the county to cease enforcing the moratorium. Jones said the county had failed to justify calling data centers an immediate threat to public health and safety.
In a staff report, Holbrook’s office said the second moratorium cited new evidence to meet that bar. That includes a separate court ruling ordering an environmental review of the Imperial data center complex.
The staff report also cited multiple other data center project applications pending in the Mesquite Lake Specific Plan area — which covers around 11 square miles between the cities of Brawley and Imperial — and new federal guidelines around management of the Colorado River.
It also said the moratorium was meant to allow the county advisory committee to finish its fact-finding mission.
“The proposed interim ordinance is intended to preserve the status quo for a limited period while the County completes this work,” Holbrook’s office wrote.
