1
0
For most of 2026, anyone asking about a Shawnee County data center got the same answer, over and over: there’s no applicant. Nothing has been proposed. It’s too early to worry.
The paper trail tells a different story — one where the zoning code was rewritten, a procurement process was carved open, and county staff were quietly meeting with data center companies months before the public was let in on any of it.
The Shawnee County data center timeline officials didn’t volunteer
The Shawnee County Planning Commission recommended zoning changes requiring conditional use permits for data centers, energy storage systems, and utility structures. Planning staff acknowledged a battery storage facility had already leased land in the Tecumseh area. Commissioner Aaron Mays told WIBW’s Eye on Northeast Kansas there was “interest” in the county, while cautioning that “a blanket policy is [not] going to work for this” — his preference was case-by-case review.
Asked directly by KSNT whether a data center was coming, County Counselor’s office spokesperson Monhollon said commissioners and staff had “attended various meetings over the past two years” with Evergy about data center infrastructure statewide, but claimed “no specific project was identified… certainly none located in Shawnee County.” The same day, Topeka City Manager Robert Perez said there had been no discussions within city limits.
Just one week later, the county commission held a public hearing and passed Home Rule Resolution HR2026003, rewriting zoning regulations to formally define “energy storage systems” and “data centers” as permitted uses requiring conditional permits. Joni Thadani, Director of the county’s Land Use & Development Department, told residents she expected applications to arrive “within the next few months.” Residents packed the meeting with signs reading “No Data Centers!” Commissioners passed it anyway.
The commission approved a second resolution raising conditional use permit fees for data centers and energy storage from $700 to $15,000 — ostensibly to let the county hire outside experts on the applicant’s dime rather than taxpayers’. Buried in the same resolution, per Protect Kansas’s public comment at the meeting, was language that would have let the applicant — the data center company itself — determine whether its own project qualified as “time sensitive,” potentially bypassing competitive bid procurement. After pushback, the “and/or the Applicant” language was struck. The rest of the resolution passed.
The Topeka City Council held a study session on data centers, drawing roughly 100 residents. City staff admitted the city had no zoning framework at all for data centers — the county had been quietly building one for weeks while the city was still catching up. Councilwoman Christina Valdivia-Alcala said she’d only learned of “preliminary talks” with utilities after asking staff directly, and that when she requested paperwork, there wasn’t any to hand over. “What I was told is there have been preliminary talks with what it might be to offer services… There was nothing else,” she said.
At the following commission meeting, Thadani went further during administrative comment, according to video reviewed by Protect Kansas: she confirmed she’d personally been in contact with a data center company the day before, said the county “need[s] a data center to apply to know what they’re asking for,” and claimed the one company she’d spoken with told her “they will not use water” — an assurance environmental advocates note has no enforcement mechanism attached to it.
Put the dates side by side and the county’s public messaging on the Shawnee County data center question — nothing to see, no applicant, too early — collapses under its own timeline. Zoning was rewritten to accommodate an industry before a single application existed. Staff were in direct contact with at least one company. And the procurement carve-out only got walked back because residents caught it in the resolution text and showed up to say so.
Two Shawnee County data center proposals, one pattern
Compass Datacenters, per reporting out of the July 7 Topeka City Council meeting, has entered preliminary talks with the city for a site near the Walmart distribution center. Community sourcing puts the proposed capacity at 60 megawatts — enough to power roughly 45,000 homes — with water use around 0.4 million gallons per day, an estimated 40 permanent jobs, and tax incentives north of $20 million. None of those figures have been confirmed by the company or the city; Dystopeka has not independently verified them and is reporting them as claims pending public records.
What is independently verifiable: Compass Datacenters’ Meridian, Mississippi project was named the “Worst Economic Development Deal of the Year” for 2025 by the Center for Economic Accountability, a nonpartisan watchdog group. The Meridian deal exempted Compass from state sales, corporate income, and franchise taxes for a full decade, on top of local property tax breaks reportedly worth up to 66% for 30 years — against, in the Center’s words, “minimal local economic impact” and “poor transparency.” Kansas’s own SB98, which offers a 20-year property tax abatement pathway for qualifying projects, tracks uncomfortably close to that structure.
Project Deep Blue, a proposed Evergy + GoTopeka data center, is reportedly under an NDA — meaning residents, and possibly some elected officials, are barred from full details. Where the site actually is depends on which Protect Kansas flyer you’re looking at, and that discrepancy is itself worth flagging rather than papering over: one version of the flyer places it at 77th and Gary Ormsby, under two miles from Pauline Central Primary (K-2) and Pauline South Intermediate (3-5), with a map showing multiple schools inside a 5-mile radius. A separate, apparently more recent flyer places Project Deep Blue instead at Central Crossing Commerce Park, near Topeka Blvd. & 49th St., next to Target, Frito-Lay, and the Montara Apartments — a different site, several miles away.
It’s not clear from public materials whether the site moved, whether one flyer is outdated, or whether these are actually two separate proposals both circulating under the “Deep Blue” name. Dystopeka has not confirmed the location, the NDA’s existence, or its terms independently. If county or city officials are party to a nondisclosure agreement covering a project this size — at either site — that alone is a public records question worth formally pursuing, and getting a straight answer on the address should be step one.
The other project: a battery plant on the Kaw
Data centers aren’t the only large-scale energy infrastructure headed for Shawnee County. A Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) site is proposed for Tecumseh, along the Kansas (Kaw) River — the same site planning staff referenced in May when they confirmed a battery storage facility had already leased land in the area, months before the public zoning fight over data centers even began.
BESS facilities store grid electricity in dense banks of lithium-ion cells, and the risk profile is different from — arguably worse in an emergency sense than — a data center’s. Lithium-ion fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish, can reignite after appearing out, and release toxic and flammable gases that have triggered neighborhood evacuations at BESS sites in California and elsewhere. Siting one along a river corridor adds a runoff and water-contamination dimension that a landlocked data center wouldn’t carry.
The same zoning resolutions (HR2026003 and the July 2 permit-fee resolution) that opened the door for data centers apply to energy storage systems too — they were written into the same regulatory language, passed at the same meetings, discussed by the same commissioners. Any accountability push aimed only at data centers and not at BESS is aiming at half the target.
Reviewing the actual resolution text on the procurement question — not secondhand characterization of it — the original draft read:
“However, in the event that: i. County and/or the Applicant determines that project review is time-sensitive and ii. that completion of the ordinary procurement process would materially delay review of the application; and iii. The applicant provides written consent; the County may retain consultants selected by the County without completion of the standard competitive procurement process.”
The applicant remains fully liable for consultant costs either way, and retained consultants owe their loyalty to the county, not the applicant — safeguards that arguably do the real work here regardless of who gets to flag a project “time-sensitive.” But letting the applicant — the company with the most direct financial interest in a fast timeline — help trigger an exception to competitive bidding was a real structural problem, not a hypothetical one, and it took public comment at a commission meeting to strike it. That’s the kind of clause that doesn’t get caught unless someone is reading resolution text line by line, which is exactly what happened here.
What a Shawnee County data center means for residents
Setting aside the unverified specifics of any one project, the structural pattern behind a typical Shawnee County data center deal is well documented nationally and worth stating plainly:
- Massive power draw. A single 100-megawatt facility can consume roughly 530,000 gallons of water a day, according to Library of Congress figures citing the International Energy Agency — and that’s before accounting for grid strain and the infrastructure upgrades utilities pass through to ratepayers.
- Minimal permanent employment. Data centers are capital-intensive, not labor-intensive. Tens of millions in incentives routinely buy a few dozen permanent jobs.
- Public infrastructure, private benefit. Grid and water system upgrades needed to serve a single large facility are frequently socialized across the ratepayer base.
- Decades-long tax exposure. The Mississippi model — the one that won “worst deal of the year” — normalized decade-plus abatements. Kansas’s SB98 opens a similar 20-year door.
None of this requires assuming bad faith from any single official to be concerning. It requires only that residents be told the truth about timing — and on that point, the record shows the public was behind the county’s own staff by weeks, not days.
Who pays the water bill?
Layer one more fact onto this before getting to the nuclear angle: the City of Topeka is reportedly examining whether it has the capacity to extend water service out to the county to serve a data center. Whether or not that specific extension happens, the city’s underlying water finances are not exactly flush.
The Topeka Capital-Journal reported the city is carrying $386 million in utility debt and is weighing a sixth consecutive year of water rate increases for existing ratepayers.
That context matters directly to the “public costs for private benefit” question raised earlier. If new infrastructure capacity has to be built to serve a Shawnee County data center or a battery storage site, and the city’s water utility is already leaning on rate increases to service existing debt, residents have a fair question to ask before any deal closes: is the developer paying for that capacity outright, or is it getting folded into the same rate base that’s already climbing for a sixth straight year? Dystopeka has not seen a cost-allocation plan for either project and has requested one as part of its open records request.
Also on the table: a nuclear reactor
As if the grid-strain math wasn’t enough, one proposed solution to data centers’ power appetite now includes nuclear generation in the mix. Deep Fission Inc., a California company partnered with the U.S. Department of Energy, is developing an underground “Gravity Reactor” in Parsons, Kansas — reactors placed in boreholes roughly a mile deep. The company filed with the SEC to raise more than $40 million via a Nasdaq stock offering (ticker: FISN) and says it’s targeting a 2027 commercial license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
“The tech hasn’t been proven to be appropriate even for use in this way… There’s no evidence-based practice out there to rely on.” — Fran Tompkins, Kansas activist, on the untested deep-borehole reactor design
Residents in the area, Tompkins said, don’t want to be “lab rats.” Whether a Parsons-style reactor is ever proposed for Shawnee County is speculative at this point. But it illustrates the trajectory: once a county commits to hosting a Shawnee County data center or similar energy-hungry infrastructure, the pressure to solve the resulting power deficit doesn’t go away — it just moves to the next agenda item.
What accountability would actually look like
Protect Kansas isn’t just asking commissioners to say no — it’s circulating a specific list of structural asks for both the county and the city, before any Shawnee County data center or BESS application is approved:
- An advisory committee seated with independent experts and members of the public, not just staff and the applicant
- Classifying data centers and BESS facilities as Heavy Industrial (I-2) zoning, not folding them into looser utility-structure categories
- Requiring a Conditional Use Permit with actual public hearings for every project, not a staff-level sign-off
- Independent (not applicant-funded-and-selected) studies on grid capacity, water supply, noise, traffic, and fiscal impact to taxpayers
- Developers — not ratepayers — covering the cost of any needed infrastructure upgrades
- Enforceable, written standards for noise, lighting, stormwater, and backup generator operation, not verbal assurances
- Public disclosure of projected water use, electricity demand, jobs, and incentive value before a vote, plus disclosure of any past rate increases used to justify ramping up capacity for these projects
- A public review requirement for any future expansion phases, so a modest first-phase pitch can’t quietly balloon later without another look
Whatever one thinks of a moratorium specifically, that list is a reasonable baseline for what “the public actually knowing what it voted for” would look like — and notably, none of it exists yet for either project.
Where the Shawnee County data center stands now
- The county’s zoning framework for a Shawnee County data center — and for battery storage — is now in place, passed before any formal application existed for either.
- The procurement bypass language was narrowed, not eliminated, after public pressure caught it in the resolution text.
- At least one data center company has had direct contact with county land use staff, by the department director’s own account.
- No formal application has been filed as of this writing, per county officials.
- Project Deep Blue’s actual site location is disputed between the advocacy group’s own materials — a discrepancy that hasn’t been publicly resolved.
- A BESS site in Tecumseh, along the Kansas River, has reportedly already leased land — separate from and further along than either data center proposal.
- The city’s water utility carries $386 million in debt and is considering a sixth straight year of rate increases, raising the question of who absorbs the cost of any service extension to new industrial users.
- A statewide protest is planned for July 15 outside the Docking State Office Building, timed to a data center industry symposium happening inside it.
Dystopeka has filed open records requests for any correspondence, NDAs, or meeting logs between Shawnee County or City of Topeka staff and Shawnee County data center companies, including Compass Datacenters and Evergy/GoTopeka, and will publish what comes back.
More on this Shawnee County data center story
This is the first in a running Dystopeka series tracking the Shawnee County data center push and battery storage development. Follow-up pieces will dig into individual threads in more depth, including:
- The Compass Datacenters proposal and its Mississippi track record
- The Tecumseh battery storage site and lithium-ion fire risk along the Kaw
- Records obtained on Project Deep Blue’s NDA and true site location
- Coverage of the July 15 statewide data center protest
[This section will link to each piece as it publishes.]
Individuals and companies named in this piece are described based on their public official capacity, on-the-record statements, or independently reported facts. Several figures — including Compass Datacenters’ proposed project capacity, water use, and incentive value; the existence and terms of an NDA for Project Deep Blue; and Project Deep Blue’s exact site location — originate from community advocacy sources and have not yet been independently verified by Dystopeka. They are presented as claims pending confirmation, and the conflicting site locations across Protect Kansas’s own materials are noted explicitly above rather than resolved by guesswork. The procurement resolution language quoted directly above was reviewed from a document image and is quoted verbatim. Have documents, tips, or corrections — especially on Project Deep Blue’s actual address? Contact Dystopeka.
Credibility stack: sources behind this Shawnee County data center story
Every claim in this piece about the Shawnee County data center push traces back to one of the sources below — official reporting, primary documents, or advocacy materials clearly labeled as such. Where a figure came from a community flyer rather than an independent source, that’s noted in the article itself.
Local reporting & official statements
These are the outlets that have covered the Shawnee County data center question directly, cited by name and date throughout the article above.
County and city officials’ early public statements downplaying any active data center discussions, later contradicted by the zoning timeline.
County Counselor Rich Eckert’s June 5 press conference: closed-loop cooling claims, a 240,000-gallon-per-year water estimate, and the county’s account of the proposed site near the Mars Wrigley factory and Walmart Distribution Center.
First public confirmation that a battery storage facility had already leased land in Tecumseh, and Commissioner Aaron Mays’s on-record comments about “interest” in the county.
Coverage of the vote on Home Rule Resolution HR2026003 and Joni Thadani’s statement that applications were expected “within the next few months.”
Reporting on the $700-to-$15,000 conditional use permit fee increase for any Shawnee County data center or battery storage applicant, and County Counselor Rich Eckert’s rationale for the consultant-procurement changes.
City staff’s admission that Topeka had no zoning framework for data centers, and the council’s decision to begin drafting one.
Councilwoman Christina Valdivia-Alcala’s account of learning about “preliminary talks” with utilities only after requesting information directly from staff.
Primary documents on the Shawnee County data center resolution
These are the underlying filings and releases, not secondhand summaries of them.
The resolution text quoted verbatim in the article, including the original “County and/or the Applicant” language before it was struck following public comment on the Shawnee County data center procurement process. Reviewed from a document image; not yet linked to a public county records page — Dystopeka has requested the official filing.
The nonpartisan watchdog group’s original press release naming Compass Datacenters’ Meridian, Mississippi project, with the tax-break and transparency findings cited in this piece.
Reporting on Deep Fission Inc.’s Nasdaq filing for its Parsons, Kansas underground reactor project, including activist Fran Tompkins’s on-record concerns.
Source of the Project Deep Blue location claims, the accountability policy asks, and the resolution-clause public comment. Figures drawn from these materials are flagged as unverified where independent confirmation wasn’t available.
Other perspectives on the Shawnee County data center plan
Not every source here is a critic. This section includes viewpoints that support development, so readers can weigh both sides directly.
A pro-development opinion column arguing Kansas, including counties weighing a Shawnee County data center proposal, should lead on data center infrastructure. Included here for balance and worth reading alongside the accountability concerns raised in this piece.
Further reading: the Shawnee County data center debate in national context
Shawnee County isn’t the first place asking these questions about a data center. Here’s what’s happened in communities further along in the process — the wins, the fights, and the costs that showed up after the ribbon-cutting.
Water
How rural communities in Georgia and Arizona discovered data center water use only after wells ran low or dust-control trucks drew from municipal supplies — plus the Tucson City Council’s unanimous rejection of a data center over water concerns.
A broader look at how chip manufacturing and fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation both carry hidden water costs that show up long before a facility ever opens.
A plain-language breakdown of cooling methods, including exactly how much water a closed-loop system saves compared to evaporative cooling — useful context for evaluating the “no water use” claims made locally.
Electricity bills
Documents electricity price spikes of up to 267% in areas with dense data center concentrations, and the multistate legislative response — over 300 bills introduced in 2026 alone.
Survey data on what actually drives public support or opposition — water and electricity impact rank far above job creation or tax revenue for most residents.
Community pushback — and what worked
A researcher’s interview on why opposition is legitimate rather than exaggerated, and why regional planning — not just single-project review — is necessary as facility counts multiply.
Breaks down which governance tools actually work — dedicated rate classes, cost-recovery safeguards, and public water-use disclosure — and notes that even large data centers typically employ fewer than 150 permanent staff.
A practical playbook drawn from Missouri communities already negotiating with developers, including community benefit agreements and the case for planning before a proposal ever lands.
A rural Nevada water district’s account of watching zoning move fast with no environmental assessment — a pattern that will sound familiar to anyone following the Shawnee County timeline.
This credibility stack will be updated as new documents, records requests, and reporting on the Shawnee County data center push come in. If you have a correction, a primary source, or a document that belongs here, contact Dystopeka.
Related Dystopeka reporting: the Shawnee County data center story in context
The Shawnee County data center fight isn’t happening in isolation — it fits a pattern Dystopeka has tracked across federal, state, and local government: officials saying “nothing to see here” right up until the paper trail says otherwise. These pieces cover different topics, but the same throughline runs through them.
An official report insists everything’s under control while quietly expanding surveillance capability — the same “trust the process” messaging pattern showing up in Shawnee County’s data center timeline.
Another Kansas city commission, another controversial facility siting fight — a direct parallel to the Shawnee County data center zoning battle, right down to the public-comment showdown before a vote.
A proposal to quietly strip out an existing check on power, reframed as a procedural change — the same structural pattern residents flagged in the county’s original procurement resolution language.
A case study in what happens when officials grant access to sensitive systems first and answer oversight questions later — a federal-scale version of the “we’ve been talking to them for months” admission in Shawnee County.
The deeper evidence file behind the DOGE access story, including the timeline discrepancies that only surfaced after whistleblowers and reporters pushed past the official line.
A case built on a timeline that doesn’t quite match the official explanation for it — the same kind of discrepancy-hunting this Shawnee County data center coverage relies on.
A broader look at how individual controversies, taken together, reveal a pattern that’s harder to dismiss than any single incident — the same argument this piece makes about zoning votes, resolution language, and disputed site locations.
This article is connected to newer related coverage and supporting context below.
🔁 Keep Reading
Related Dystopeka reporting and context:
Latest From Topeka Police Scanner
-
What We Know About the Deadly Topeka Police ShootingOctober 5, 2026 4:22 amSource: TopekaPoliceScanner.comMichael Wayne Schmidt, 47, died after police say he retrieved a gun as officers tried to take him into custody A Topeka police shooting... -
Man Critically Hurt in Apparent Fall From US-24 BridgeSeptember 25, 2026 4:01 amSource: TopekaPoliceScanner.comUS-24 Bridge Fall Leaves Man Critically Hurt in North Topeka TOPEKA, Kan. A man is in the hospital with life-threatening injuries after apparently falling... -
Suspect Arrested in Deadly NOTO Double Homicide, Victims Now RevealedSeptember 12, 2026 2:41 amSource: TopekaPoliceScanner.comTOPEKA, Kan. — As the investigation into Thursday night’s shooting in the 900 block of N. Kansas Ave. continues, more details are emerging about... -
Urgent: Topeka Double Homicide, TPD Needs Your HelpSeptember 11, 2026 4:14 amSource: TopekaPoliceScanner.comTopeka Double Homicide: TPD Seeks Help Identifying Person of Interest in NOTO Shooting TOPEKA, Kan. — A Topeka double homicide investigation is underway after... -
Topeka Shooting Victim Now Stable After Critical InjuryAugust 15, 2026 10:51 pmSource: TopekaPoliceScanner.comTOPEKA, Kan. — A Topeka shooting Saturday afternoon left an adult male hospitalized with what were initially described as life-threatening injuries. What happened on...
