AI needs infrastructure. Florida communities need protection. Those two ideas do not have to be enemies.
Artificial intelligence is here, and with it comes a rapidly growing demand for data centers.
But before Floridians decide whether they love them, hate them, ban them or welcome them, maybe we should begin with a much simpler question:
What exactly are we talking about?
A data center is essentially a building — or sometimes an enormous campus of buildings — filled with servers, networking equipment and other computer hardware operating around the clock. They store websites, run cloud services, process financial transactions, stream movies, support smartphones and increasingly provide the computing power necessary to train and operate artificial intelligence.
And yes, some of them are enormous.
Proposals currently before officials in DeSoto County, Florida, show just how large hyperscale projects can become. One application covers roughly 274 acres and proposes 3.69 million square feet of data-center space. Another covers nearly 554 acres and proposes 4.66 million square feet along with its own electrical-generation facility. (DeSoto County)
A separate proposed project near Arcadia has discussed the possibility of eventually exceeding 800 acres. (Bay News 9)
These aren’t server closets behind an office building.
They are major industrial infrastructure.
And that is precisely why people asking questions about them shouldn’t be dismissed as anti-technology.
How Much Electricity Do Data Centers Actually Use?
A lot.
In 2023, American data centers consumed approximately 176 terawatt-hours of electricity — about 4.4% of all U.S. electricity consumption, according to research from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy.
By 2028, DOE estimates data centers could consume somewhere between 6.7% and 12% of all U.S. electricity, or approximately 325 to 580 terawatt-hours annually. (The Department of Energy’s Energy.gov)
That doesn’t mean every individual data center consumes the electricity of a city.
Data centers vary tremendously in size.
But the new generation of hyperscale and AI facilities can require tremendous amounts of continuous power, and unlike many factories or commercial buildings, servers don’t simply clock out at 5 p.m.
They can run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. (Every CRS Report)
Recent industry estimates cited by Axios put the average large data-center site at roughly 62 megawatts of power demand and $2.1 billion to $2.4 billion in construction cost — while the largest AI campuses being proposed go far beyond those figures. (Axios)
So when homeowners ask whether several enormous new electrical customers could affect their grid or their bill, that is a legitimate question.
It deserves an answer.
What About Water?
This is where the discussion often becomes misleading because not every data center uses the same cooling system.
Computer chips generate tremendous amounts of heat. That heat has to go somewhere.
Some facilities rely heavily on air cooling.
Some use chillers.
Some use cooling towers and evaporative systems that consume significant amounts of water.
Some use combinations of those technologies.
And increasingly, high-density AI facilities are adopting liquid cooling, where coolant is brought much closer to the chips themselves.
So asking, “Do data centers use water?” isn’t enough.
The better question is:
What cooling system does this particular data center use, how much water will it consume, and where will that water come from?
Nationwide, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated that U.S. data centers directly consumed about 66 billion liters — roughly 17.4 billion gallons — of water in 2023. Hyperscale and large colocation facilities accounted for about 84% of that total. (ETA Publications)
Projections for 2028 vary considerably depending on growth and cooling technology, but estimates cited from the same research put total direct U.S. data-center water consumption somewhere around 37 billion to 66 billion gallons annually. (Nevada Legislature)
Those national numbers sound enormous — because they are.
But they also need context.
Water impacts are extremely local.
A water-intensive facility built where supplies are abundant presents a different problem than the same facility drawing groundwater in a stressed agricultural community.
Technology matters, too.
Microsoft, for example, announced a new data-center design using chip-level closed-loop cooling that it says consumes zero water for cooling during normal operations and can avoid more than 125 million liters of water annually per facility compared with previous designs. Water is still needed for normal building uses such as kitchens and restrooms. (Microsoft)
That matters because it demonstrates something important:
Heavy water consumption is not an unavoidable law of nature for every future data center.
Engineering choices matter.
And communities should be allowed to know those choices before construction begins.
Why Are People So Angry About Them?
Because this debate isn’t really about computers.
It’s about trust.
People hear that a corporation worth hundreds of billions — sometimes trillions — of dollars wants hundreds of acres of land, hundreds of megawatts of electricity and potentially substantial water resources.
Then they hear about tax incentives.
Confidential economic-development negotiations.
Utility infrastructure.
Rezoning.
And promises of future jobs and revenue.
For a homeowner watching his electric bill increase or a rancher watching thousands of acres change from rural to industrial use, “Trust us” isn’t much of a policy.
And the polling shows it.
A July 2026 University of North Florida Public Opinion Research Lab survey found that Floridians were almost perfectly divided on the increased use of artificial intelligence itself: 49% supported it and 49% opposed it.
But when asked whether they would support an AI data center being built in their local area, only 28% supported it while 68% opposed it. (Jacksonville Today)
That is a staggering gap.
And it isn’t uniquely Floridian.
A nationally representative University of Pennsylvania Annenberg survey conducted this summer found 61% of Americans oppose construction of new data centers in their area, up from 49% only months earlier.
The opposition crossed party lines:
- 69% of Democrats.
- 54% of Republicans.
- 53% of independents.
Only 14% of Americans in that survey supported local construction. (Almanac)
Yet another set of industry research found an extraordinary contradiction: 79% of Americans support U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence, but only 14% support data-center development in their own community. (JLL)
There is your political problem.
Americans want the technology.
They aren’t convinced they want its infrastructure next door.
But Here’s Where the Polling Gets Really Interesting
Ask Floridians a different question and the answer changes.
A February poll from the James Madison Institute asked whether Florida should take steps to attract data-center investment.
- 52% supported doing so.
- 34% opposed it.
- 14% weren’t sure. (James Madison Institute)
Associated Industries of Florida commissioned another survey that framed data centers around local property-tax relief, jobs and keeping critical American technology away from foreign adversaries.
Under that framing, 64% supported building a data center in their community, including 77% of Republicans, 62% of independents and 46% of Democrats. (AIF)
That poll deserves a caveat: AIF represents Florida businesses, and the question attached several potential benefits to data-center construction.
But that’s precisely why comparing these polls is so useful.
Ask somebody:
“Do you want a giant data center near your home?”
They overwhelmingly say no.
Ask:
“Should Florida attract technological investment?”
A majority says yes.
Ask:
“What if it creates jobs, improves national security and reduces taxes?”
Support rises further.
That isn’t hypocrisy.
It means voters are weighing costs against benefits.
And there is one more Florida poll that may tell us more than any of them.
After Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s new data-center law this year, polling by Sachs Media found 89% of Florida voters supported the regulations, including 70% who strongly supported them.
Only 4% opposed them. (Florida Politics)
The law preserves local land-use authority, establishes special permitting rules for large-scale data centers, requires regulated utilities to create tariffs designed to make large customers bear their own cost of service, and allows water regulators to require some use of reclaimed water. (Florida Senate)
In other words:
Floridians don’t necessarily appear to be demanding “NO DATA CENTERS.”
They appear to be demanding:
“DON’T SCREW US.”
That’s a much different message.
The Pro-Data-Center Side Has a Point, Too
There is another side of this argument, and it deserves to be represented fairly.
Artificial intelligence may become one of the most consequential industries of this century.
The United States is competing with China and other nations for leadership in AI, advanced computing, robotics, autonomous systems, medicine, defense and countless other technologies that will depend on enormous amounts of computing power.
You cannot simultaneously demand that America dominate artificial intelligence and refuse to build the infrastructure on which artificial intelligence runs.
Somebody is going to build it.
The question is whether America does.
There is also real investment involved.
JLL reported that North American data-center demand hit a record 25 gigawatts in just the first half of 2026, double the previous year’s pace. The company says hundreds of billions of dollars in financing are expected as the buildout continues. (JLL)
Data centers can produce construction work, permanent technical jobs, local tax revenue and enormous private investment.
Those aren’t imaginary benefits.
And investors have rights too.
A company considering a multi-billion-dollar project cannot reasonably operate under rules that change every six months depending on which political group packs a county meeting.
Businesses need predictable rules.
So do communities.
That is where the middle ground begins.
Stop Asking Communities to Trust Corporations — Make Them Prove It
Before a hyperscale data center receives final approval in Florida, there should be a mandatory plain-language public disclosure.
Not a 900-page engineering document that only attorneys can understand.
One document ordinary residents can read.
It should tell them:
- Who owns the project?
- How many acres will it occupy?
- How many square feet will ultimately be built?
- What is its expected peak electrical demand?
- What cooling system will it use?
- How many gallons of potable, reclaimed and groundwater will it consume under normal and peak conditions?
- What power-generation and transmission infrastructure will be required?
- Who pays for that infrastructure?
- How many construction jobs are expected?
- How many permanent jobs?
- What tax incentives are being requested?
- What happens if the company fails to deliver what it promised?
That document should be public before, not after, major approvals are granted.
There should be no mystery about what is coming to a community.
Bring Your Own Power
Maybe the simplest principle is:
If you bring a massive new electrical load, bring the infrastructure necessary to support it.
That doesn’t necessarily mean every data center has to own a private power plant.
It means existing homeowners should not become the involuntary venture-capital fund for the AI industry.
If a project requires a new substation, transmission upgrades, generation, storage or other infrastructure primarily because the project exists, the project’s economics should reflect those costs.
Florida’s 2026 law moves in that direction by requiring the Public Service Commission to establish large-load tariffs intended to ensure those customers bear their own cost of service and that the risk of nonpayment is not shifted to ordinary ratepayers. (Florida Senate)
But the protection isn’t absolute.
PolitiFact noted that the statute directs the PSC to “reasonably ensure” those costs aren’t shifted; it does not guarantee residential rates can never rise because of data-center growth. Municipal utilities and rural cooperatives also fall outside some of the law’s PSC provisions. (PolitiFact)
That’s an area Florida can strengthen.
The Carrot
If a developer agrees to strong standards, government shouldn’t torture them either.
Meet the requirements?
Disclose the information.
Secure water.
Secure power.
Pay attributable infrastructure costs.
Meet noise and setback standards.
Protect surrounding properties.
Then give the project a fast, predictable permitting path.
That gives investors something enormously valuable:
Certainty.
Florida can tell technology companies:
Play by the rules and we want your investment here.
That is much better economic policy than either endless red tape or secret backroom favors.
And the Stick
Rules without consequences are suggestions.
And consequences cannot become so insignificant that companies simply calculate them into the cost of doing business.
A $100,000 penalty means very different things to a family-owned company and a trillion-dollar corporation.
Serious violations should therefore trigger escalating consequences.
A first technical violation may mean corrective action and a reasonable penalty.
Repeated violations should bring substantially larger consequences.
Deliberately falsifying water-use numbers, concealing electrical demand, violating permit conditions or shifting prohibited costs onto the public should carry far tougher consequences.
Tax incentives should contain clawback provisions.
Fail to create the jobs you promised?
Pay taxpayers back.
Major developers could be required to post performance bonds before construction.
Repeated environmental or operating violations could result in temporary operating restrictions or permit suspension until compliance is restored.
And the most important distinction should be this:
Don’t punish honest mistakes like fraud. But don’t punish fraud like an honest mistake.
We Don’t Have to Choose Between Tech Companies and Homeowners
This is where the debate keeps going wrong.
A technology company isn’t evil because it wants to build a profitable data center.
A homeowner isn’t ignorant because he doesn’t want a four-million-square-foot industrial complex behind his property.
A rancher isn’t anti-American because she’s worried about groundwater.
And an investor isn’t anti-community because he believes America needs to compete with China.
All of those people can be right at the same time.
The mistake is forcing everyone into one of two camps:
Build everything everywhere.
Or:
Ban everything everywhere.
Neither is serious policy.
Florida May Already Be Showing Us the Answer
Florida has more than 100 operating data centers today, although the giant AI hyperscale facilities driving today’s debate are a different class of project. (PolitiFact)
And Florida is already wrestling with these questions in real time.
Counties have considered or adopted moratoriums.
Residents are packing meetings.
Developers are proposing enormous investments.
Politicians are taking sides.
And the issue has become part of the 2026 governor’s race, with Republican Byron Donalds favoring data-center development with protections while Democrat David Jolly has advocated a moratorium. (PolitiFact)
This shouldn’t become another issue where people are forced to hate whichever position the other political party supports.
Florida can do something more useful.
We can acknowledge that the people worried about their water, land, electric bills and communities have legitimate concerns.
And we can acknowledge that the people worried about losing America’s technological advantage have legitimate concerns too.
The polling suggests voters themselves may already understand that distinction.
They want America to succeed in AI.
They don’t want giant industrial facilities blindly dropped into their communities.
They want investment.
They want jobs.
They want their homes protected.
And overwhelmingly, they want rules.
So maybe the solution isn’t particularly radical.
Tell us what you’re building.
Tell us how much electricity it requires.
Tell us where the water comes from.
Don’t stick homeowners with the bill.
Don’t hide behind shell companies or confidential agreements.
Keep reasonable distances from homes.
Make enforceable promises.
Face real consequences if you deliberately break them.
And if you can meet those standards?
Welcome to Florida. Build the future here.
America did not become America by running away from new technology.
But progress has never required us to abandon common sense, private property, local communities or accountability either.
Data centers are coming.
AI is coming.
The question facing Florida isn’t whether we can stop the future.
It’s whether we are smart enough to build it without sacrificing the people who already call this place home.