By Braeden Mansouri
We previously addressed the fledgling efforts in California and across the country to oppose the development of new data centers. Since then, the movement has become the defining issue in midterm election races across the country.
Many data center opponents express concern with the impacts data centers can have on the surrounding community. Some of these impacts pertain to utility strain (water and electricity), environmental impacts stemming from utility usage, as well as noise and air quality impacts from the use of diesel generators during power outages, and few community benefits (e.g. permanent jobs, sales tax revenue, etc.) despite the size of the facilities.
Data Center Development Moratoria Become Political
Since our May 2026 issue, the following California counties (governing the unincorporated areas) and cities have adopted data center moratoria:
- County of Imperial (temporary—struck down, see below);
- County of Tulare (to October 2026);
- City of Baldwin Park (to March 2027);
- City of Coachella (permanent);
- City of El Monte (to March 2027);
- City of Imperial (expired July 2026);
- City of Indio (to October 2026);
- City of Montebello (expired March 2026);
- City of Monterey Park (permanent);
- City of Patterson (to July 2027);
While California has not adopted a statewide ban, New York State has adopted a temporary one-year moratorium, with other states considering similar restrictions.
Data center concerns have come to the fore in the Texas races for governor and U.S. Senate. The Democratic nominees running for governor and Senate in Texas have called for regulations to protect communities and end public incentives for data centers. The issue has become so salient in Texas that incumbent Republican Governor Greg Abbott (running for reelection) paused statewide the processing of new data center permits until state regulators have an opportunity to audit each project and for the state to develop guidelines. Questions over data center development have also seeped into races in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. At least 16 municipalities across the nation will consider data center regulation ballot measures by the end of the year.
Urgency Ordinances
Government Code 65858
Generally, Government Code section 65858 allows a locality to adopt an “urgency” ordinance to “protect the public safety, health, and welfare” from uses “that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal” that the locality is considering. A legislative body cannot adopt an urgency ordinance unless it can make findings that “there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare,” and that the approval of entitlements for the use in question would constitute such a threat. (Gov. Code, § 65858(c).)
Urgency ordinances are always temporary and expire after 45 days from adoption. Some of the moratoria adopted by various California municipalities are or began as urgency ordinances, with some cities subsequently adopting longer-term ordinances.
Imperial County’s Moratorium Ruled Unlawful
In an August 21, 2026, tentative decision by Imperial County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey B. Jones (Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC v. County of Imperial, et al., Case No. ECU004800), the court found that the county’s urgency ordinances failed to meet state law requirements.
Judge Jones in Imperial County concluded that the county’s urgency ordinance failed to make the necessary findings that data centers posed a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. The court explained that the ordinance must establish a causal connection between approving the projects and the claimed threats.
While the court accepted the findings contained in a second urgency ordinance adopted by the County, it still found that the ordinance failed to establish the connection between data center uses and the specific threats to health, safety, or welfare. Data centers’ incompatibility with proposed regulations is not enough to establish such a threat.
While Judge Jones ordered the county to stop enforcing the moratorium, the court did not rule on whether the county must process the petitioner’s project or even which ordinances would apply to the petitioner’s project, which would otherwise be the largest data center in the state.
Conclusion and Implications
The data center backlash, which has united interest and community groups from across the political spectrum, apparently caught major tech companies off guard. Tech companies including Amazon and Anthropic, and Northern California utility Pacific Gas & Electric have spent millions of dollars lobbying the California Legislature during this year’s session. Though, admittedly, these expenditures are not itemized per proposed legislation, the scope of lobbying included at least some bills pertaining to data center regulation.
In any case, land use and California Environmental Quality Act practitioners represent data center developers should be aware of the political challenges they face when evaluating sites. Project proponents should prepare for a vocal and well-funded opposition, especially when the application status approaches the environmental review stage. Finally, these projects should expect to provide significant community benefits (e.g. workforce commitments, infrastructure investments, etc.) to assuage community concerns. Practitioners representing municipalities considering data center bans, should ensure that urgency ordinances make the requisite findings that link the proposed uses to specific health and safety threats.
![Federal District Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Over Shasta Dam Operations, Upholding U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Water PlanThe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied three environmental organizations’ request for a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to modify its 2026 operations of Shasta Dam and Reservoir. The court classified the requested relief as a mandatory injunction and concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the heightened standard applicable to such relief. [San Francisco Baykeeper v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, ___F.Supp.4th___, Case No. 2:26-cv-00671-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2026).] Background On March 2, 2026, San Francisco Baykeeper, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the River filed suit against Reclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and several federal officials. The broader lawsuit alleges that the federal defendants violated the federal Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act in connection with Reclamation’s operation of the Central Valley Project. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs contend that Reclamation failed to comply with protective measures and incidental-take limits established by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) 2024 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for winter-run chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and North American green sturgeon. The preliminary-injunction motion addressed a narrower issue: Reclamation’s operation of Shasta Dam and Reservoir during the summer and early fall of 2026. Keswick Dam prevents winter-run chinook salmon from reaching their historic upstream spawning habitat. Consequently, the survival of eggs deposited downstream depends substantially on Reclamation’s release of sufficiently cold water from Shasta Reservoir. The 2024 BiOp established a “Shasta Framework” for managing water temperature and reservoir storage while accounting for fish protection, water-delivery obligations, flood control, and other authorized project purposes. In the framework, Reclamation designated 2026 as a “Bin 2A” year based on projected end-of-April and end-of-September reservoir storage. The plaintiffs argued that the high end-of-April storage level required Reclamation to treat 2026 as a more protective Bin 1 year and preserve at least 2.4 million acre-feet of water through September unless achieving that target was impossible. Reclamation responded that the framework uses both April storage and projected September storage to make the initial classification and that the forecasts therefore supported its Bin 2A designation. The plaintiffs sued Reclamation under sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that Reclamation was operating outside the 2024 biological opinion’s Shasta Framework. The plaintiffs then sought emergency relief requiring Reclamation to reduce releases from Shasta Reservoir, prepare a new operating plan, and operate consistently with the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Bin 1 requirements. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order on July 9, 2026, and subsequently denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court’s Ruling Although the order is not a final ruling on the merits, it indicates that the court views Reclamation’s interpretation of the Shasta Framework as better supported by the governing documents. The court expressly stated that the plaintiffs did not appear likely to succeed on the claim advanced in the motion and failed to make the stronger showing required for a mandatory injunction. In its ruling, the District Court first rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the requested injunction would merely preserve the status quo. The proposed relief would have required Reclamation to conduct new modeling, prepare and implement a new temperature-management plan, and materially change its reservoir operations. Because the requested order would compel affirmative action, the court treated it as a mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs therefore had to demonstrate that the law and facts clearly favored their position, not merely that they were likely to prevail. Second, the court found Reclamation’s interpretation of the 2024 BiOp more persuasive. Although language in Table 25 of the BiOp supported the plaintiffs’ position, the court concluded that the underlying Proposed Action, decision tree, and operational modeling supported using both projected April and September storage to determine the applicable Bin. The court suggested that Table 25 may have inaccurately summarized the end-of-April storage ranges described in the Proposed Action. The court used the interpretive framework from Kisor v. Wilkie as guidance but did not ultimately rely on agency deference. The Court directly addressed the interpretations of the BiOp, and underlying data to support and, in doing so, made clear that the decision was not based on any level of agency-deference but, instead, based on a finding that Reclamation’s position was more factually supported and, therefore, did not assess questions of deference. Conclusion and Implications The ruling leaves Reclamation’s 2026 Shasta operations unchanged by the requested federal injunction. It does not, however, finally approve those operations or resolve the plaintiffs’ broader allegations concerning incidental take, reinitiation of ESA consultation, or the validity and application of the 2024 BiOp. Legally, the decision underscores the high threshold plaintiffs face when seeking mandatory injunction against federal agency operations, particularly when relying on narrow claims regarding BiOp framework, and addresses the importance of a fact-based assessment, while declining to address to questions of agency deference. The court’s order is available here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/baykeeper-injuction-denied-ruling.pdf (Stephanie Cook, Miles Krieger)](https://argentco.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ARTICLES-Land_Fog-230x100.jpg "Federal District Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Over Shasta Dam Operations, Upholding U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Water PlanThe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied three environmental organizations’ request for a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to modify its 2026 operations of Shasta Dam and Reservoir. The court classified the requested relief as a mandatory injunction and concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the heightened standard applicable to such relief. [San Francisco Baykeeper v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, ___F.Supp.4th___, Case No. 2:26-cv-00671-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2026).] Background On March 2, 2026, San Francisco Baykeeper, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the River filed suit against Reclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and several federal officials. The broader lawsuit alleges that the federal defendants violated the federal Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act in connection with Reclamation’s operation of the Central Valley Project. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs contend that Reclamation failed to comply with protective measures and incidental-take limits established by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) 2024 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for winter-run chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and North American green sturgeon. The preliminary-injunction motion addressed a narrower issue: Reclamation’s operation of Shasta Dam and Reservoir during the summer and early fall of 2026. Keswick Dam prevents winter-run chinook salmon from reaching their historic upstream spawning habitat. Consequently, the survival of eggs deposited downstream depends substantially on Reclamation’s release of sufficiently cold water from Shasta Reservoir. The 2024 BiOp established a “Shasta Framework” for managing water temperature and reservoir storage while accounting for fish protection, water-delivery obligations, flood control, and other authorized project purposes. In the framework, Reclamation designated 2026 as a “Bin 2A” year based on projected end-of-April and end-of-September reservoir storage. The plaintiffs argued that the high end-of-April storage level required Reclamation to treat 2026 as a more protective Bin 1 year and preserve at least 2.4 million acre-feet of water through September unless achieving that target was impossible. Reclamation responded that the framework uses both April storage and projected September storage to make the initial classification and that the forecasts therefore supported its Bin 2A designation. The plaintiffs sued Reclamation under sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that Reclamation was operating outside the 2024 biological opinion’s Shasta Framework. The plaintiffs then sought emergency relief requiring Reclamation to reduce releases from Shasta Reservoir, prepare a new operating plan, and operate consistently with the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Bin 1 requirements. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order on July 9, 2026, and subsequently denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court’s Ruling Although the order is not a final ruling on the merits, it indicates that the court views Reclamation’s interpretation of the Shasta Framework as better supported by the governing documents. The court expressly stated that the plaintiffs did not appear likely to succeed on the claim advanced in the motion and failed to make the stronger showing required for a mandatory injunction. In its ruling, the District Court first rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the requested injunction would merely preserve the status quo. The proposed relief would have required Reclamation to conduct new modeling, prepare and implement a new temperature-management plan, and materially change its reservoir operations. Because the requested order would compel affirmative action, the court treated it as a mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs therefore had to demonstrate that the law and facts clearly favored their position, not merely that they were likely to prevail. Second, the court found Reclamation’s interpretation of the 2024 BiOp more persuasive. Although language in Table 25 of the BiOp supported the plaintiffs’ position, the court concluded that the underlying Proposed Action, decision tree, and operational modeling supported using both projected April and September storage to determine the applicable Bin. The court suggested that Table 25 may have inaccurately summarized the end-of-April storage ranges described in the Proposed Action. The court used the interpretive framework from Kisor v. Wilkie as guidance but did not ultimately rely on agency deference. The Court directly addressed the interpretations of the BiOp, and underlying data to support and, in doing so, made clear that the decision was not based on any level of agency-deference but, instead, based on a finding that Reclamation’s position was more factually supported and, therefore, did not assess questions of deference. Conclusion and Implications The ruling leaves Reclamation’s 2026 Shasta operations unchanged by the requested federal injunction. It does not, however, finally approve those operations or resolve the plaintiffs’ broader allegations concerning incidental take, reinitiation of ESA consultation, or the validity and application of the 2024 BiOp. Legally, the decision underscores the high threshold plaintiffs face when seeking mandatory injunction against federal agency operations, particularly when relying on narrow claims regarding BiOp framework, and addresses the importance of a fact-based assessment, while declining to address to questions of agency deference. The court’s order is available here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/baykeeper-injuction-denied-ruling.pdf (Stephanie Cook, Miles Krieger)")
