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.