Status, timeline and project context

Unreconciled water descriptions

Applicant statements • scope unresolved

The June 2026 county application anticipates less than 15 acre-feet of water annually. A February 18 email to DEQ assumes closed-loop cooling using no more than 800 acre-feet of state waters annually. The documents do not establish common phase, geographic, source or use boundaries, or distinguish total withdrawals from consumptive losses. The June cooling discussion also describes initial fill from a commercial supplier, on-site wells for drinking/sanitary use, and additional project uses. Their accounting needs clarification. (C13, §2.6, PDF p. 34/printed p. 22; W1, p. 1)

Both numerical statements could be true; a value below 15 is also below 800. Neither is established here as a binding whole-project maximum. “Shall not exceed” can express an enforceable cap when scope, measurement, authority and incorporation into a binding instrument are established. The unresolved issue is the water budget and legal obligation, not those words. See Water scorecard W01–W11 and State oversight for the separate statutory review trigger. [WATER-001–009]

Documented roles

The applicant and contacts are identified in filings; ultimate ownership, end-user and operators remain unresolved. See Who would own and operate the campus? for the documented roles and source pages.

Proposed components

The applicant describes gas generation, solar, battery storage, a data center and ancillary facilities. Those descriptions do not establish final component capacities, a complete phased design, grid isolation, or issued permits. See E03–E11 and G10. (W1, p. 1; C13, p. 8)

Preliminary air assessment

In February correspondence, SWCA said preliminary emissions estimates indicated PSD review for most PSD pollutants. This is the consultant’s preliminary assessment, not a permit determination. The reviewed correspondence does not supply the emissions inventory or final limits. See O06. (W2, p. 2)

Consultant request

The consultant asked for guidance that might expedite permitting. The produced correspondence records that request and process discussions; it does not establish an agency promise of accelerated review or approval. (W2, pp. 1–9, especially p. 2)

Production limits

The eight-PDF ISD production contains introductions, scheduling and standard guidance. The project presentation, meeting notes and detailed technical/jurisdictional records remain retrieval targets. This is a limit of the reviewed production, not proof of improper withholding. See the Request tracker. (W1, W2, W3; state bounded-search record)

County status

For the distinction between the reported zoning action and project approvals, see Current status. The signed August recommendation and later reporting remain available in the timeline.

State route

The legal route determines which state protections apply. See State oversight for the current evidence boundary and the protection-by-protection explanation.

Public-service funding

In the September 18 reply to item 3 of the September 15 county records request, the clerk reported that no agreements had been entered into at that time. The planner reports anticipate road and emergency-management review; they do not supply a complete signed, secured funding package. This does not establish the status of private utility agreements, every draft, or later agreements. Limited C2/C3 report excerpts and the C9 item-3 response excerpt are available with provenance, qualifications and omission notices; complete originals are not reproduced. See F01–F05 and the funding research note. (C2, C3, p. 3; C9)