Latah County ID data center regulations (2026)

Latah County, Idaho (county seat Moscow) — DATA CENTER REGULATIONS adopted by the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026, after a public hearing on SEPTEMBER 9. JURISDICTIONAL SCOPE: applies to data centers proposed ON LATAH COUNTY LAND, NOT IN INCORPORATED CITIES — the standard Idaho county/city land-use split; municipalities within the county are unaffected. ZONING TREATMENT: data centers become a CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DESIGNATION — single-district confinement plus discretionary review, the same structure as Montgomery Township PA data center curative regulations (2026) and Portage IN Technology Campus district data center rules (2026). THE WATER PROVISIONS ARE THE STRONGEST IN THIS DATASET AND ARE QUOTED DIRECTLY FROM THE ORDINANCE: (1) 'CONSUMPTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER FOR ROUTINE COOLING OPERATIONS IS PROHIBITED'; (2) 'GROUNDWATER SHALL NOT BE USED AS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF COOLING WATER'; (3) groundwater MAY be used for NON-CONSUMPTIVE OR SANITARY uses; (4) the proposing company MUST CREATE A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN detailing how it will minimise impacts on the local water supply. THIS IS A SOURCE-AND-USE PROHIBITION, NOT A VOLUMETRIC CAP, which is materially easier to administer — a regulator must determine what the cooling water IS and whether it is consumed, rather than meter a quantity against a threshold. Compare Aurora CO evaporative cooling ban ordinance, first reading (2026), which bans the COOLING TECHNOLOGY; Latah bans the SOURCE for that use. STATE-LAW ANCHOR: the county 'is following recently passed IDAHO LEGISLATION that limits how much groundwater can be used for data centers' — AN UNINDEXED STATE STATUTE and a significant lead; the bill number is NOT given in the source. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS: the ordinance 'places limits on the amount of NOISE data centers can emit, and how much ELECTRICITY they can consume.' NEITHER THE DECIBEL FIGURE NOR THE ELECTRICAL CAP IS STATED IN THE SOURCE. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE OBLIGATION, QUOTED: 'AN ANNUAL REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED THAT DETAILS ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION, MAXIMUM PEAK DEMAND, AND ANY SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM.' THIS IS THE ANALYTICALLY IMPORTANT PROVISION. Nearly every local measure indexed here regulates at the ENTITLEMENT MOMENT and then goes silent; an annual electrical-consumption and peak-demand report creates an ongoing compliance record, makes an electrical cap enforceable after the fact rather than only at permitting, and gives the county data it would otherwise have to request from the utility. Compare Virginia § 15.2-2209.5 data center siting disclosure law (2026), which mandates PRE-VOTE disclosure only. POSTURE: NO DATA CENTER HAS BEEN PROPOSED. At the September 9 hearing community members REQUESTED A MORATORIUM OR BAN; Commissioner TONY JOHNSON said that since no data center is being proposed a moratorium does not make sense, and that the regulations are the county's way of preparing for the future. Planning, building and GIS director MICHELLE FUSON said it is UNLIKELY a data center will be built on county land, but the county can always modify its rules. THE COUNTY THEREFORE CHOSE PERMANENT STANDARDS OVER A TEMPORARY PAUSE while facing no development pressure — the opposite trade from Sauk County WI 18-month data center moratorium (2026) and Woodburn OR 120-day data center moratorium (2026), which paused in the same no-pending-application posture. Standards adopted pre-emptively avoid the moratorium-duration and active-study problems entirely. ORDINANCE NUMBER AND VOTE TALLY NOT OBTAINED.