Governments are shifting from treating data centers as ordinary industrial buildings to treating them as major infrastructure loads. The emerging approach combines pauses on development, case-by-case public review, stricter siting and size rules, proof of adequate power and water, and cooling requirements intended to reduce freshwater demand.

• Thailand: Authorities put construction at about 49 data centers on hold and paused decisions on more pending projects while agencies draft national standards. The proposed framework is aimed at resource use, siting, safety, and local economic and environmental effects; Bangkok separately suspended planned projects for renewed review of fuel storage, land use, electricity and water demand. 12

• Tucson, Arizona: The city adopted its first rules specifically for large-scale data centers in August. Projects must undergo a public review process leading to Mayor and Council approval, demonstrate adequate energy and water supply, and disclose expected energy use and energy mix. 34

• Saudi Arabia: The government has adopted municipal regulations for standalone commercial data centers, standardizing their land-use and development requirements as the sector expands. This is more an effort to formalize and manage growth than a moratorium. 5

• Louisville, Kentucky: Metro government enacted a six-month/180-day pause on new large-scale data-center construction, zoning changes, conditional-use permits, and certain conversions while permanent rules are developed. Its Planning Commission has since advanced proposed code amendments, including more stringent provisions on noise, water systems, and separation from residences; they still require further legislative action. 67

• West Hempfield Township, Pennsylvania: The township unanimously adopted an ordinance controlling both the size and location of data centers. The policy steers them to the designated growth area with public water and sewer connections, protecting agricultural and rural land, and imposes buffers from residential and agricultural areas. 89

• Oldham County, Kentucky: The county moved proposed regulations through public hearing and second reading after Planning Commission recommendations. The salient policy direction is to require stronger local scrutiny before approval, rather than permit large projects automatically; the evidence available here does not establish the final adopted text or its ultimate legal status. 10

• Water-saving cooling: A recurring regulatory template is to mandate closed-loop systems that recirculate cooling water rather than expose it to the atmosphere and continually consume it. For example, a Pennsylvania county’s proposed ordinance requires closed-loop water cooling. 11 Other proposals focus on barring or sharply limiting groundwater use and requiring proof that supply can meet demand without harming existing users. 12

The common thread is not a worldwide ban. It is a move toward making developers demonstrate, before approval, that a project fits the grid, water supply, land-use plan, and surrounding community—and in some places accepting a temporary halt or outright size/siting limits until those safeguards exist.

Governments are shifting from treating data centers as ordinary industrial buildings to treating them as major infrastructure loads. The emerging approach combines pauses on development, case-by-case public review, stricter siting and size rules, proof of adequate power and water, and cooling requirements intended to reduce freshwater demand.

• Thailand: Authorities put construction at about 49 data centers on hold and paused decisions on more pending projects while agencies draft national standards. The proposed framework is aimed at resource use, siting, safety, and local economic and environmental effects; Bangkok separately suspended planned projects for renewed review of fuel storage, land use, electricity and water demand. 12

• Tucson, Arizona: The city adopted its first rules specifically for large-scale data centers in August. Projects must undergo a public review process leading to Mayor and Council approval, demonstrate adequate energy and water supply, and disclose expected energy use and energy mix. 34

• Saudi Arabia: The government has adopted municipal regulations for standalone commercial data centers, standardizing their land-use and development requirements as the sector expands. This is more an effort to formalize and manage growth than a moratorium. 5

• Louisville, Kentucky: Metro government enacted a six-month/180-day pause on new large-scale data-center construction, zoning changes, conditional-use permits, and certain conversions while permanent rules are developed. Its Planning Commission has since advanced proposed code amendments, including more stringent provisions on noise, water systems, and separation from residences; they still require further legislative action. 67

• West Hempfield Township, Pennsylvania: The township unanimously adopted an ordinance controlling both the size and location of data centers. The policy steers them to the designated growth area with public water and sewer connections, protecting agricultural and rural land, and imposes buffers from residential and agricultural areas. 89

• Oldham County, Kentucky: The county moved proposed regulations through public hearing and second reading after Planning Commission recommendations. The salient policy direction is to require stronger local scrutiny before approval, rather than permit large projects automatically; the evidence available here does not establish the final adopted text or its ultimate legal status. 10

• Water-saving cooling: A recurring regulatory template is to mandate closed-loop systems that recirculate cooling water rather than expose it to the atmosphere and continually consume it. For example, a Pennsylvania county’s proposed ordinance requires closed-loop water cooling. 11 Other proposals focus on barring or sharply limiting groundwater use and requiring proof that supply can meet demand without harming existing users. 12

The common thread is not a worldwide ban. It is a move toward making developers demonstrate, before approval, that a project fits the grid, water supply, land-use plan, and surrounding community—and in some places accepting a temporary halt or outright size/siting limits until those safeguards exist.