Hutchinson residents demand answers on data centers | Opinion

Give me a data center or storage facility that doesn't increase my electric bill, conserves or at least manages rather than wastes water, is located where neighbors don't have to endure noise and other problems and pays its full share without property tax forgiveness or other publicly paid incentives, and I'm ready to sign up.

So far, that hasn't been offered or demanded for Hutchinson and Reno County, so a degree of skepticism is in order.

During seemingly endless weeks of local debate on whether these necessary but sometimes obnoxious danglings of economic development have been and are still being debated, I've been asked many times about my opinion. Mixed emotions is my current conclusion since I can make either a good and bad case knowing while the centers normally bring only a relatively small number of new, permanent workers yet construction benefits are significant and our community cries out for more and better jobs.

Like many new and controversial development proposals, it will probably take several years after city, county and South Hutchinson officials make their decision to know whether it was right or wrong. There must be a thorough vetting of any company wanting to set up shop in our community with as much "guarantee" as possible to protect the public from unnecessary cost increases for utilities, roads and other infrastructure.

Data centers are highly profitable and should only be welcomed if willing to pay their own way, even if we lose them to another community willing to give away sun, moon and stars as we did quite some time ago in the name of wind power that not only has taken a dive but failed to attract related businesses and jobs.

After forcing data centers and storage developments to generate their own electricity or pay their own bills comes another major concern. They consume an ungodly amount of water and assurances are needed that Hutchinson has plenty of capacity without boosting rates for home and business owners coupled with answering realistic environmental questions.

Location must assure they are far enough away from homes and other noise concerns. The two sites mentioned so far locally:

• 3200 block of East 4th where the old Cessna/Eaton plants and now warehouse space is located.
• East 43rd and Buhler Road may be reasonable but needs a fully explored open examination.

While several local meetings on data centers have been held, more transparency is essential. Taxpayers haven't been let in on the companies and individuals interested in Hutchinson and they should be along with a full accounting of their track record and financial stability.

As previously reported, community activist, former newspaper editor and state legislator Jason Probst has offered a list of 20 questions that should be posed and fully answered about each location proposal. That would be an excellent start.

Rather than an outright ban that some Kansas cities have adopted, a well-crafted conditional-use permit - as noted recently by County Commission Chairman Ron Hirst - seems a better way of addressing concerns while still allowing for responsible economic development.

So far, other than the need for more transparency and harder questions, our elected and appointed administrators seem to be doing a decent job of listening to all sides and trying to reach the right decision regardless of which "right" turns out to be best.

If local officials are smart - and not overly enthralled by the Chamber of Commerce and other business and individual interests in their quest to land a local data or storage center - we should wind up with a better outcome.

Dan Deming, former general manager of Hutchinson radio station KWBW and former Reno County commissioner, can be reached at 620-960-6733 or dan.deming2@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on The Hutchinson News: Hutchinson residents demand answers on data centers | Opinion

Reporting by Dan Deming, Special to The Hutchinson News / The Hutchinson News

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Copyright Reuters or USA Today Network via Reuters Connect

This story was originally published June 21, 2026 at 4:04 AM.