You can drive through most of Richland Parish, La., without seeing a building. Whether you're on Interstate 20 between Monroe and Vicksburg, or driving along a lonesome highway cutting through fields of cotton and corn, the horizon is often free of brick and mortar. The occasional crop duster will dive between power lines. The random hawk finds a roadkill. And if you're looking for fast food, you might have to drive a half-hour to Rayville or Delhi.
But the public school teachers there just received bonuses from the parish government. Some teachers received a $50,000 bonus. The source of the revenue: a new data center put up by Meta.
Stories like that are likely to help local officials trying to approve data centers in their communities. Stories like the one that appeared on the front page of this paper Friday would likely do the opposite.
As if there aren't enough conspiracy theories around data centers already, the feds are trying to add tinfoil hats full of fuel to the fire: The EPA has a plan to make it harder for the public to learn about, and comment on, data centers.
As with so many things the federal government does these days, we have to ask: Why?
The Environmental Protection Agency has a proposal that, according to the Associated Press, "would eliminate a federal requirement that states notify the public and seek comment before issuing air pollution permits for data centers and other industrial facilities. States could still offer opportunities for public comment, but the EPA would no longer mandate them as a condition for states to grant permits."
This just seems an unforced error. The current administration was put in charge to be disruptive, and no doubt it is, but why create more distrust between Big Data and the people? Isn't the current president a big believer in data centers, and didn't he just say a few days ago that people ought to want them in their communities? So why give opponents another slogan for a protest sign?
Some folks quoted in the AP story said under the proposal states with weak or no requirements for public comments could "speed permits for data centers, power plants and other pollution sources without consulting the public or even informing communities where facilities are located ... ."
It got worse when EPA officials tried to defend the action: A spokesman for the agency said the plan doesn't specify data centers anywhere, and would also apply to laundromats, car repair shops and other businesses that are considered "minor" polluters. And all the proposal does is align federal laws.
Sure, but ... . Again from the AP story: "Environmental groups and other critics say the EPA proposal ignores the reality that many states, particularly in the South and Midwest, don't require public notice or hearings beyond those set by federal agencies. The federal plan would leave many communities in the dark before data centers show up in their backyards ... ."
If federal requirements are the only requirements for public notice in some places, abandoning those requirements would, in effect, blindside We the People.
In the ongoing debate about the usefulness of data centers, or the overwhelming curse of the same, both sides have their arguments. But rarely does one side hand the other a gift like this. The EPA and the pro-data center administration in Washington have given a talking point to the aginners that will be pounded at rallies, council meetings and letters to the editor into the foreseeable future.
This isn't smart politics. And it isn't transparent government.