Stats

2,257,584 sq ft of 7 data center buildings, a private substation and an SRP substation, on 170 acres of land. This development is by the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) DATA Corporation.

Why are we opposed to the NTT data center?

Many, many, many reasons. Here are a few key ones: 

Water Scarcity

Water supply is a real issue in Arizona, and AI data centers jeopardize our water security. Their cooling systems use massive amounts of water, and even if it’s a closed-loop system, millions of gallons can still be used up each year. It is unconscionable to approve this data center that would take our most valuable resource away from the communities that need it, and the environment. Water is not a commodity, it is an essential resource, and if we continue to allow data centers to be built in a place already strained by drought, we will feel the consequences. In Corpus Christi, Texas, the city council has prioritized industry needs over the basic right to have water for their residents. The city is now running out of water, and residents are forced to conserve that water, reusing water they used for cooking to water plants, take fewer showers, etc., or face fees. This is all while similar fees are relatively low and/or nonexistent for the industry, meaning they continue to use up the remaining small supply of water. People are suffering while corporations continue to make money off of that suffering. We live in a desert, the Colorado River is already being strained, and the Phoenix metro area is a hotspot for data centers. We can reduce the effects of the impending water crisis, and that requires stopping these resource intensive data centers.

AI is a Bubble

Despite what proponents may claim, data centers create very few jobs for their size, and AI, the technology that has spurred this flurry of data center development, is a prospective bubble, not a long-lasting economic power. According to many economists, the AI boom is a bubble and is bound to collapse, possibly sooner rather than later, even within a year. While AI is a significant force in the U.S. economy right now, a lot of that is based on speculation, and with relatively low material revenue, that bubble may burst, leaving a lot of expensive infrastructure behind, and the economy in shambles. Economists across the political spectrum share this viewpoint. For example, James Broughel, a right wing economist, wrote an article titled, “AI Can Change The World And Still Be A Bubble”, arguing that all this speculation that seems and might very well be transformational, is going to fall on itself by not seeing actual revenue results. Servaas Storm, likely considered left leaning, has argued similar points, and pointed to the parallels between the AI bubble, and the dot com bubble. 

According to the research paper The AI Bubble and the U.S. Economy: How Long Do ‘Hallucinations’ Last?, “Financial investor Paul Kedrosky finds that capital expenditures on AI data centers (in 2025) have passed the peak of telecom spending during the dot-com bubble (of 1995-2000).” It is further argued that “depending on how the electricity will be generated, the AI bubble may derail efforts to decarbonize the economy and lead to additional climate costs the world cannot afford.” Temperatures here in Mesa are already higher than ever, and our water crisis will only worsen with the current drought. 

Mass Surveillance

AI data centers are another way to further extremely unpopular mass surveillance systems, along with other technologies such as Flock. Just in Chandler, in December a data center was denied, and in May, Flock cameras were removed. People across the Valley are making a clear demand. The entire AI surveillance system is an invasion of our right to privacy, and overreach by power-hungry companies. This is a system that much of the community, Republicans and Democrats alike, despise.

Corporate Greed

Data centers like these affect the whole Valley. Developers have not meaningfully met with the community. According to their Citizen Participation Report, they only notified 91 people within only 1,000 feet of the development that it even existed. Then, only 2 people showed up to their neighborhood meeting, part of their “Citizen Participation Plan”, which only lasted 20 minutes. Developers do not have the community’s best interests at heart, but the city council is supposed to, which is why we are urging them to put the community first, over corporate greed.