|
Pine Island is a small farming town on US52 between St. Paul and Rochester, Minnesota. Google has announced that they will be building a large-scale data center on 88 acres in a 482 parcel there. It is likely that more are planned to follow. The nature of the project was not revealed during the environmental reveiw phase, and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy has sued, alleging that the reveiw was flawed because the full impact of the project was not assessed. In this blog post, we provide a short bibiography of resources to learn more about this project which promised a number of environmental upgrades to address issues of concern with data centers. This article from Minnesota Public Radio provides a good overview of this project. For a background on data centers in general, why they use so much energy and water, and what living near a data center means, check out this video from Business Insider.  Opponents of hyperscale data centers display banners during a rally at the Minnesota State Capitol February 2026. Nicole Ki | MPR News Beyonce'? No, BYONCE The Pine Island Google Data Center project - Project Skyway - was revealed as a new, green data center. They will use air-cooling to reduce operating temperatures, greatly reducing water use. Their energy would come from new, green sources that Google would build - wind, solar and backup batteries for when these sources aren't operating. This is the BYONCE principal - Bring Your Own Clean Energy. To learn more about BYONCE - check out this excellent article from Mike Jacobs, Senior Energy Analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists. What about the water? In detailed reporing in the Minnesota Women's Press, Drs. Carly Griffiths and Carrie Jennings look at water use by data centers, potential contmainination and the impacts on other water users n the area. These concerns are not ameliorated when the data center (or other large water user) is connected to a municipal water supply - this just shifts the impact to a larger community, the city water rate payers. The Minnesota Legislature is looking at this issue in 2026 - click here to read about a bill now active to begin to address these concerns. Legal Actions The Minnesota Center for Environmenal Advocacy (MCEA) has brought lawsuits against data center developments in Minnesota, including the Pine Island Skyway project. This page on the MCEA website provides a good overview of their work here and an opportunity to sign up for updates. Other data center coverage on the LWV UMRR website:
Data Center Gold Rush: Diving into Water Demands - this December 2025 program by LWV UMRR features Sara Mooradian and Peg Furshong of CURE talking about data center developments in Minnesota, with a focus on water concerns. Data Center Conference Brings Together Developers, Local Officials and Environmental Groups This post recaps a November 2025 conference that looks at economic benefits of data centers as well as environmental concerns. Minnesota Data Center Law becomes law June 14, 2025 The Minnosta Legisltuare passed their first data center law in 2025 - read about it in this post. While this bill povided a start on regulation, it leaves gaps in that it does not require disclosure of a project as a data center during the environmental review phase among other things. The 1972 Clean Water Act is a central piece of federal legislation that forms the cornerstone of water quality regulation in the US today, and it's being chipped away. First, the Sackett decision removed many wetlands and small streams from protection, and then subsequent changes to the definition of Water of the US (WOTUS) provided detail and codified the decsion in law. Now there are two bills before Congress ( the PERMIT Act and SPEED Act bills) that seek to limit the government's ability to regulate sources of water pollution. As of April 1, 2026, the U.S. House has passed both the PERMIT Act (H.R. 3898) and the SPEED Act (H.R. 4776), aimed at accelerating federal reviews under NEPA and the Clean Water Act. These bills focus on shortening lawsuit timelines, limiting environmental review scope, and enhancing electronic permitting. These bills are now in the US Senate.
You can also send letters to your US Senators, letting them know about your concerns. LWV UMRR's "Take Action" page includes information on how to reach your Senators. Text of the letters sent to US Senators in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa and Missouri:
The purpose of this letter is to share concerns from the League of Women Voters Upper Mississippi River Region (UMRR) and League of Women Voters of Minnesota, on two proposed laws: the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act (PERMIT Act) and the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED Act). UMRR represents more than sixty local Leagues throughout the five states of the Upper Mississippi Basin – Minnesota (MN), Wisconsin (WI), Iowa (IA), Illinois (IL), and Missouri (MO). We work through education and advocacy to ensure sound policies that protect water quality and quantity in the Mississippi River Basin. Both the PERMIT Act and the SPEED Act are currently being considered in the Senate and could generate sweeping changes to long-standing federal environmental protections, particularly under the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. These laws have served for decades as foundational safeguards protecting water quality, ecosystems, public health, and democratic participation in environmental decision-making. Our concerns are as follows: PERMIT Act The PERMIT Act was developed to streamline infrastructure and energy projects by accelerating environmental reviews under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and reducing red tape for construction, agriculture, and energy projects by shortening review timelines. This includes:
The PERMIT Act’s proposed narrowing of protected waters and extension of permit durations would significantly weaken federal oversight of discharges and dredge-and-fill activities. This poses heightened risks to Minnesota’s lakes, rivers, wetlands, and groundwater systems, which are central to the state’s economy, outdoor heritage, and drinking water supply. Reduced EPA authority and shortened timelines for legal challenges would limit accountability and public recourse, potentially allowing harmful projects to proceed without adequate review. Of particular concern is the reduced liability for contaminants such as PFAS, which are persistent chemicals linked to serious health and environmental harms. SPEED Act: The SPEED Act proposes actions to streamline review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for projects and permitting of federal infrastructure and energy projects. The changes include:
Together, the PERMIT and the SPEED Acts could accelerate fossil fuel infrastructure development while weakening environmental safeguards designed to prevent pollution, protect water resources, and ensure informed public participation. For the Upper Mississippi River Region—home to extensive freshwater systems, Tribal treaty-protected resources, and climate-vulnerable ecosystems—the implications are particularly serious. Given the scale of the proposed regulatory changes and their potential to affect water quality, public health, climate stability, and community oversight nationwide, these issues warrant careful scrutiny and deliberate consideration by the Senate. We urge you to oppose the passage of PERMIT and SPEED Acts to prevent the potentially disastrous outcomes to the environment and climate change. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, have been dubbed emerging contaminants of concern in the Mississippi River Basin and beyond. These synthetic chemicals have been widely used in everyday products such as nonstick pans and waterproof fabrics since the 1950s. They’ve also been a key ingredient in industrial applications such as firefighting foam. Today, Wisconsin is passing legislation to address them. PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to the bond between their carbon and fluorine atoms. While this strength may help repel water, grease, and oil from our goods, it also makes it difficult to remove PFAS from our bodies. This poses a high health risk as studies show links between contamination and cancer, fertility issues, development delays, and more. In Wisconsin, bills addressing PFAS have been under debate for years. The state is one of several in the Upper Mississippi River Region facing a widespread presence of the chemicals. In 2019 Starkweather Creek, a Madison waterbody near the Dane County Regional Airport and Truax Field Air National Guard Base, had the highest levels of PFOA (43 ppt) and PFOS (270 ppt) out of all Department of Natural Resources (DNR) tested waters. In 2023, a survey found that 71% of shallow private wells across Wisconsin contained PFAS.
cause it or were in compliance with a prior permit and are willing to allow the DNR to perform remediation at their expense.
Assembly Bill 131 creates several new PFAS grant programs, including funds for municipal water supply testing, well reconstruction, treatment technology, emergency bottled drinking water, and more. Notably, the bill also seeks to finance long-term studies, including one to “analyze the migration of PFAS into the Wisconsin and Mississippi Rivers and their tributaries”. The bipartisan legislation is set to be signed by Governor Evers in the coming weeks. He celebrated the state’s success in a recent press release, saying “I’ve always believed that every Wisconsinite should have access to clean drinking water that’s free of harmful pollutants, which is why I’ve spent seven years working to clean up our water and get contaminants out of our water supplies for good, including PFAS, which has been a top priority for my administration from the get-go. Today is the culmination of years of work by my administration and marks a historic win for the people of Wisconsin and the health and safety of our kids, families, and communities. It’s a great day for Wisconsin.” Comments on the PERMIT Act While winter weather might have frozen the flowing waters of the Mississippi River, it didn’t stop the movement of legislation that once again centers on the Clean Water Act (CWA). On December 11, 2025 the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3898, or the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act. Chief author, Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), asserts that if passed by the Senate, the PERMIT bill would “deliver much-needed reform to the Clean Water Act that will overhaul permitting processes and reduce burdens on permit seekers,” allowing the U.S. to “build faster, smarter, and safer”. But will the bill roll back red tape, or crucial regulations that safeguard our water? Learn more below. What’s at risk in the Upper Mississippi River Region? The PERMIT Act could impact waters across the United States, and the Upper Mississippi River Region is no exception. Our 1,300 miles of water connect states, ecosystems, and livelihoods, and they deserve to be protected. As the Mississippi River faces increasingly frequent and severe floods that move pollutants and cause damages to drinking water supplies and native habitats, strong regulation and sustainable infrastructure is more important than ever.
3. Reducing permits requirements regarding stormwater runoff, potentially containing animal waste, nutrients, and pesticides, from agricultural lands into waterways (Sec.10. and Sec. 11.) 4. Limiting treatment technology options to those already widely used “at scale” in the United States (Sec 4.) II. Redistributing state and tribal power 1. Allowing the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to strike a waterbody from the list of navigable waters based on the court decision in Sackett (Sec 20). The Clean Water Act did not address groundwater; this bill would clarify that groundwater is not included in the CWA protections. 2. Narrowing state's abilities to impose protections based on "any water quality requirement in such state" to only limited federal standards (Sec 5) 3. Narrowing environmental review timelines and scope (Sec 5) - Shortening timeline to complete environmental reviews before forfeiture - Limiting state consideration of proposed pipelines, dams and other large-scale development projects to only include "direct discharges" from specific permits vs cumulative watershed impacts - Shifting enforcement requirements from states to federal permitting agencies (Sec. 5) How can I take action? From Minneapolis to Cairo, we all value clean water. If you feel the PERMIT Act leaves that up to chance, please contact your senators and urge them to oppose it. You can use text from the letter below to get you started. This bill has passed in the House; it can only be stopped in the Senate. Now is the time to Take Action! Sample Letter Opposing the PERMIT Act (H.R. 3898) Subject: URGENT: Oppose the "PERMIT Act" (H.R. 3898) - Protect Our Water Dear Senator [Senator's Name], I am a constituent in the (state and zipcode) I am writing you today to express my strong opposition to the PERMIT Act (HB 3898), now coming before the Senate. The PERMIT Acts threatens the water quality of the Upper Mississippi River Region, and we urge you to vote against H.B. 3898. The intent of the Clean Water Act is to govern water pollution. Its main purpose is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters”. This involves setting water quality standards and regulating the discharge of pollutants into the U.S. waters. While the PERMIT Act aims to streamline regulations, its potential impact on the future of freshwater resources in the Upper Mississippi River region and across the United States remains a serious concern. H.R. 3898 would weaken crucial clean water protections including:
Congress should be focused on putting people before polluters and working to ensure everyone has access to clean water. Numerous provisions of the PERMIT Act shield industrial dischargers who pollute or destroy our streams, lakes, wetlands, and other waters from responsibility and accountability, thereby forcing our communities to shoulder the financial and public health burden of increased pollution and flooding. It allows industrial polluters to discharge forever chemicals into waters without informing pollution control officials. It prevents states and Tribes from acting to prevent harm to their critical water bodies from projects such as oil and gas pipelines. The PERMIT ACT would weaken crucial clean water protections that maintain public health and welfare. Changes to the Clean Water Act will reverse decades of progress in clean water protections, jeopardize safe drinking water and harm important ecosystems. Join the sentiments of the majority of Americans that value clean water protections and vote against this bill! Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address/Contact Information] Iowa is full of stories, including those of rural life, agriculture, and polluted surface waters – and no one tells them quite like Pulitzer Prize winner Art Cullen. LWV UMRR was very proud to have Art for a Zoom conversation with this Iowan on his new book “Marty, We Crapped in Our Own Nest: Notes from the Edge of the World” on March 14th, 2026.
This was a great discussion - watch the video on the LWV UMRR YouTube channel - click above! We also have a podcast with Art - just 5 minutes long! Click below for the podcast
On November 15, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules clarifying the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS). These proposed rules are based on the altered definition of the Clean Water Act in the US Supreme Court's 2023 Sackett decision. Here, the Supreme Court found EPA's working definition of Waters of the US to be too broad, too vague, and that it exceeded the authority granted by the Clean Water Act (CWA) concerning the traditional balance between federal and state power over private property. The proposed rules would significantly limit federal jurisdiction over wetlands and ephemeral streams, leaving these water bodies unprotected in states where there is not also state wetland regulation that would cover them. Comments are due to US EPA by January 5.
THE PROPOSED RULE WAS ANNOUNCED at 1pm ET 11/17/25. Public comments are now being accepted here. The deadline for those comments is January 5, 2026. New Guidance for Comment Periods Under Trump Administration During this comment period, it is critical that each group and individual provide its own unique comment tailored to the individual situation. The Trump administration is now flagging and discarding comments that appear too similar or duplicative, so the more personalized you and your organization can make your comment, the better. Key principles for written and verbal testimony:
On December 22, LWV UMRR held a webinar to share our comments. You can watch the 45-mnute recorded video by clicking the button below.
A team of scientist's from LWV Upper Mississippi River Region reviewed the draft changes to the definition of Waters of the US, and has drafted comments that were submitted to LWV US for review. LWV US's approval was necessary before the comments can be submitted because it's a federal issue. The approval was granted on December 17, 2025, and the letter was submitted to US EPA on January 4, 2026. This is the comment letter in its entirety. 
The comments are based on the LWV position on Environmental Protection and Pollution Control (Impact on Issues 2024-26, page 110.  Summary of the Comment Letter:
What is the proposed 2025 USEPA WOTUS Rule?
What’s included in the proposed EPA 2025 WOTUS Rule? Revisions to key definitions:
2 .Failure to Rely on the Significance of Connectivity and Ecosystem Function
3, Alternatives Regarding the Proposed 2025 WOTUS Rule
 Peg Furshong and Sara Mooradian Sarah Mooradian
Government Relations & Policy Director Sarah works on issues related to false climate solutions, rural electric cooperatives, siting and local power, clean transportation, and natural and working lands, participating in processes before state agencies like the Public Utilities Commission and at the state legislature. Previously, Sarah clerked for the Minnesota Court of Appeals. She has also worked on projects concerning tribal rights and land management, northern Minnesota mining, and New England’s surface water use. Sarah is a graduate of the University of Minnesota with degrees in Journalism and Sociology and Vermont Law and Graduate School with a J.D. and a Master of Environmental Law and Policy. She is passionate about protecting the environment and believes that success comes, in part, from changing both public policy and societal attitudes about nature. Peg Furshong Constituent Relations & Special Projects Peg is responsible for CURE’s Constituent Relations and Special Projects. These projects include water sustainability, landowner and community engagement for CURE’s NO Carbon Pipelines Campaign and coordinating outdoor engagement. Previously, Peg built the organization’s nature-based educational and experiential engagement programs, including initiatives like the Tallgrass Prairie BioBlitz and Freshwater Mussel Field Days. She also established CURE’s lasting partnership with the Minnesota Master Naturalist Program, where she continues to serve as a volunteer instructor. Peg is a graduate from Montana State University-Billings with a Master of Science in Education Leadership with an emphasis in Information, Process & Communication (IPC). She is a volunteer Commissioner for the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission. In 2025, she was appointed to the Minnesota Attorney General’s Task Force on the Future of Minnesota’s Water. CURE is a rurally based nonprofit that protects and restores resilient communities and landscapes by harnessing the power of the people who care. Learn more about CURE here! A conversation with Dr. Chris Jones December 11, 2025 at noon, Via Zoom What's really flowing down the Mississippi? From midwestern farm fields to the Gulf of Mexico, the story of water, agriculture, and the River's health affects us all. On December 11, LWV UMRR and One Mississippi hosted a fascinating conversation with author and research engineer Dr. Chris Jones, whose acclaimed book The Swine Republic pulls back the curtain on how modern agriculture drives water pollution—and what it will take to turn the tide. Whether you're interested in farming and agricultural policy or simply care about water and our Mighty Mississippi, this program will leave you with a deeper understanding of how upstream actions ripple all the way to the Gulf. Further Links and resources: Dr. Chris Jones bio:
On November 15, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules clarifying the definition of Waters of the United States. These proposed rules are based on the altered definition of the Clean Water Act in the Sackett decision. US EPA states that the proposed rule will "play a key role in EPA's Powering the Great American Comeback initiative"... From the US EPA WOTUS webpage: Updated Definition of Waters of the United States On November 17, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army (“the agencies”) announced the signing of a proposed rule to revise the definition of “waters of the United States.” This proposal implements the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA. The proposed rule will play a key role in EPA’s Powering the Great American Comeback initiative by protecting water resources, strengthening cooperative federalism, and supporting American industry, energy producers, the technology sector, farmers, ranchers, developers, businesses, and landowners. In developing the proposed rule, EPA and the Army reviewed and considered the extensive feedback and recommendations the agencies received from States, Tribes, local governments, and stakeholders throughout consultations and the pre-proposal recommendations docket and listening sessions. Here is the proposed rule Proposed Rule: Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States" (Pre-publication Version) (pdf) (1.12 MB)
The League of Women Voters supported the Clean Water Act's passage 50+ years ago - the following excerpt is from the LWV US Impact on Issues, page 108:  LWV UMRR has covered the Sackett decision in meetings and blog posts:
The Clean Water Act implementation after Sackett What does the Sackett decision mean for our waters Healthy Communities - our water and watersheds Sackett vs EPA Supreme Court decision limits extent of clean water act jurisdiction And from the Mississippi River Ag and Water Desk: Down the Drain - Wetlands in the Mississippi Basin |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LWV Upper Mississippi River Region | UMRR blog |
RSS Feed