Missoula County, Mont. has put the future on pause.
On July 9, county commissioners imposed a one-year moratorium on new or expanded data centers in the unincorporated parts of the county, blocking an entire category of digital infrastructure regardless of its size, design, or actual impact on surrounding property.
Data centers are not just infrastructure for “Big Tech.” They are part of the physical backbone of modern life. Hospitals depend on them for medical records, banks for transactions, manufacturers for production, and consumers for cloud storage and online purchases.
Halting data centers, even temporarily, freezes private investment, restricts property rights, and treats everything from a small data facility to a massive industrial campus as though each raises the same concerns. Rather than banning an entire category of development in advance, government should judge each project on its own merits.
Data-center proposals present some legitimate reasons for scrutiny. The largest raise fair questions about electricity, water, noise, and whether existing infrastructure can support them. But other projects may be small and unobtrusive. Missoula County’s moratorium treats them all alike.
A blanket ban is not the best answer.
Missoula County’s moratorium also risks surrendering its role in building the infrastructure of the next economy. Thousands of new data centers have been announced nationwide, and about 800 are under construction. The experience of communities nationwide is revealing that, whatever their potential downsides, data center development also results in financial investments that bolster local economies.
Missoula County’s moratorium cannot stop the future from coming—it can only make sure more of it happens somewhere else. Thus, if the county is concerned about potential harms, it should adopt regulations that address those harms rather than assume that every project will necessarily be harmful. Instead of prohibiting an entire class of property use, the county can set reasonable limits on noise, light, and other effects that might spill beyond a property line. Such rules protect neighbors against potential nuisances while also encouraging developers to minimize their impact in the first place.
Above all, Missoula County should prioritize protecting the right of property owners to make the most profitable use of their property that does not cause a nuisance to their neighbors. If a property owner discovers a way to increase the value of their property by 50% to 500%, the government should only be able to prevent the owner from taking advantage of that opportunity if it can demonstrate some specific, unavoidable harm is likely to follow. And as already noted, the county can indeed impose regulations that anticipate and mitigate the challenges most associated with data centers without banning them altogether.
Also, existing law provides a mechanism for property owners to recover against neighbors who disturb their quiet enjoyment of their property. If a data center happens to subject nearby property owners to excessive noise, light, odors, or similar nuisances, a court can order the nuisance stopped or abated, and it can also require compensation for any harm caused.
Montana has long attracted people who value space, independence, and the freedom to decide what happens on their own land. A blanket moratorium turns that tradition upside down.
Missoula County can—and should—protect neighbors without imposing a blanket ban. It can address actual harms without preemptively taking lawful choices away from property owners.
If you own property in Missoula County and this moratorium is standing between you and a data-center project, the Goldwater Institute would like to hear from you.
Property rights should mean that owners get to decide on the best use of their land—not county commissioners.
Dave Roland is the Director of Allied Litigation at the Goldwater Institute.
This op-ed originally appeared in the Missoulian. Read more about the Goldwater Institute’s work on data centers here.
