Harwood, North Dakota Defies Nationwide Trend by Rejecting Stricter Data‑Center Oversight

On November 3, the modest community of Harwood, North Dakota, went against the grain. Residents cast their ballots on a local amendment that would have required any large‑scale project – data centers included – to pass an independent technical review, hold a public hearing and furnish written findings backed by “substantial” evidence before the city could sign off.

The numbers speak for themselves: 325 votes against, 105 in favor. Roughly three‑quarters of the 430 ballots cast rejected the added oversight, a stark contrast to the pattern emerging elsewhere. In ten states, ballot measures aimed at tightening, limiting, or outright blocking data‑center construction won in 40 of 41 contests, according to Ballotpedia.

Why does Harwood matter? Back in September 2025 the city council rezoned 320 acres of former farmland to light‑industrial use, clearing the way for Texas‑based Applied Digital to erect a multibillion‑dollar hyperscale facility. The proposal sparked a flurry of concerns from locals – noise, water consumption, air‑quality impacts, higher electricity bills and the fear of losing the town’s small‑town character.

Mayor Blake Hankey, who campaigned against the amendment, insisted the measure wasn’t a narrow anti‑data‑center referendum. “It would have saddled a city our size with a costly, burdensome process,” he said, noting that the rules could have tangled up any future large development, not just the Applied Digital project.

Supporters of the amendment, led by community activist Mike Swartz, argued that residents were blindsided by the speed at which the data‑center plan moved forward. “We need a seat at the table when something that massive is built next to our homes,” Swartz contended, emphasizing the desire for more transparent decision‑making.

In many other jurisdictions, voters opted for direct constraints: zoning limits, thresholds for land, power or water use, and even outright moratoriums. Those measures were often crafted to slow the rapid expansion of infrastructure that underpins artificial‑intelligence services and cloud computing. Harwood’s vote, however, offered a different path – a refusal to layer on extra procedural hurdles while the project was already in motion.

Some analysts suggest the town’s choice reflects a pragmatic calculation. With the Applied Digital facility already breaking ground, residents may have weighed the economic benefits – jobs, tax revenue and a modest boost to the local economy – against the incremental cost of a new review process. The amendment’s failure, therefore, might be less about a love of data centers and more about a desire to keep the wheels turning.

Regardless of the motivations, Harwood’s outcome highlights a growing tension nationwide: how much influence should ordinary citizens wield over megaprojects that can reshape a community’s landscape and finances? As the data‑center boom shows no sign of slowing, the conversation is likely to keep spilling onto ballot boxes, town halls and dinner tables across America.