Proposed Data Center Draws Opposition from Landowner Group

Young County residents crowded into the Loving Community Center on Nov. 4 to debate a proposed Stream Data Centers development near the Graham Country Club that could bring millions of dollars in tax revenue—but is drawing fierce opposition from landowners.

It was the second meeting to channel growing opposition to the project, and quickly became a standing-room-only event filled with sharp exchanges and emotional testimony.

About 40 percent of the footprint for the proposed data center buildings lies in the Olney Hamilton Hospital taxing district, county commissioners have said. Tax revenue from the project could eventually cover an existing shortfall required to build out a second operating room and restore obstetrics services to the new hospital, they said.

The meeting was organized by Ryan Mote, whose fourth-generation pecan farm borders the proposed site, and landowner Travis Kunkel. The two distributed yard signs opposing the project and circulated a petition that has already garnered more than 1,000 signatures. They also provided a collection bucket to raise funds for newspaper advertisements and other awareness efforts designed to rally opposition.

With no county officials in attendance—and Stream yet to formally approach the county for a tax abatement—residents pressed for answers but often found themselves confronting conflicting information and uncertainty.

County Judge Win Graham and Commissioners Jimmy Wiley and Scott Shook toured a data center in a residential neighborhood in Garland this month. Mr. Wiley reported that he interviewed residents who live beside the facility and who reported that it was quiet and produced no light pollution or noticeable vibration.

Mr. Mote opened the meeting by sharing what he described as “matter- of-fact” information from recent discussions with representatives from Stream, Judge Graham, Graham’s mayor and city manager, and former mayors involved in brokering the land deal. “I’m madly against the data center,” Mr. Mote said. “It’s right up against my property… but even if it weren’t, there’s enough here for me to be concerned about.”

Mr. Mote said he was shown preliminary plans by Stream—despite public statements suggesting no plans existed. He described 17 buildings, each up to two stories tall, with three proposed entrances, and a construction timeline stretching 12 to 17 years. At peak activity, he said, Stream estimated 1,000 to 2,000 construction workers would be on-site. When residents asked whether local workers would benefit, Mr. Mote said Stream representatives indicated the company anticipated many workers coming from outside the county because the site lies within a “day-trip radius” of both Dallas–Fort Worth and Wichita Falls.

According to Mr. Mote, Stream acknowledged the site was chosen for its proximity to high-capacity power lines and access to water and sewer—attributes that increase resale value to future hyperscale buyers such as Google, Meta, or Amazon. Stream said it will use a closedloop cooling system that would require 165,000 gallons to fill each building, though Mr. Mote questioned whether the system would need periodic flushing and what that might mean for nearby waterways. He also said each building would rely on a diesel backup generator, running for 15 minutes monthly for maintenance, prompting resident concerns about cumulative noise and emissions.

The possibility of a county tax abatement dominated much of the evening. Mr. Mote said the former mayors involved in the land option told him an abatement would be required for Stream to proceed.

Audience member Chance Condron, owner of oil and gas firm SB Street Operating, immediately repeatedly pushed back, arguing that residents should consider whether refusing an abatement might leave the county bearing the impact of the development without receiving any tax revenue. His comments drew irritated reactions, and at points the meeting grew tense before Mr. Mote intervened to keep the discussion moving.

Some residents said they were alarmed by what they viewed as decisions being made without their input. “It appears that it is being decided outside the knowledge and will of the community,” one woman said, to applause. Another resident, Cookie Johnson, added, “We should have the right to vote on this one way or the other… Our voices need to be heard.”

Opponents said that the more than 800 acres tied to the proposal would eliminate prime cow–calf grazing land, destroy wildlife habitat, and heighten erosion risks, and affect Salt Creek, Lake Graham, Willow Branch, and related waterways. They also noted that removing vegetation would leave exposed soil vulnerable to wind erosion, especially with heavy truck traffic.

Stream has not submitted a formal abatement request. ERCOT has not approved the site’s power request. And the county has yet to schedule any official hearings.

As the meeting wound down, Mr. Mote urged residents to remain engaged and continue building momentum. “People can stop it,” he said. “You do it with your voice, your letters, your petitions. Numbers matter.”