By Matthew Holloway |
The Goldwater Institute is demanding that Pima County rescind its 120-day moratorium on new data center development, arguing that the county has failed to meet Arizona’s legal requirements for suspending otherwise lawful development and could face property rights claims.
Goldwater announced the demand earlier this week, following a letter sent to county leaders. Its challenge focuses on the evidence supporting the moratorium and whether existing regulations could address the county’s concerns.
The Pima County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 2026-56 on Sept. 22, imposing the pause while officials develop new zoning requirements for data centers.
The measure passed 3-2, with Supervisors Steve Christy and Rex Scott opposed. Before approval, supervisors amended the measure to apply to development for which permit applications had not yet been submitted.
“Arizona law only allows moratoria if there’s strong evidence of an imminent risk to the public,” Goldwater Institute Vice President for Litigation Jon Riches said. “It does not allow the county to freeze otherwise lawful property uses just because county leaders want more time to consider new rules.”
Under A.R.S. § 11-833, counties must provide public notice, hold a hearing, and make written findings before imposing a development moratorium. Goldwater’s challenge centers on the statute’s compelling-need standard, defined as “a clear and imminent danger to the health and safety of the public,” and additional requirements governing rural land, which the statute defines to include unincorporated county property.
In its letter to the board, Goldwater argues that the county has not demonstrated an essential public facilities shortage and cannot establish the compelling need required under the alternative provision.
Goldwater also contends that the county has failed to show why existing regulations cannot prevent irrevocable public harm, why alternative approaches would be inadequate, or why the moratorium is sufficiently limited geographically.
Much of the dispute centers on the county’s August public health review. The review identifies potential effects involving air quality, water use, noise, heat, and other conditions, while acknowledging a lack of direct empirical evidence measuring health effects in communities near data centers.
The review stated, “Overall, this report emphasizes the need for site-specific data, fenceline monitoring, and equity-centered impact assessments on any proposed data center projects. It also highlights a critical limitation due to an evidence gap: current literature provides modeled environmental exposures but highlights the lack of direct empirical evidence on health impact in communities near data centers, underscoring the importance of proactive monitoring and mitigation if development proceeds.”
In an accompanying Aug. 26 memorandum, County Administrator Jan Lesher cautioned that the review should not be read as a prediction that data center development would produce specific adverse health outcomes. The memorandum calls for additional project-specific information and describes the framework as a tool for monitoring, evaluation, and potential mitigation.
Goldwater argues those limitations undermine the county’s justification for suspending development.
County Board Chair Jennifer Allen disputed that interpretation. Allen said Goldwater was misconstruing the health framework’s role and maintained that the county had evidence supporting a moratorium consistent with state law.
The county’s agenda materials cite concerns about emissions, water scarcity, energy reliability, noise, and heat. They describe the pause as time for an accelerated zoning code amendment process.
Goldwater also raised potential compensation claims under Arizona’s Private Property Rights Protection Act. A.R.S. § 12-1134 provides for compensation when a land use law enacted after an owner acquired property reduces existing property use rights and the property’s fair market value, subject to statutory exemptions. The statute includes exemptions, including for health and safety protections, and places the burden of establishing an exemption on the government.
Riches said that Goldwater would consider representing an affected property owner but did not yet have a case.
Goldwater argues the county cannot establish that exemption here and warns that affected property owners could challenge the moratorium and seek compensation.
“There may be legitimate concerns about infrastructure and resources from the construction of data centers—as with any other development—but these can be addressed through clear, generally applicable rules that apply consistently to similar land uses,” Riches said. “What Pima County cannot do is arbitrarily ignore, pause, or trample on property rights.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
