How the Brown County Board Can Move Forward with an AI Data Center Moratorium

I chose to write this article as part of a fact-finding mission I’ve been on. Many counties in Wisconsin and across the United States are pushing back on hyperscale AI Data Centers. After attending several meetings and committees on the topic, I decided to find out where the state legislature stands on the topic, how some counties have chosen to move forward, and how Brown County, in particular, can use its situation to listen to constituents and prove it has more power than they currently understand.

Wisconsin Legislation Regarding AI Data Centers

Below is text from Rodney W. Carter at Husch Blackwell law firm. Carter summarizes the four main bills that the State’s legislators were hoping to move forward on the topic.

The Ratepayer and Utility Bill (AB-840/SB-843) was the session’s most consequential proposal. Authored by Republican legislators, it aimed to ensure the massive energy infrastructure costs driven by data centers are borne by the facilities themselves—not passed to residential ratepayers through higher utility bills. It would have required on-site renewable energy, closed-loop cooling, annual water usage reporting, and reclamation bonding for large facilities.

It passed the Assembly 53-44 and cleared its Senate committee 3-2. Then it died without a Senate floor vote—when the chamber adjourned. The reason it stalled is instructive: the on-site renewable energy provision managed to unite environmentalists, utilities, labor, and the data center industry in opposition simultaneously. A bill that no major constituency supports cannot advance, regardless of its merits.

The Democratic Alternative (AB-722/SB-729) went further, conditioning eligibility for state tax exemptions on sourcing at least 70% of energy from renewables and meeting labor standards. It did not advance under a Republican-controlled legislature. But the collapse of AB-840 signals that any bill that reaches a governor’s desk in a future session will need to address clean energy
more credibly than the Republican bill did.

The NDA Prohibition Bill (AB-1036/SB-969) was the session’s most bipartisan proposal, and it is the most directly exportable to other states. It would bar developers and local governments alike from signing confidentiality agreements that conceal data center projects from the public,
while preserving a trade secret carve-out for genuinely proprietary information. The Senate committee approved it 4-1 on a bipartisan vote. Then the session ended before it received a floor vote. It will almost certainly be reintroduced—and the industry should not count on being able to stop it next time.

The Moratorium Bill (AB-1099) would have halted all new data center development until the legislature enacted comprehensive standards covering energy, water, community referendums, and environmental safeguards. It did not advance under the current Republican majority. But the session’s failure to enact any regulation has given the moratorium’s proponents a stronger argument: if the legislature cannot act, perhaps the default should be to pause while it figures
things out.

Carter does a great job of showing how the state’s lawmakers held bipartisan concern for datacenters within the state’s borders.

On February 20th, the Wisconsin Assembly closed its legislative session for the year, sending Assembly lawmakers home months before schedule. The State Senate chamber adjourned its regular session in mid-March.

Wisconsin Counties That Have Passed Moratoriums

I think it’s important to note what a moratorium is and is not, at this point. Merriam-Webster says a moratorium “is an authorized, temporary delay or suspension of a specific activity or legal obligation. While a ban is permanent, a moratorium acts as a "pause button" meant to last only until a specific issue is resolved, a plan is created, or external conditions improve.

A pause. Not a yes or a no vote. This is important to keep in mind. A moratorium is a tool to use so that the inefficiencies of local government can’t be taken advantage of. A large group of people simply want the local governments to put a moratorium in place until the State legislature can decide what they are going to do once they come back into session next year. A data center does take some time to build, but once it starts, there’s very little hope in putting things back the way they were. So if a data center were to start getting built in late 2026, and the state decided to ban data centers, it could prove disastrous for the small communities of the state.

In a phone call with Manitowoc County Executive Tyler Martell this week, I learned Two Creeks, Mishicot, and Two Rivers submitted a request to the Manitowoc County Board for a moratorium. The Manitowoc County Board responded by applying an 18 month Data Center moratorium on all unincorporated areas of the county. The process they used was by sending the request to their planning commission, the commission voted in favor and sent it back to the entire Board, where it passed.

The Dane County Board unanimously approved a data center moratorium, pausing zoning permit applications for hyperscale data centers until December 2027.

In Shawano County, after hearing from more than two dozen residents, the Shawano County Planning, Development and Zoning Committee voted to advance the proposed moratorium to the full county board for consideration later this month. The moratorium would temporarily halt the construction of new data centers in portions of the county, giving officials additional time to
study potential impacts and consider future regulations.

Brown County: What’s Its Supervisors Think and What Its County Code Says

What we can learn from these other counties is how to move forward with a moratorium on, at the least, the unincorporated portions of counties. The processes these three counties used are sound and sufficient to implement what the people of Brown County have been calling for.

Brown County’s elected officials on the Planning, Development, and Transportation Committee informed the public that they would not be able to legally pass a data center moratorium as state statutes do not allow for it at the county level.

“If you’re looking for a moratorium on this, you should be going to the town of Rockland, or your village, speaking out there, have them put moratoriums on because we have no power here as a county to litigate.”
Norbert Dantinne Jr., Brown County Supervisor & Committee chair.

Dantinne is well versed on the topic because he also serves as the Zoning Administrator for the Town of Humboldt. Humboldt does not have a data center moratorium in place, despite Dantinne being aware of the developer's increased interest in Brown County.

Now a reasonable question to ask at this time is, “Why doesn’t Brown County pass a moratorium on data centers in its unincorporated areas?” Simply, the county doesn’t really have any. Most unincorporated areas are under the control of the various townships of Brown County.

But the claim by Dantinne that the County has “no power here as a county to litigate” isn’t exactly accurate.

The Devil is in the Details

According to Chapters 22 and 23 in the Brown County Code of Ordinances, Brown County has zoning control over the shorelands, wetlands, and floodplains within the county borders. They state:

22.02 FINDING OF FACT. Uncontrolled use of the shorelands and pollution of the navigable waters of Brown County would adversely affect the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare and impair the tax base. The legislature of Wisconsin has delegated responsibility to the counties to further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of structures and land uses; and to preserve shore cover and natural beauty. This responsibility is hereby recognized by Brown County, Wisconsin.

23.39 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. (1) The Planning, Development and Transportation Committee shall: (a) Oversee the functions of the office of the zoning administrator; and (b) Review and advise the governing body on all proposed amendments to this ordinance, maps and text. (c) Publish adequate notice pursuant to Ch. 985, Stats., specifying the date, time, place and subject of the public hearing.

Emphasis my own. I believe it is clear there is a small sliver of Brown County that the PD&T Committee of Brown County has zoning control over. This means that Brown County has the same authority as Shawano, Manitowoc, and Dane Counties in establishing a moratorium on these hyperscale data centers. In addition, they could work to help the local municipalities draft and execute moratoriums in the remaining areas.

Moving Ahead United

Admittedly, this doesn’t exactly solve our problem. However, if the County were to push forward this moratorium, the people of the county could rest easier knowing their elected officials are willing to step out of their comfort zones to establish a precedent that our homes and neighborhoods are not up for sale to the highest bidder. Our homes and neighborhoods are protected by every one of us, even our democratically elected leaders.

This is the most bipartisan issue I can remember since the tragedy of September 11th. A show of solidarity and camaraderie on this topic would be remembered and cherished by the residents. Together. The way we used to do things.