Every question from the August 11 meeting. On the record.

What we can answer today

Start with the number that is actually on paper. Up to 1,000,000 gallons per day is what is being discussed with McCormick CPW for the whole site, everything included, not just cooling. The CPW plant treats 2.7 million gallons a day out of Lake Thurmond, so that is about 37 percent of what the plant is built to handle. CPW's General Manager confirmed in writing on November 17, 2025 that the system can serve that volume as requested. We would not put our name on a project we thought would drain or foul the water our own families drink.

On the drought notices: being asked to go easy on the sprinklers and what the treatment plant can process are two different things, the same way a dry month and the size of your pump are two different things. Restrictions answer the weather. Capacity is what the plant can treat. How drought rules would apply to this project belongs in binding approval conditions, and a hard cap on water can be written into those conditions so it follows the site no matter who operates it.

On cooling: the old way, evaporative cooling, boils water off all day, every day, like a pot that never comes off the stove. The project's engineers stated in writing on August 10 that this design is the opposite: air cooling with closed-loop chilling, closer to a car radiator, filled and recirculated, with water drawn mainly on the hottest days. That is their stated plan, not yet a signed guarantee, so we will not quote a gallons figure for this site until someone signs one. Before approval the project should publish its water source, average daily use, and peak daily use against verified capacity. And honesty requires this too: closed-loop systems push their heat into the air, and the site-specific heat questions are on the written answer list.

Sources: CPW letter Nov 17, 2025; county administrator on the record, July 30 Planning Commission; mccormickcpw.com; project engineering statement Aug 10, 2026.

Answer

The premise in the parenthetical is correct, and it is the right question to ask. The project's engineering contact stated in writing on August 10 that the design intent is air cooling with closed-loop chilling, with water used mainly on extreme hot days, not evaporative cooling that consumes water continuously. That is stated design intent, not yet an engineering guarantee, so we will not quote an evaporative-loss gallons figure for this site. What the project should publish before approval, and what we support requiring: water source, average daily use, and peak daily use against verified capacity, with a binding cap written into the approval conditions.

Sources: project engineering statement Aug 10, 2026; CPW letter Nov 17, 2025; DOE cooling and water usage effectiveness guidance.

Answer

Honest answer: the discharge route, treatment step, and governing permit are not documented for this site yet, and we will not guess at them. It is logged on the written answer list. What the process provides: cooling system blowdown, sanitary wastewater, and stormwater must all be managed under permits, and the project should publish what is discharged, where it goes, and how it is tested. "Closed loop" answers evaporation; it does not answer discharge, and the written answer must cover both.

Sources: SCDES permitting requirements.

What we can answer today

Here is who we can name, because it is on public paper: the natural gas company is Southern Natural Gas, L.L.C., a Kinder Morgan company. Their pipeline filings are public under FERC docket CP25-517-000, the South System Expansion 4 project, approaching from the Lincoln County direction. The pipeline investment is roughly $200 to $280 million depending on final routing, inside a total project investment discussed publicly at roughly $1.5 billion.

The company that would actually use the site cannot be named yet, and we know that is the most frustrating sentence on this page. It is standard in competitive projects at this stage, the same way nobody announces a land deal before the papers are signed. Every identity question, deal structure, financing, and timeline included, is logged for the team's written answers. And every protection described on this page is built to bind whoever the tenant turns out to be, because we know "trust us" is not an answer.

Sources: FERC docket CP25-517-000; Chuck Cook on the record, July 30 Planning Commission; Pollard community document, Aug 11, 2026.

Answer

At the August 11 meeting the team acknowledged that some project information is covered by confidentiality obligations, which is why certain questions, including the tenant's identity, cannot be answered yet. That is standard practice in competitive projects at this stage, and we understand it is also the least satisfying answer on this page. What those obligations cover, with whom, and when they lift is now on the written answer list, and the identity gets disclosed the moment it can be.

Answer

The parties that can be named are the ones in public writing: Southern Natural Gas, L.L.C., a Kinder Morgan company, is the gas counterparty, with public filings under FERC docket CP25-517-000. The developer and end user cannot be named yet, per the confidentiality answer above. Every protection described on this page is designed to bind through approval conditions and permits regardless of who the tenant turns out to be, precisely because we know "trust us" is not an answer.

Sources: FERC docket CP25-517-000; Pollard community document Aug 11, 2026.

What we can answer today

You are right, and we will say it plainly: a landowner's word alone binds nothing, ours included. What binds is what gets written down. Conditions in the rezoning approval and the state permits that follow attach to the land itself, the way a deed restriction does: they follow the property to any future owner or tenant, not to the person who made the promise. And rezoning is not the last word. Still ahead: site plan review, the SCDES air construction permit (with a 30-day public notice and possible public hearing), SCDES stormwater coverage (mandatory above one acre of disturbance, with an engineered pollution prevention plan), wetland authorization, pipeline review, and building permits. Each has its own agency and its own public process.

On what stands behind each claimed benefit: the jobs figures cited publicly are South Carolina's data center program eligibility thresholds (25 jobs, $50 million investment, per the SC Department of Commerce), not a site forecast. The water figure is CPW's written confirmation. Gas access ties to the public FERC docket. The tax schedule requires the fee-in-lieu-of-tax agreement, which is not yet public and should be before approval. Where a number is a threshold or a projection rather than a commitment, it ought to be labeled that way, including by us.

County Council takes up the moratorium recommendation on August 18. Worth knowing both edges of that knife: Marion County, SC approved a $2.4 billion data center in January 2026; by June the developer walked away because power could not arrive on their timeline, and the county lost an estimated $28 million a year in payments against a roughly $25 million budget. Waiting has a price too. That is the case for binding conditions written before any vote.

Sources: county zoning letter Nov 17, 2025; SCDES permitting requirements; SC Dept of Commerce; SC Dept of Revenue; news coverage of Marion County cited in the Aug 11 community document.

Answer

The fact behind the "loophole" framing: the two core parcels are already zoned Service Industrial, where high performance computing centers are permitted by right, confirmed in the county's letter of November 17, 2025. The contested rezoning covers additional Forest/Agricultural parcels. The moratorium recommendation is exactly what County Council takes up on August 18, and that is the right venue for this question. Our position is that the protections residents want (water caps, noise limits, emission limits) get their force from binding conditions written into approvals and permits, which apply to the land and any operator, and can be attached whether or not a moratorium passes. The honest trade-off on timing: Marion County, SC approved a data center in January 2026, the developer withdrew in June over power timing, and the county lost an estimated $28 million a year against a $25 million budget. Delay has costs and protections have value; the council's job on the 18th is to weigh both.

Sources: county zoning letter Nov 17, 2025; Aug 18 council agenda; Marion County coverage cited in the Aug 11 community document.

What we can answer today

Yes, gas turbines, on site, making the project's own power, so it is not drawing on the grid that serves your house. No wood, no biomass, no burning chips from the lumber yard; the fuel is pipeline natural gas. And per the August 11 community document, the developer carries 100 percent of the upgrade, substation, engineering, and transmission costs. Not the county, and not you.

Turbines put out nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. They are not emission-free, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. What the project's engineers have put in writing (August 10): selective catalytic reduction on the stacks, removing 85 to 95 percent of NOx, with stated emissions below 4 ppm. But the number that counts is the one in the SCDES Bureau of Air Quality permit, because that one is enforceable, set in public with a 30-day notice and a possible hearing, with monitoring, testing, and reporting attached. A large part of our extended family lives within about 20 miles of this site. Our sons and daughters breathe this air too.

Turbine count, models, megawatt figures, daily fuel volume, and CO2 tonnage are not final; they all arrive with the air permit filing, which is a public document. And another project's generator count does not transfer here. El Paso's engineering, cooling, and computing load are El Paso's. This site gets judged on its own filing.

Sources: Pollard community document Aug 11, 2026; project engineering statement Aug 10, 2026; SCDES air permitting process; EPA turbine control guidance.

What we can answer today

A straight tape-measure answer: the nearest edge of the property's road frontage is about 1.5 miles from the school campus on Highway 28 South, so "less than 2 miles" is fair for the nearest boundary. But most of the roughly 990 acres sits between 2.5 and 4 miles from campus, and where buildings would actually sit inside the site is not settled. A surveyed distance from the parcel map goes in the written answers.

The protections are written to follow the school, not our fence line. The county's draft ordinance caps sound at 55 dBA at the receiving property line of any school, church, park, or residence. Fifty-five dBA is about the level of a quiet conversation. It adds a 7 dBC limit on low-frequency hum above ambient and restricts generator testing to weekdays 10am to 4pm. It is a draft until adopted, which is exactly why getting it locked in before any vote matters. Construction dust falls under South Carolina's construction stormwater permit, with engineered erosion and sediment controls required for any disturbance over one acre. And on electricity: the project makes its own power, so it is not pulling on the grid that serves the school.

Sources: draft county ordinance (copies from the County Administrator); SCDES stormwater requirements; map estimate from public data, surveyed figure to follow.

What we can answer today

"Like a jet engine" is a comparison, not a measurement, and nobody can honestly tell you the loudness at your porch without acoustical modeling, so we will not pretend to. The right ask, and we back it: model worst-case nighttime sound at actual residences and property lines, including tonal and low-frequency components, write enforceable decibel limits into the approval, and measure after construction to prove it.

On the low hum you feel more than hear: the draft ordinance's 7 dBC limit uses C-weighting, which is designed to catch exactly that low-frequency energy that ordinary A-weighted readings miss. And some perspective from this ground itself: a working sawmill ran on part of this property for more than 50 years, until the end of 2019, an operation estimated at 90 to 115 dBA, and it sat close to the road. The ordinance would hold this project to 55 dBA at the receiving property line, about a quiet conversation. That cap and the weekday 10-to-4 generator testing window apply to generators including temporary ones, and the written answers will confirm that scope explicitly.

Sources: draft county ordinance; Pollard community document Aug 11, 2026; acoustics ask as stated in the project's published material.

What we can answer today

These deserve researched answers, not a pat on the head, so we are not improvising them here. What we can say now: the air permit process sets enforceable emission limits for the turbines with public notice and comment, and we have no data linking data centers to livestock harm. The pacemaker, EMF, and formaldehyde questions are logged for a dedicated written health and safety answer that addresses each claim by name, with sources.

What we can answer today

South Carolina lets counties negotiate a fee-in-lieu-of-tax agreement, a FILOT. In plain terms: instead of the standard property tax bill, the county signs a contract for an agreed payment, like settling the rent in advance instead of arguing about it every year. Per the state Department of Revenue, a FILOT can save a company roughly 40 percent versus standard property tax, but it is a contracted fee, not zero payment. No year-by-year schedule exists for this project yet, and our position is simple: the public should see the full schedule, what the project pays after every incentive and what each taxing entity receives, before approval, not after.

On jobs: expect years of construction trade work first, then a smaller permanent crew of technical, security, maintenance, and administrative roles. The 25-jobs figure that circulates is the doorway to the state's program, not this project's forecast. Construction jobs, permanent jobs, wages, and training commitments belong in the written answers, reported separately so nobody blurs them together.

And from the county that has run data centers longest: Loudoun County, Virginia collects $26 in data center tax revenue for every $1 of county services required, and its residential tax rate fell from $1.285 in 2008 to $0.805 today. That is context, not a promise. McCormick's own numbers arrive with the FILOT schedule.

Sources: SC Dept of Revenue; SC Dept of Commerce; Loudoun County adopted budgets, loudoun.gov.

What we can answer today

The concept plan, dated August 11 and stamped "Concept Only," shows five buildings of 100,000 square feet each, plus detention ponds, wetland areas, open space, 200-foot undisturbed buffers and 150-foot environmental buffers, real vegetation, not a single row of pines. For a familiar sense of scale: Mullins Crossing and Mullins Colony over in Evans, Georgia, the centers with Target, Kohl's, and Belk, total about 550,000 square feet of buildings. Same order of size, except these buildings would be largely screened from view, with about 98 percent less parking lot. The 1,000-acre figure is the whole property, not the built footprint. Exact disturbed, cleared, paved, and preserved acreage gets published before approval, and we will not guess a number before engineering confirms it.

For those asking about the forestry: part of this ground ran a commercial sawmill for more than 50 years, until production stopped at the end of 2019.

No published environmental assessment or habitat survey exists yet; wetland authorization and stormwater review lie ahead in the permit path, in public. Decommissioning terms do not exist in writing yet, and we will not invent them. Both go on the written list, as does night lighting, which is a standard site plan condition.

Sources: project concept plan Aug 11, 2026; Pollard community document Aug 11, 2026; SCDES permitting path.

What we can answer today

The stated aim is to run the pipe along existing road and utility corridors where practical. We will not dress that up as a promise that no private easement will ever be needed, because it is not one. What the operator should publish: the proposed centerline, the construction corridor width, the permanent easement width, and the parcels touched. Federal standards govern welding inspection and minimum burial depth during construction, and restoration should be binding, inspected, and backed by a real way for a landowner to complain and be heard.

Eminent domain, the rock-under-the-soil question, and what it would cost a home to hook up to gas: all three are logged for written answers. None of the three has a documented answer today, and we will not pretend otherwise.

Sources: PHMSA construction overview; FERC landowner information; project routing objective as stated publicly.

Answer

The stated pipeline investment is roughly $200 to $280 million depending on final routing, with $200 million the figure given publicly on July 30, within total project investment discussed at roughly $1.5 billion. On the electric side, the August 11 community document states in writing that the developer is 100 percent responsible for all upgrade, substation, engineering, and transmission costs, not passed to county residents. The equivalent written commitment for pipeline construction and future maintenance was stated at the meeting as no cost to the tax base, but it is not yet in a signed document, so it goes on the written answer list until it is. We hold our own side's statements to the same in-writing standard we cite for everything else.

Sources: July 30 Planning Commission record; Pollard community document Aug 11, 2026; FERC docket CP25-517-000.

What we can answer today

You asked for the negatives, so here they are, no varnish: years of construction activity and truck traffic, land disturbance on a working forest property, gas turbines that emit NOx, CO, and CO2, a pipeline that needs a corridor, and a change to the look and sound of the area closest to the site. Nobody should promise you silence, invisibility, zero water use, or zero risk. What we can commit to is the unglamorous version: name every material impact, shrink it with modern design, make compliance enforceable through permits and conditions, and put the numbers in public writing before decisions are made.

On why it felt sudden: the two core parcels were already zoned Service Industrial, confirmed in the county's letter of November 17, 2025. The July 2026 rezoning request covers the additional Forest/Agricultural parcels, and that is what brought the whole project into the open. On sequencing: today's plan is a concept, and the detailed traffic, noise, and stormwater engineering arrives with the permits that follow rezoning, each one public. The fair trade is that binding conditions can be attached at rezoning, so those later studies land against limits that already have teeth.

On showing our work: every number on this page names its source, and the written answer sheet will do the same. A site visit is a fair request, directed to the Planning Commission and the County Administrator, James Upchurch (jupchurch@mccormickcountysc.org); we do not control that scheduling and we see no reason to oppose it.

Sources: county zoning letter Nov 17, 2025; SCDES permitting path; project published material.

Our answer

We are not publishing answers about where individuals live. Questions about the land's economics (what was paid, what a sale or lease would bring) are logged with the identity questions for the team's written answers. Questions about the qualifications of the people who spoke at the meeting have been passed to the team; the people on that stage should be identified properly, and that correction belongs to them, not this page.