Erin Brockovich, the environmental advocate whose campaign against industrial water contamination became the subject of a Hollywood film, has turned her attention to what she calls the unchecked and frequently secretive expansion of AI data centres across the United States. The issue, she argues, is not whether the infrastructure should exist at all, but whether the communities hosting it have any say in the matter.

After launching a call for reports in April, Brockovich received nearly 4,000 submissions in the first month alone. The response prompted her to build a publicly accessible website, featuring an interactive map of major AI and hyperscale facilities across the US, both operational and under construction, alongside pins showing where community members have flagged concerns.

As of early June, the platform has received 4,377 total reports from 1,623 unique zip codes spanning 49 states, with 2,690 of those submissions arriving in the 30 days before 4 June 2026.

“The race to build AI infrastructures is unfolding town by town across America,” Brockovich wrote on the site. “In some places, data centres are welcomed. In others, they are delayed, contested or abandoned altogether. This map captures the real-world footprint of that race – revealing patterns of growth, conflict and uncertainty.”

Brockovich has been clear that she is not making a blanket argument against data centres or AI, but rather against the pattern her map documents: projects announced after permits are already secured, developers who do not return calls, and local officials who signed NDAs before their neighbours knew a project was being considered.

The transparency deficit

When Brockovich analysed the community submissions, the single most common concern  (above noise, above water usage, above rising utility bills) was the one word that kept appearing in submission after submission: transparency.

Of the keyword categories tracked across all submissions, water concerns led with 41.2% of reports, followed by electricity and grid concerns at 22.2%, health at 18.1%, and wildlife and land at 14.6%.

Notably, NDAs and secrecy were cited in 8% of submissions – representing more than 128 reports explicitly naming nondisclosure agreements, secret deals, or exclusion from public meetings.

That figure likely understates the true scale of the problem. In Wisconsin alone, investigative reporting revealed that at least four municipalities (Beaver Dam, Kenosha, Janesville, Menomonie, and Beloit) signed nondisclosure agreements with data centre developers, prompting state lawmakers to introduce legislation banning the practice. The bill stalled in the Assembly, but the issue it exposed has since been replicated across numerous other states. Nearly one in five reports to Brockovich’s office cite NDAs, secret deals, or being shut out of public meetings.

The tension between secrecy and community consent sits within a broader industrial dynamic that the data centre industry has been navigating for some time. As Capacity has reported, Microsoft VP Val Walsh acknowledged at Datacloud Global Congress 2025 that “the public don’t want us, 80% of the population don’t understand it”, a comment that speaks to a genuine communications gap between operators and the communities their facilities land in.

From local protests to legislative action

The responses documented on the Brockovich platform range from petition drives and packed planning meetings to council elections fought and won on data centre issues. In Festus, Missouri, voters removed four of eight city council members in the weeks following the approval of a $6 billion data centre over public objection. A petition to remove the remaining members and the mayor followed.

In Port Washington, Wisconsin, residents approved what is believed to be the nation’s first anti-data-centre referendum, with approximately 66% of voters backing an ordinance requiring future tax increment financing districts above $10 million to first secure voter approval.

The legal front is equally active. Amazon agreed to a $20.5 million settlement in a class action alleging that an AWS data centre in Eastern Oregon contributed to nitrate contamination of community drinking water – a case being closely watched by communities across the country weighing the risks of hosting similar projects.

Projects totalling an estimated $156 billion were delayed or cancelled in 2025 alone as a consequence of local opposition. We reported earlier this year that in the United States, a coalition of over 200 environmental and community organisations is demanding an immediate halt to new data centre construction.

Data centre developers have long operated with relatively light-touch local oversight, relying on economic incentives and planning permissions to smooth the path. Yet, this rapid expansion is now colliding with mounting public opposition.

The issue has drawn attention at the federal level, too, with President Trump pushing for large technology companies to cover more of the infrastructure and energy costs tied to data centre expansion. A position that cuts across party lines and reflects a genuine shift in how policymakers view the obligations of hyperscale operators.

What the industry needs to address

The concerns Brockovich has aggregated are not new to those inside the sector, but the scale of the mobilisation is. Electricity demand from data centres rose 17% in 2025, with AI-focused facilities well outpacing the 3% growth in global electricity demand, as investment in data centres approaches $1 trillion, close to 1% of the global economy. That trajectory makes conflict with host communities more, not less, likely unless the industry’s approach to engagement changes.

Water is equally contentious. Water concerns account for the largest single category of community submissions to the Brockovich platform, a finding consistent with academic and industry research tracking the cooling demands of hyperscale AI facilities. With approximately 97% of data centres relying on municipal water supplies and services, secrecy around consumption leaves utilities and planners flying blind.

Google has moved to address some of these concerns directly, announcing a set of water use commitments that include annual disclosure of consumption figures, avoiding water-intensive cooling in water-stressed regions, and pursuing reclaimed wastewater alternatives. The company argues that better practices and more transparency can help ease community fears. Critics have noted that the commitments are not new individually, and that the real test will be whether they are independently verified and consistently applied.

Brockovich’s initiative is unlikely to slow the AI infrastructure build-out in any fundamental sense. The demand signals driving it, from hyperscalers, cloud providers, and sovereign AI investment programmes globally, are too strong. But it has already changed the conversation. Communities that previously had no framework for understanding what was being built in their backyards now have a tool, a vocabulary, and, increasingly, a playbook.

The woman who took on Pacific Gas & Electric, and won, has a new target. “I am watching as you, the communities, show up and speak out,” Brockovich wrote. The industry would be wise to watch, too.