Doug Sevey, president and CEO of Enseva, went viral this month after speaking at a Palo, Iowa, city council meeting on June 1. In a clip that Business Insider reviewed, Sevey told the room, “Everything Google is telling you is BS,” and argued, “They're going to burn through the water, and when it's done, it's done, and they don't care.” The core of his message is simple, and also the reason this story matters to operators, boards, and anyone funding infrastructure: he says Google has not provided enough details to show the project will be “done right,” especially when it comes to water use.

According to Business Insider, Sevey is concerned the proposed facility could draw “millions of gallons of water” from a nearby river, based on public records obtained by Iowa Public Radio. He adds a second, more technical worry: he believes the water draw estimate implies Google is not planning to use a system that minimizes water use. For a data center industry that runs on reliability and scale, water is not a side issue. It is a constraint that can turn a “greenfield” build into a regulatory fight, a community backlash, and potentially a design rework.

Sevey says the controversy is playing out across the US, but in Palo it has a particularly thorny twist: it is not only about environmental impacts, it is about jurisdiction. Google initially pursued development in unincorporated Linn County. As Linn County developed and approved its own data center rules, Google shifted toward annexation into Palo. The practical effect, Sevey argues, is that annexation would put the project under the city of Palo's rules rather than the county's.

This is where incentives collide. If the land is annexed into Palo, Linn County's data center ordinance would no longer apply. Palo is considering a proposed data center ordinance, but the proposal does not require an independent water study or a water-use agreement. Instead, it would rely on state-level water regulations. Sevey believes that can change the quality of scrutiny at exactly the point where design choices like cooling systems become irreversible. The city of Palo did not respond to a request for comment, and Mayor Bryan Busch told a town hall earlier this year that the suggestion Google would build in Palo to avoid regulation was “insulting and offensive,” according to Iowa Public Radio.

Sevey's own credibility is part of why this protest landed. He has built and run several data centers. He says his business relies on well water at his home, and that large withdrawals could affect local groundwater. He also says his data center in Hiawatha, Iowa uses a closed-loop chilled-water system rather than evaporative cooling. In his view, his firm serves companies in fields such as healthcare, manufacturing, and banking, but that the broad principles still apply: minimize water use and maximize energy efficiency. That combination is not just a “good vibes” claim. It is a risk-management posture. If water constraints become litigation, permit delays, or operational limits, the cost of a suboptimal cooling decision compounds.

The problem for Sevey is that the cooling system on the Palo project is not clear. Business Insider reports that it is unclear what cooling system Google plans to use on the Palo data center. Google declined to comment when reached by Business Insider. Google has said it uses evaporative cooling at many data centers because other methods can consume more energy or have a higher carbon footprint. It has also said it evaluates local water risks and considers alternatives before choosing a cooling system. Separately, earlier this month Google announced water stewardship commitments, pledging to replenish more water than it consumes at its sites by 2030, protect at-risk watersheds with air-cooled solutions, and report its annual water use.

For boards and executives, the second-order lesson is that “environmental” arguments in zoning and permitting often become “engineering” disputes. Cooling choices are ultimately tradeoffs among water consumption, energy use, and carbon footprint, but the public conversation tends to center on water volume and local impacts. Sevey also claims there is an information gap in small towns, saying officials are not equipped to evaluate the tradeoffs and can be lured by potential tax revenue. He suggests that when communities feel under-informed, they can get pulled into an approval path before operators and regulators have fully stress-tested designs.

Since the city council clip spread on social media, Sevey says concerned citizens in several states have invited him to help them oppose data centers. He says he does not want to be the face of data center opposition, which is an important nuance. He tells Business Insider that if Google addresses his concerns and develops the project responsibly, he is not necessarily opposed to it. But his ask stays pointed: give communities the information needed to judge whether a project is “done right,” especially on water.

For executives across the infrastructure stack, this case is a live stress test for how approvals work in 2026. Water transparency, cooling-system specifics, and the structure of local ordinances can determine whether a build becomes smooth growth or a multi-stakeholder reckoning. In Palo, Sevey's unusual alliance as both an operator and a critic signals a broader reality: even data center owners may fight data center builds when the risk math shifts. And if that pattern spreads, developers will need to treat regulatory readiness and water design disclosure as core product features, not after-the-fact paperwork.