Protect Ohio’s Water from Unchecked Data Center Expansion
Urban Native Collective has submitted formal public comments to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency opposing a proposed general wastewater permit for data centers.
Ohio EPA is considering a statewide general NPDES permit that would allow data centers to discharge wastewater with reduced site-specific review. This approach weakens Clean Water Act protections, limits public participation, and fails to account for cumulative impacts on watersheds, headwaters, and groundwater-connected systems. Indigenous Peoples hold enduring legal, cultural, and relational responsibilities to water. Decisions that affect Ohio’s waters must reflect treaty obligations, place-based governance, and accountability to future generations. Urban Native Collective’s comment urges Ohio EPA to withdraw the draft permit and retain individualized, site-specific permitting that protects water quality and community health.
Enter your name and email to access our full statement.
Take Action: Submit Your Own Comment
Public comments play a critical role in environmental permitting decisions. Ohio EPA must hear directly from residents, water protectors, Tribal citizens, and community members about the risks posed by a statewide general wastewater permit for data centers. You can submit a comment online, or by mail/email following the official Ohio EPA public notice instructions.
How to Submit Comments
Submit comments through Ohio EPA’s public comment portal:
https://ohioepa.commentinput.com/?id=csDN8pRrg
Deadline
Comment periods have firm deadlines. A recent deadline was January 16, 2026. Submit as soon as possible to ensure your voice is counted
Three Indigenous-Grounded Points to Raise
1. Water is a living system that requires place-based governance
Indigenous Peoples understand water as an interconnected living system of headwaters, tributaries, wetlands, rivers, and groundwater. Decisions that affect water must be grounded in place-specific knowledge and conditions. A statewide general permit treats water as interchangeable and ignores the responsibilities that arise from relationship, geography, and long-term care.
2. General permits ignore cumulative harm to ancestral and treaty-connected waters
Data centers vary widely, yet a general permit assumes similarity while allowing cumulative discharges across watersheds. This approach places headwaters and groundwater-connected systems at risk. These waters hold enduring cultural, legal, and ecological significance for Indigenous Peoples and require heightened protection, baseline monitoring, and precaution.
3. Indigenous Peoples are rights-holders, not stakeholders, in water governance
Permitting decisions that affect Ohio’s waters implicate treaty obligations and Indigenous responsibilities to future generations. A general permit limits meaningful engagement and accountability. Decisions must remain transparent, site-specific, and responsive to Indigenous rights and governance responsibilities.
Learn More About the Legal Context
Indigenous water protections are being challenged at the national level through efforts that weaken Clean Water Act coverage for headwaters and smaller streams. These shifts increase the responsibility of state agencies to act with restraint and care.
The Native American Rights Fund is actively tracking and responding to these developments, including threats to federal protections for headwaters and waters connected to Tribal rights and responsibilities. Learn more about NARF’s work on headwaters and Clean Water Act protections here:
https://narf.org/headwaters-wotus-2025/