Joe Lombardo and Aaron Ford split over economic and environmental impact of data centers

Joe Lombardo and Aaron Ford are divided over the economic and environmental impact of data centers in Nevada’s 2026 gubernatorial contest. In the governor’s race, one campaigner describes the facilities as the “new golden rush,” while the other labels them a threat to Nevadans’ wallets and water supplies. The disagreement between Republican incumbent Gov. Joe Lombardo and Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford has turned data centers—specifically “caller” data centers—into one of the most contentious topics of the 2026 campaign, with each man staking out opposing positions as the state confronts a possible boom in the sector. Lombardo backs data centers as a core element of Nevada’s economic growth strategy, emphasizing the need for safeguards to protect resources, according to The Lever, a nonpartisan investigative outlet. Speaking to the Latin Chamber of Commerce this period, he called the facilities the “new golden rush.” In his platform for a possible second term, released Thursday, Lombardo asserted that Nevada residents would not experience power outages or rate increases tied to data‑center development. He added that revenue generated by the industry would be directed toward K‑12 education. Ford, by contrast, pledged to eliminate tax abatements for data‑center operators if elected and to require developers to “bring their own water” and “pay for their own electricity” to run any new facilities. On Truth Social on Monday, former President Donald Trump wrote that the only reason a community would oppose a data center is “if they privation to extremity up being backwards and poor.” He argued that cities permitting data‑center construction become “successful and rich, with acold little taxes and jobs each implicit the place,” labeling the facilities a “golden goose” despite widespread concerns about their environmental toll. Ford’s campaign has sought to link Lombardo to Trump on multiple fronts, citing Nevada’s tourism downturn, which it attributes partly to the president’s tariff and immigration policies, and extending the comparison to data‑center policy. In a statement, Ford said, “Reality check: what’s really making Nevadans mediocre is information centers jacking up their bills, and what’s really ‘backwards’ is Lombardo and Trump backing the information centers draining Nevada’s taxation dollars and earthy resources without immoderate impervious that they’re delivering connected their commitments to Nevada.” He continued, “Unlike Lombardo, I’ll intermission information halfway taxation breaks, artifact them from raising costs, and marque them wage up.” Ford also criticized the Better Nevada PAC, a Lombardo‑aligned political action committee, for recently accepting $1 million from Jessica Roy, the wife of Switch founder Rob Roy, according to The Lever. “Now we cognize wherefore Joe Lombardo says he’s ‘wholeheartedly successful enactment of information centers’: He’s bought and paid for by them,” Ford declared. The dispute extends beyond the campaign trail into the Legislature. On August 26, the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Revenue agreed to draft a measure that would terminate the state’s tax breaks for data centers and halt new operations statewide—a move that signals the issue will be a defining theme of the upcoming election and legislative session. The bill, sponsored by Senator Dina Neal (D‑North Las Vegas), would amend Nevada’s data‑center tax abatement program, which has drawn criticism in recent months. Under current law, developers who meet specific criteria receive a 75 % abatement on personal property taxes—including equipment—for 10 to 20 years. Neal, who chairs the revenue committee, reported that Nevada has 66 operating data centers as of August, with an additional 22 either announced or under construction. A study by the Desert Research Institute found that the water required annually to cool 12 data centers under a “medium ratio scenario” would approximate the drinking‑water consumption of more than 24,117,000 U.S. adults, or over 27,600 U.S. households. Data centers already account for roughly 22 % of Nevada’s electricity use, and NV Energy estimates that the 12 proposed projects would collectively demand 5,900 megawatts—about 2.8 times the generating capacity of Hoover Dam. Not all facilities impose the same water burden. Switch, which operates more than 2 million square feet of data‑center space in Las Vegas, says its sites employ a proprietary closed‑loop cooling system that the company describes as effectively water‑free for on‑site operations, drawing less than 1,000 gallons of municipal water per day for non‑cooling purposes. Neal noted that water‑resource use has become a particularly pressing facet of the data‑center debate, especially in light of recent Colorado River allocations that call for Nevada to relinquish a larger share of its water supply despite a growing population. “During the meeting, Neal stated, “I think we need a pause and we need to have a conversation about what is best for Nevada; are our natural resources being impacted?” She added, “I’m working on this because I believe it is in the best national‑interest of 3 million Nevadans to have a conversation about water, to have a conversation about electricity, and to have a conversation about future generations.” While data‑center scrutiny spans the political spectrum, some leaders remain staunch supporters. Republican Assemblymembers Lisa Cole and Jason Patchett, who represent parts of Clark County, voted against the draft measure at the August 26 meeting. Cole said she would favor creating a model to help cities and counties negotiate development agreements and to limit abatements for developers who can demonstrate answers regarding water and power usage. Local reactions have mirrored the state‑level debate. Nye County has prohibited data‑center operation and storage in the Pahrump Valley and Hydrographic Basin 162; Henderson withdrew support for a projected moratorium in favor of stricter permitting rules; a federal committee issued a stay blocking a proposed project on Bureau of Land Management land near Boulder City; and Clark County is evaluating its own set of local regulations.