What we know
The land, and the rules that govern it
From Hallam's zoning ordinance (Village Code Chapter 11), the Lancaster County Assessor,
and public reporting. The details matter, because this is where it gets fought.
The Phase 1 site
Monolith's Olive Creek campus on SW 42nd Street, about half a mile north of the
village. Roughly ten acres on the northeast portion, on ground already zoned for industry.
Who decides
Section 11-204: the Village Board controls zoning for all land inside the village
and within one mile of it. This is a village decision, not a county one.
What's being asked for now
Section 11-605(B)(33): the Board may grant a special use permit for "any similar use
that is determined by the Village Board of Trustees after referral to and recommendation by
the Planning Commission to be of a heavy industrial nature similar to the above listed
uses." This one attaches to a project, not a district — which is the
improvement.
The Phase 2 ground
The parcel east of the campus is zoned AG — Agriculture District,
classed as agricultural and unimproved and totalling roughly 135 acres, per
Lancaster County Assessor records. It was acquired by a Lincoln limited liability company in
August 2025. Monolith's written FAQ dated July 31, 2026 states the parcel is land
"that Monolith has under option." At the July 23 town hall its Chief
Development Officer described "a piece of land across the street" the company "did look at
… as an option, as a potential."
The permit as filed covers ten acres of one industrial parcel. Farm
ground is not in it — a data center on agricultural land would still need its own rezoning,
with notice to neighbors, a hearing, and a vote.
That is the good news, and we should say so
plainly. For weeks this page argued that the earlier version reached too far, because it would
have permitted a data center on a parcel merely "adjacent to" an industrial
use — language broad enough to worry about. That language is gone. It went out
with the amendment that contained it. Whatever else is unresolved, the ground east and west of
the village keeps every protection it had.
Public land records
The Phase 2 parcel is not the only ground under option
Options on land are recorded publicly. Anyone
can look them up, and we did. Between February 9 and April 13, 2026, thirteen
instruments were recorded with the Lancaster County Register of Deeds naming
Sagebrush Infrastructure Partners LLC as grantee — twelve
memoranda of option to purchase and one memorandum of agreement. Here are the
instrument numbers, so you don't have to take our word for any of it:
Recorded to Sagebrush Infrastructure Partners LLC
2026004422 · Feb 9 · Sec 30, Twp 7, Rng 6
2026004426 · Feb 9 · Sec 13, Twp 7, Rng 5
2026004526 · Feb 10 · Sec 25, Twp 7, Rng 5
2026004726 · Feb 11 · Sec 24, Twp 7, Rng 5
2026006176 · Feb 23 · Sec 13, Twp 7, Rng 5
2026007917 · Mar 9 · Sec 36, Twp 7, Rng 5
2026007918 · Mar 9 · Sec 35, Twp 7, Rng 5
2026007919 · Mar 9 · Sec 35, Twp 7, Rng 5
2026010034 · Mar 23 · Sec 25, Twp 7, Rng 5
2026010039 · Mar 23 · Sec 14, Twp 7, Rng 5
2026010040 · Mar 23 · Sec 23, Twp 7, Rng 5
2026010864 · Mar 27 · Sec 36, Twp 7, Rng 5 (memorandum of agreement)
2026013211 · Apr 13 · Sec 24, Twp 7, Rng 5
Search these free at the
Lancaster County Register of Deeds document search. We have deliberately not printed the
landowners' names — they are neighbors, and the instrument numbers are enough for anyone
who wants to check us.
One of them is worth its own sentence.
Instrument 2026004422 covers ground in Section 30, Township 7,
Range 6 — the same section as the ten acres now in front of the Board.
A memorandum of option is not a sale and not a
project. It is a company paying for the right to buy ground later, and it is the ordinary first
step in assembling a site. What it tells a village is that ground around us is being
tied up, in the same window in which a data center was being planned half a mile
north — and that the ten acres now in front of the Board are not the whole of what
is being contemplated near Hallam.
Ask the Board what it knows about land under option near the village,
and ask that the answer be given in the meeting, on the record.
This matters for a specific reason. Section
11-1302 requires an amendment application to disclose everyone holding a legal or
equitable interest in the property, down to five-percent shareholders. An option is an equitable
interest. Whatever the Board decides about ten acres, it is entitled to a complete picture of who
holds what around the village before it decides anything.
What this is and isn't
These are recorded public documents and we describe them as exactly that. We are not stating
what any of this ground is for, who Sagebrush Infrastructure Partners answers to, or that any
data center is planned on any of it — none of that appears in the records,
and we won't fill the gap with a guess. We are not claiming a connection to Monolith or to
Crusoe; we have no evidence of one and we don't assert one. What we have is thirteen
instruments, a four-month window, and a disclosure duty in §11-1302. If anything here is
wrong, tell us and we'll correct it the same day.
The argument this page made — and what happened to it
They didn't need the amendment. They took that route.
From the day this site went up it pointed at
§11-605(B)(33): Hallam's code already lets the Board consider one industrial project on
its own merits, without writing anything permanent into the ordinance. We asked why the
applicant wouldn't use it.
On July 27 they did. Credit where it's due — that argument worked.
So the fight moves to where it should have been
all along: the standard and the conditions. Section 11-1006 requires eight
affirmative findings before any special use permit issues — that it won't endanger public health
and welfare, won't injure the use and enjoyment of nearby property, has adequate utilities, and
five more. Those eight are listed and answered one by one in Monolith's own application, and
recited again in the draft resolution it submitted. Section 11-1007 then lets the Board attach
any reasonable condition it considers necessary.
Findings need evidence. The sound study isn't finished and no water
figure has been filed. Ask what the Board is finding on.
And note what the applicant is not proposing to
condition: no bond, no metered water cap, no stated setback distance, no requirement that the
operator be named before the permit issues. Twenty conditions, and the Village would still be
trusting rather than measuring. That is the gap a trustee can close, and only before the
vote.
Water
The number nobody has mentioned
There is already a very large permitted
groundwater draw at this site. In 2021 the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District
approved three wells at Olive Creek estimated to pump about 420 million gallons a
year, used primarily for cooling in carbon black manufacturing and anhydrous fertilizer
production. That was approved after nearly a year of testing
and study.
THE STATED FIGURE
What they say it will use
The data center will be air-cooled or closed-loop — those are the only designs on the
table. At the July 23 town hall, Monolith put the number on the record:
about 770,000 gallons a year or less, plus a one-time fill of roughly
500,000 gallons. Their own comparison: a year's use equals about
16 hours of a center pivot running.
THE FILED FIGURE
What the application commits to
No water figure appears anywhere in the application. The 770,000-gallon
number exists as spoken words and a slide. If that's the real number, writing it into the
permit as an enforceable cap costs nothing — and protects everyone, including them.
New in the July 27 filing
"Will not seek any new water rights"
The amended application states the project will
operate "within Monolith's existing permitted water allocations and will not seek any new
water rights." Taken at face value, that is a meaningful commitment and we'll treat it as
one.
It also has a consequence almost nobody has
noticed. The application does not say which allocations it means.
The permits on record at this site are the three wells approved in 2021, estimated at
about 420 million gallons a year. [We have asked the District to confirm whether those
are the allocations in question.] If no new permit is sought, then there is no new
application to the Natural Resources District — and the independent review, the
public open house and the written-comment period that came with the 2021 permits would have no
occasion to happen again.
If no new water permit is sought, there may be no NRD review at all
— which would leave the Village Board's vote as the only public decision anyone gets to make
about water here. We have asked LPSNRD to confirm. [Not yet answered.]
There is one open question worth a phone call.
The 2021 permits were granted for a carbon black plant, after nearly a year of study, with the
District reserving authority to add requirements if the operation diverged from the
application. Running a 35-megawatt data center on that same allocation is a different
use than the one reviewed. Whether the District considers that a divergence is a
question only the District can answer — and somebody should ask it before the Board votes.
[Not yet answered. LPSNRD, (402) 476-2729.]
Where these numbers come from
The 35 megawatt figure and the water-rights language are stated in Monolith's amended
application of July 27, 2026. The 420 million gallon figure is from the Natural Resources
District's 2021 permit approval. The 770,000 and 500,000 gallon figures are what Monolith and
Crusoe stated at the July 23 town hall —
read the transcript. We would rather rely on a
number written into a permit than one spoken into a microphone — which is the entire
point.
The commitment that isn't one
"Where practicable"
The application commits to water-efficient
practices "including a closed-loop water cooling system or air-cooled
system, and water-saving fixtures within the facility where practicable."
Two conditions in one sentence that the
applicant alone gets to interpret. "Or" keeps both designs available. "Where practicable" applies
the commitment only when the applicant decides it does. Meanwhile the same application contemplates
wastewater discharges from cooling operations, saying the state
"will regulate any wastewater discharges from cooling operations" under an NPDES
permit — which is not what "closed loop" suggests to anyone reading it plainly.
Strike "where practicable." Name the cooling system. If the plan really
is closed-loop, writing it down costs nothing.
The water ask
Give us the same process Monolith got
Before those 2021 wells were approved, the
Natural Resources District commissioned an independent review of the groundwater modeling,
held a public open house in Hallam, held a separate public input session, and took written
comment. It then attached conditions: flowmeters on every well, quarterly reporting,
groundwater monitoring before and after startup, and authority to add requirements if the
operation diverged from the application.
That was good enough for their own wells five years ago. It should be
good enough now.
- Disclose before deciding: peak megawatts, cooling method, projected
annual water use, and maximum daily withdrawal.
- Air-cooled or fully closed-loop cooling written into the permit — the
method named before the vote, not left to "where practicable."
- An enforceable cap on maximum daily withdrawal, metered, reported
quarterly.
- Baseline monitoring of neighboring wells before operations begin.
- An independent review and a public input session — the 2021 standard.
One thing to understand about the Natural Resources District
It is not a veto. Under its own rules, if the district finds no detrimental effect on the
aquifer or on nearby wells, the permit "shall be granted." Showing up angry does not stop a
well permit — evidence does. That's why neighbors with their own wells matter more here than
anyone else, and why an independent hydrologist is worth more than a full room.
Noise
The limit on paper isn't the limit you'll live with
Hallam's code does set a noise limit. Section
11-603(E) caps industrial noise at 55 Leq where the receiving property is
residential, measured at the property line nearest the source. For scale, 55 is about steady
rain, or a conversation ten feet away. A vacuum cleaner is around 70 — and because decibels
aren't a straight scale, that's roughly three times as loud, not a little louder. (55 Leq is the
ordinance's number, not ours; the everyday comparisons are standard published reference levels.)
PROBLEM ONE
Nobody knows yet whether it can be met
The sound study has been commissioned and is not finished. The application says the
operator "will implement necessary recommendations" — whatever those turn out to be, decided
after the vote. The Board is being asked to find that noise is acceptable before anyone has
measured what it will be.
PROBLEM TWO
Enforcement is a bill the village pays
A limit only means something if somebody measures it. Who drives out at 2 a.m. with a
sound meter? Who buys the meter, hires the consultant, pays the attorney when a violation
is disputed? Those costs land on a village whose general fund is roughly $344,000, per the
Village's own budget figures.
A promise you have to sue someone to collect isn't a protection. It's a hope.
So what should we ask for instead?
Conditions that don't depend on the village policing them later: a hard setback distance
written into the permit, mandatory noise testing after construction paid for by the
applicant with a required fix if it fails, and money posted up front to cover enforcement and
removal. Distance and bonds enforce themselves.
Other levers in the same chapter
What the board can require, if it won't deny
- §11-1006: eight standards the Board must find are satisfied before any
special use permit issues — public health and welfare, effect on neighboring property,
orderly development, appearance, adequate utilities, ingress and egress, the comprehensive
plan, and conformance with district regulations. These are findings, not
preferences. A finding needs something in the record to rest on.
- §11-1007: the Board "may impose reasonable conditions on the
establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation" of the use. This is the
broadest authority the Board has, and the applicant has already invited its use by proposing
twenty conditions of its own.
- §11-602(D): a site plan must be filed for every industrial use, and
"the Village Board of Trustees may require additional standards as are necessary… for the
maximum protection of the environment and the health and safety of the citizens of the
village."
- §11-603(G): a Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department air permit is
required before a building permit issues.
- §11-110(E)(2): an industrial yard adjacent to residential use must be
increased to 75 feet with screening — a floor, not a ceiling. Section 11-1007
lets the Board require a greater distance, and a distance written into the permit is the one
condition that enforces itself.
One question we've asked a lawyer
A zoning amendment carries protections a special use permit may not: the formal protest
right that raises the threshold to four votes out of five, the one-year bar on refiling
something that was denied, and §11-1304's rule that "the burden of proof for any zoning change
shall be upon the applicant." Those live in Article 13, which governs amendments. This is now
an Article 10 application. Whether any of them still apply is a real legal question
and we are not going to guess at it in public. [Referred to counsel. We'll post the
answer when we have it.]