An AI data center project for western Kansas might use less water than irrigation farming 30%

By Calen Moore26%

6/9/2026, 8:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Self-Serving Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 13.3% saturation with 179 hits. Analysis detected 2,154 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,343 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.9% and a BS Rank of 30% (15,364 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.20% of the article peer group.

Massive data centers powering artificial intelligence have sprouted across the country in recent years, drawing growing opposition for their water consumption. 
But in rural Kansas, boosters of one project argue that it could represent a huge savings in water use compared to irrigated farming. 
FINNEY COUNTY, Kansas  Ann Gravatt and Jesse Gronner shook hands, offered food and fielded questions from people around the region curious or skeptical about the Oregon-based company’s plans to build a data center. 
Locals shuffled around the room to learn about what this project entails. 
Some with arms crossed to send a clear signal about their skepticism. 
It will take a lot of water. 
To be specific, the company Triple Oak Power told local authorities it would take 600 million gallons per year, which is as much as a town of 2,000 people. 
Gravatt works in external affairs for Triple Oak, notes that as thirsty as it sounds, it would translate to water conservation. 
After all, the irrigation of crops on that land now pumps five times as much water. 
“We will use less water than is currently being used at the property,’ Gravatt said. 
Tripe Oak Power wants to take over 6,000 acres of farmland near Garden City to build a data center surrounded by a sprawling array of solar panels, wind turbines and a natural gas plant. 
It’s a hard sell for some locals. 
Data centers notoriously use huge quantities of water. 
And this region’s relationship with water is existential. 
Giant center-pivot sprinklers across Kansas spray fields of corn and other crops with water wells tapping deep underground to the shrinking Ogallala Aquifer. 
That underground lake has fallen into a perilous decline. 
And the regional economy depends almost entirely on irrigation. 
Gronner said that he takes the shrinking aquifer seriously. 
“On the specific issue of water use,” Gronner said, “there's been a lot of efficiencies and evolutions in the industry.” 
But that hasn’t stopped data centers from becoming wildly unpopular and have triggered not-in-my-water-basin opposition across the country. 
More people think data centers cause harm than provide a positive impact. 
The new wrinkle in the fight over data centers is places where existing irrigation uses more water than an AI data facility. 
Last year, U.S. companies spent $61 billion on their construction. 
And the utility industry is spending $1.4 trillion over the next five years to power them, scrambling to keep up with countries like China in the international AI arms race. 
Western Kansas has already normalized large water use to the point that this data center would consume significantly less water than an average farm in the region. 
To save its food production and its towns, the High Plains has been making conservation efforts using smarter irrigation techniques and sometimes switching to less water dependent crops. 
But it’s still not enough, and this energy company offering an alternative makes it all the more complicated. 
“People can be for or against things, but what's really important is to know what (our company) is even talking about,” Gronner said. 
“We recognize what we're bringing is something that looks and smells like change.” 
Triple Oak Power estimates that Finney County would collect over $80 million in taxes over the next 30 years and net over 600 construction jobs. 
In Kansas, renewable energy projects have a 10-year tax abatement and data centers have a 20-year tax abatement. 
But data centers must invest at least $250 million within five years, create 20 full-time jobs within two years and implement a water conservation plan to qualify. 
Ahring estimates from 2014 to 2023 was closer to 1.3 billion gallons per year for the property. 
That would still be a water reduction by half from the project. 
Ahring said he is neither for or against any potential project, but looking strictly at water use, he said the switch from irrigation lets him allocate more water to neighboring farmers. 
“I have a hard time not being excited about a project that's going to save that amount of water,” Ahring said. 
The water district is proposing a Local Enhanced Management Area, or LEMA, this summer to reduce water use. 
Ahring says Triple Oak would still have to adhere to the LEMA plan because they purchased existing water rights along with the land. 
Still, data centers are often unpopular for their water consumption, for the noise they generate and, in this case, the installation of 3,200 football fields worth of solar panels that will uncover sandy soil. 
At the open house in Garden City, Tucker and Jackson Turner stand among the crowd with their arms crossed as they read poster boards explaining how the project will work. 
The brothers have led the charge opposing this project. 
Jackson Turner started the Stop Finney County Kansas Data Center Facebook page. 
He’s dubious of Triple Oak’s promises and whether it will be held accountable if the solar panels cause erosion, or if his family’s property across from the data center will face water quality issues. 
“These companies aren't telling the truth. 
This is a huge scale project, a lot of risk, and how can we trust that these risks are being mitigated?” 
Jackson said. 
Jackson said it’s good to save water, but not all water conservation is created equally. 
“We absolutely are in a water crisis. 
The thing is, I don't feel like I can trust them,” Jackson said. 
Jackson feels like both the company and Finney County are not being transparent, downplaying the role the data center portion of the project will play. 
Sandhills, dirt roads and crops  this is what they are used to seeing. 
When installing the solar panels and leveling the land, all of the sandy soil will be exposed. 
Unless Triple Oak can establish prairie in the region, there’s a chance all that sand will blow away. 
Tucker explained how the soil near his property is hard to establish grass once the ground has been leveled. 
“It's soft. 
It leaves imprints, then it starts blowing. 
And then once it starts blowing, it has all winter long to blow over as many acres as possible,” Tucker said. 
Melissa Scanlon is the director of the Center for Water Policy and a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School of Freshwater Sciences. 
She explained that the local anxiety over data centers might be fueled by a lack of regulation. 
“There's a real lack of regional and state level planning for these data centers and disclosures of the amount of resources that will be needed and any kind of regulations of those shared resources,” Scanlon said. 
One thing she recommends that communities can push for is having data centers invest in local water conservation as a stipulation for using their land and water. 
“Have them pay for drip irrigation at the surrounding farms that would reduce the draw on the aquifer and slow the depletion of the aquifer,” Scanlon said. 
Triple Oak Power has been reluctant to give out specifics on parts of the project until it signs a deal with a digital infrastructure company to run the data center. 
Yet in early June, Finney County officials approved a special use permit that’s key to the project. 
Lona Duvall, director of the Finney County Economic Development Corporation, said it diversifies the community’s farming economy into the tech field. 
“History tells the stories of the people who embrace change,” Duvall said. 
Duvall said her job is not to give her opinion, but to analyze the options and opportunities for the county. 
“The reason that we're considering these projects is because it's possible that the benefits far outweigh the costs,” DuVall said. 
Calen Moore covers western Kansas for High Plains Public Radio and the Kansas News Service. 
You can email him at cmoore@hppr.org. 
The Kansas News Service is a collaboration of KCUR, Kansas Public Radio, KMUW and High Plains Public Radio. 
Kansas News Service stories and photos may be republished by news media at no cost with proper attribution and a link to ksnewsservice.org. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.8%Calen Moore: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias6.8%This article: 2.2%Calen Moore: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias2.2%This article: 6.6%Calen Moore: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic6.6%This article: 0.7%Calen Moore: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.7%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Calen Moore: 6.1%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect2.8%This article: 2.5%Calen Moore: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion2.5%This article: 4.4%Calen Moore: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.9%Calen Moore: 7.4%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias9.9%This article: 8.9%Calen Moore: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias8.9%This article: 13.3%Calen Moore: 4.5%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias13.3%This article: 10.1%Calen Moore: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias10.1%This article: 1.3%Calen Moore: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error1.3%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Calen Moore: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Calen Moore: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias2.0%This article: 0.7%Calen Moore: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.7%This article: 3.2%Calen Moore: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias3.2%This article: 0.4%Calen Moore: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.4%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.7%Calen Moore: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority4.7%This article: 3.1%Calen Moore: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 2.9%Calen Moore: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope2.9%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.7%Calen Moore: 2.6%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization5.7%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.9%Calen Moore: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.9%This article: 9.5%Calen Moore: 3.1%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion9.5%This article: 1.5%Calen Moore: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question1.5%This article: 5.0%Calen Moore: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.0%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.3%Calen Moore: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof5.3%This article: 2.1%Calen Moore: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.1%This article: 0.7%Calen Moore: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.7%This article: 3.9%Calen Moore: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal3.9%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%Calen Moore: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.1%Calen Moore: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading1.1%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.6%Calen Moore: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote5.6%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.8%Calen Moore: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice11.8%This article: 3.7%Calen Moore: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination3.7%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Calen Moore: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Calen Moore: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.8%

1343 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers43%attributed speech761writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTriple Oak Power • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAnn Gravatt • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAnn Gravatt • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJesse Gronner • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJesse Gronner • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageJesse Gronner • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJesse Gronner • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTriple Oak Power • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAhring • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAhring • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageAhring • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Turner • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Turner • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Turner • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Turner • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Turner • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Turner • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Turner • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Turner • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageTucker • 19 words • 0.0% coverageTucker • 2 words • 0.0% coverageTucker • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTucker • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMelissa Scanlon • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMelissa Scanlon • 36 words • 0.0% coverageMelissa Scanlon • 27 words • 100.0% coverageMelissa Scanlon • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageLona Duvall • 21 words • 0.0% coverageLona Duvall • 12 words • 0.0% coverageLona Duvall • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLona Duvall • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Triple Oak Power

100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words9.3% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +44.7 ptsWriter: 1.6%Triple Oak Power: 46.3%46.3%Biased Writer Voice-20.8 ptsWriter: 20.8%Triple Oak Power: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Triple Oak Power: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Triple Oak Power: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.