Browse some starting-point ideas below, add your own to the suggestion box, and check back — we'll publish a synthesis of what the community is thinking.
Some ideas to react to
These are starting points. The floor is yours.
01
Make the reimbursement legally binding
Local governments have set aside up to $300 million for a new regional water source, expecting Google to pay its share. Right now that's a promise, not a contract. Should the community see it made legally binding before any permit is issued?
02
Tie water scale-up to efficiency targets
Google starts at 2 million gallons per day and could reach 8 million. Should that increase be automatic, or tied to proven efficiency benchmarks and demonstrated regional water capacity?
03
Monthly public water use reporting
A court already ruled that water usage is public information. Should monthly reporting of actual consumption be a permit condition, so the public can see what's happening in real time?
04
Independent environmental monitoring
The site sits near habitat for the endangered Indiana Bat and feeds into Tinker Creek. Should wetland, stream, and wildlife monitoring be handled by a neutral third party, with real penalties for violations?
05
A community benefit that fits the scale
Google pledged $4 million over five years for community needs. For a $3 billion project, that's less than two-tenths of a percent. Should that number be renegotiated to reflect what's actually being asked of this region?
06
A public hearing before any decision
The Army Corps can hold a formal public hearing in Botetourt County before issuing a permit. Anyone can request one right now during the comment period. Should that happen before any decision is made?
From the community
Loading...
Be the first to submit a suggestion.
Drop your idea
What are realistic solutions?
React to the ideas above or bring your own. What would make this project acceptable? What would make it a dealbreaker?
?
We only keep your idea and username. No email, no IP, no tracking.