I can’t believe it: a ragebait screenshot with a mix of accurate and inaccurate details that make a bad situation look even worse. You all have frontal lobes, fellow apes. Use them to think critically, because there’s a REASON memes like this want you to react emotionally and it’s not in your best interests at all.
Tl;dr: the data center’s usage is an issue, the local governments that facilitate and even encourage this behaviour are arguably even worse.
Truth: this shit hole data center used 30M gallons of water over the course of several months without being billed for it.
Rage Bait: they did it “illegally.”
Truth: the data center fully intended and was allowed by local government to use that water in the course of its construction, but weren’t billed because they didn’t inform the local utility of one water hookup, and the utility cocked up by ignoring the usage for that hookup and failed to bill the center for the usage on its second hookup. The data center did exceed their usage limits, but that’s not illegal: they simply pay penalties for the overage. The local utility waived these penalties because they’re spineless.
Rage Bait: the exceedance caused a drop in water pressure.
Truth: the locals experiencing water pressure drops receive their water from groundwater while the data center uses surface water. Given groundwater recharge rates are painfully slow, the data center’s usage did not cause the issue, though the pressure complaints led to the investigation that found the billing issues.
It has been clarified that the hookup wasn’t without the knowledge of the utility, it was a failure of a new transmitter/verifying they were getting readings.
I work in this realm and as soon as I read the quotes from the utility in the first batch of articles it was immediately clear that people who didn’t have all the information were responding to inquiries. Your average utility employee, even in admin functions have zero media training. If I had a penny for every time I had to deal with the fallout of some ambitious comment that was taken out of context by the media or public, I’d have several pennies.
Your linked article references the account that was known but not billed. Ars Technica references both that account and a second account that wasn’t known and wasn’t billed.
Even the first account was illegal in that water usage exceeded the original water limits agreement.
Rapson, Tigert’s boss and the county’s top appointed official, has now told The Citizen on the record that the central claim in that letter is not accurate. County staff did inspect the meter at installation. Rapson’s exact words were, “It’s not like they put a meter in, threw a camel net over it, and we didn’t know they put the meter in.”
The same quote, without explicitly stating the meter was inspected, could be ambiguous. Further:
“Tigert herself has hedged her own letter publicly. She told E&E News, the Politico-owned outlet that broke the national story, “I may have hit ‘send’ too soon.” She acknowledged in the same piece that her staff may have known about the hookups, but that she had not been able to locate the inspection report.”
The letter was such a mess. You can’t use private fire fighting lines for non fire fighting purposes. It makes no sense the conversation would just be “oh we didn’t bill you”, not “you need to stop.”
The following section was incorrect, I was looking at the wrong line on the audit spreadsheet.
“that her staff may have known about the hookups, but that she had not been able to locate the inspection report.”
Again, there were 2 questionable hookups. Not one. Two. The first was known and not billed.
The second, by all current evidence, was not known about. “May have known.” “Can’t locate the inspection report.”
Third, they went over their agreed amount of water usage.
You keep discussing the first hookup, which wasn’t illegal and ignoring the second hookup which as of now, was illegal AND they illegally went over their water usage.
8" domestic, not given a meter number, on Tyrone road.
10" fireline (23006232), highway 54
10" fireline (23006231), Tyrone road
The letter says the 8" domestic was installed without inspection, and that the fireline on highway 54 was not hooked up to the account and the fire line on Tyrone road was using more water than allowed and therefore a higher rate will be charged. That’s 27.5 MG unbilled and 13.2 million at the ‘wrong’ rate.
Rapson, Tigert’s boss and the county’s top appointed official, has now told The Citizen on the record that the central claim in that letter is not accurate. County staff did inspect the meter at installation.
This accounts for the 'illegal hookup". The “central claim” is that there was a meter that was not inspected. This person has indicated that the meter was inspected.
Tigert herself has hedged her own letter publicly. She told E&E News, the Politico-owned outlet that broke the national story, “I may have hit ‘send’ too soon.” She acknowledged in the same piece that her staff may have known about the hookups, but that she had not been able to locate the inspection report.
She did not know about the hook up and inspection. She assumed there was no inspection because she could not locate the report.
I was wrong about the leak audits, I was looking at the wrong line of the reports. I will correct my comments.
Except contextually that makes no sense. The utility was already aware the data center would be using the water, they simply cocked up the process. Theft of service is utilizing a service with no intent to ever pay. It’s clear that wasn’t the case here.
Understand, I’m not defending the data center. I hope the damned thing burns to the ground. I just have this quirk where I care about the truth of situations, not exaggerating every possible angle so we can pretend it’s worse than it truly is. That’s the kind of hysterics the US and many other legal systems engage in, exaggerating charges to maximize penalties against their citizens, instead of seeking the truth of the matter. It’s wrong when they do it, and it’s just as wrong when we do it.
The utility was already aware the data center would be using the water
So that means I can ask for an electric hookup, and then tap a second hookup without telling the electric company and it’s not illegal. If I get caught, no arrest, no fine, just pay back what I used before getting caught.
What makes it particularly suspicious is that they used more water than they agreed to. So we have a situation where they didn’t tell the water utility about one hookup AND used more than they agreed to. I wonder why they didn’t mention the extra hookup?
I can’t believe it: a ragebait screenshot with a mix of accurate and inaccurate details that make a bad situation look even worse. You all have frontal lobes, fellow apes. Use them to think critically, because there’s a REASON memes like this want you to react emotionally and it’s not in your best interests at all.
Tl;dr: the data center’s usage is an issue, the local governments that facilitate and even encourage this behaviour are arguably even worse.
Truth: this shit hole data center used 30M gallons of water over the course of several months without being billed for it.
Rage Bait: they did it “illegally.”
Truth: the data center fully intended and was allowed by local government to use that water in the course of its construction, but weren’t billed because they didn’t inform the local utility of one water hookup, and the utility cocked up by ignoring the usage for that hookup and failed to bill the center for the usage on its second hookup. The data center did exceed their usage limits, but that’s not illegal: they simply pay penalties for the overage. The local utility waived these penalties because they’re spineless.
Rage Bait: the exceedance caused a drop in water pressure.
Truth: the locals experiencing water pressure drops receive their water from groundwater while the data center uses surface water. Given groundwater recharge rates are painfully slow, the data center’s usage did not cause the issue, though the pressure complaints led to the investigation that found the billing issues.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/data-center-used-30-million-gallons-of-water-without-initially-paying/
^^ That’s the illegal part.
When a consumer hooks up a utility without informing the utility, that is “theft of services” and they are arrested.
https://www.4029tv.com/article/fort-smith-stealing-electricity/71286214
It has been clarified that the hookup wasn’t without the knowledge of the utility, it was a failure of a new transmitter/verifying they were getting readings.
https://thecitizen.com/2026/05/11/behind-fayettes-qts-water-controversy-a-missed-meter-8000-workers-and-a-massive-construction-project/
I work in this realm and as soon as I read the quotes from the utility in the first batch of articles it was immediately clear that people who didn’t have all the information were responding to inquiries. Your average utility employee, even in admin functions have zero media training. If I had a penny for every time I had to deal with the fallout of some ambitious comment that was taken out of context by the media or public, I’d have several pennies.
“One water connection had been installed without the utility’s knowledge, and the other was not linked to the company’s account and therefore wasn’t being billed,” Politico reported. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/data-center-used-30-million-gallons-of-water-without-initially-paying/
Your linked article references the account that was known but not billed. Ars Technica references both that account and a second account that wasn’t known and wasn’t billed.
Even the first account was illegal in that water usage exceeded the original water limits agreement.
I can see how you could read it like that but it has been further clarified:
The same quote, without explicitly stating the meter was inspected, could be ambiguous. Further:
The letter was such a mess. You can’t use private fire fighting lines for non fire fighting purposes. It makes no sense the conversation would just be “oh we didn’t bill you”, not “you need to stop.”
The following section was incorrect, I was looking at the wrong line on the audit spreadsheet.
(Begin correction)
The board’s meeting minutes are similarly goofy.
The person who wrote this has no clue what they are talking about. The cost per unit water doubled because half the water production was unbilled. Their “leakage index” was 7.01 in 2024, up from 3.46 in 2023.
(End correction)
YIKES
They haven’t met since March.
Tl;dr: the utility clarified there was no unauthorized connection, and wow they are absurdly understaffed I’m not surprised this is such a mess
From your own quote,
“that her staff may have known about the hookups, but that she had not been able to locate the inspection report.”
Again, there were 2 questionable hookups. Not one. Two. The first was known and not billed.
The second, by all current evidence, was not known about. “May have known.” “Can’t locate the inspection report.”
Third, they went over their agreed amount of water usage.
You keep discussing the first hookup, which wasn’t illegal and ignoring the second hookup which as of now, was illegal AND they illegally went over their water usage.
I don’t think we are going to see eye to eye on this. We are reading the quotes differently. I’ll try one more time.
All from this article: https://thecitizen.com/2026/05/14/the-qts-water-story-is-real-its-just-not-about-qts/
And referencing this letter: https://protectpwc.org/2026/05/05/13786/
There are actually three meters:
The letter says the 8" domestic was installed without inspection, and that the fireline on highway 54 was not hooked up to the account and the fire line on Tyrone road was using more water than allowed and therefore a higher rate will be charged. That’s 27.5 MG unbilled and 13.2 million at the ‘wrong’ rate.
This accounts for the 'illegal hookup". The “central claim” is that there was a meter that was not inspected. This person has indicated that the meter was inspected.
She did not know about the hook up and inspection. She assumed there was no inspection because she could not locate the report.
I was wrong about the leak audits, I was looking at the wrong line of the reports. I will correct my comments.
Except contextually that makes no sense. The utility was already aware the data center would be using the water, they simply cocked up the process. Theft of service is utilizing a service with no intent to ever pay. It’s clear that wasn’t the case here.
Understand, I’m not defending the data center. I hope the damned thing burns to the ground. I just have this quirk where I care about the truth of situations, not exaggerating every possible angle so we can pretend it’s worse than it truly is. That’s the kind of hysterics the US and many other legal systems engage in, exaggerating charges to maximize penalties against their citizens, instead of seeking the truth of the matter. It’s wrong when they do it, and it’s just as wrong when we do it.
So that means I can ask for an electric hookup, and then tap a second hookup without telling the electric company and it’s not illegal. If I get caught, no arrest, no fine, just pay back what I used before getting caught.
What makes it particularly suspicious is that they used more water than they agreed to. So we have a situation where they didn’t tell the water utility about one hookup AND used more than they agreed to. I wonder why they didn’t mention the extra hookup?