Westfield Data Center Campus

Confirmed events only, each with its source.

1. ~October 2021

   Permit issued

   Source

2. ~December 2024

   Servistar's LLC administratively dissolved

   Dissolved by the MA Secretary of the Commonwealth for failing to file annual reports two years running; a CT state senator involved in early financing called the project dead as of two years earlier.

   Source

3. ~June 2026

   State announces new data-center tax-break standards

   Governor Maura Healey announced that data centers will now have to meet new standards to qualify for state tax breaks, including limits on air and noise pollution and water consumption, and a guarantee against spiking local electric rates.

   Source

4. June 18, 2026

   Local opposition activity

   After roughly 100 residents packed a public hearing, the Westfield City Council voted unanimously to impose a temporary one-year moratorium on new data center development in the city.

   Source

5. July 6, 2026

   City Council passes one-year moratorium on new data centers

   Unanimous final vote; does not affect the already-approved Servistar project.

   Source

6. July 14, 2026

   Local opposition activity

   Source

7. July 14, 2026

   Developer claims minimal water use amid Barnes Aquifer concerns

   Servistar states the facility will need "at most 10,000 gallons a day" for cleaning, restrooms, and landscaping under a closed-loop cooling design. City Councilor Kristen Mello and other residents dispute the claim, citing risk to the Barnes Aquifer that supplies the region -- an unresolved tension between the developer's figure and this site's own capacity-based estimate (194,540-506,900 gal/day).

   Source

From nearby USGS and NOAA monitoring stations, refreshed monthly. Dashed lines mark lifecycle milestones.

Water permits and environmental compliance records from MassDEP WMA permits and decisions and EPA ECHO.

No permit or compliance record from these sources currently matches this facility.

Is the water table's behavior near this facility consistent with its estimated draw — and how strong is the evidence? A fixed rubric, recomputed monthly; every number below is stored with the inputs that produced it. Method: attribution-v1.

1. 1 · Pathway

   The operator has not disclosed where this facility's water comes from. Until a source is published, the assessment is capped: an unclassified pathway can never raise the score.

2. 2 · Detectability

   At the high end of the estimate, the draw should produce a clearly visible signal (~1.9 ft) at the nearest monitored well 0.5 mi away.

3. 3 · Signal

   Monthly median depth to water: wells within 2 mi of the facility (violet) vs. matched background wells 5–15 mi away (gray). Shading marks the assessment's baseline and post-anchor windows.

   Dashed: each near well's own trend, deseasonalized and projected forward from its last reading — a projection of measured history, not a prediction, and never part of the evidence score below. Method: forecast mode.