Opposition to artificial intelligence data centers is bringing together groups that rarely stand on the same side. Conservative farmers, environmental activists and residents across red and blue states are challenging projects they fear will consume farmland, drain water supplies and raise electricity bills.

In Nebraska, farmers and the Sierra Club supported resistance to rapid development while Cass County approved a 12-month moratorium. In drought-stricken New Mexico, Republicans and environmental groups opposed Oracle’s $165 billion Project Jupiter. The state Supreme Court blocked authorization for a well planned to supply water during construction.

The movement is spreading nationally. Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul imposed a one-year ban on large data centers, while Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott paused new approvals while the state examines their effect on the electrical grid. Politicians in Pennsylvania and Wyoming are also campaigning against unchecked development.

President Trump and some labor leaders continue to promote data centers as sources of jobs, tax revenue and technological strength. However, bipartisan resistance is forcing officials to reconsider whether those promised benefits outweigh the local costs.

Data centers are becoming a serious issue, with one of the biggest criticisms being that their costs are felt locally while their benefits are largely reaped by large technology companies. Residents are seeing farmland disappearing, water supplies tightening, and electricity costs rising. Many are beginning to question whether construction jobs and tax revenue can offset decades of strain on essential resources.

The backlash is beginning to cut through a usual partisan divide, as Republicans who oppose government favoritism and threats to rural communities are reaching the same conclusion as environmentalists worried about water, pollution, and energy use. A recent Gallup poll shows that seven out of ten Americans oppose data centers, with nearly half strongly opposing.

This backlash has made data centers a major issue in competitive midterm races. Many believe that competing with China should not mean higher utility bills, lost farmland or public subsidies for some of the world’s wealthiest companies. As AI expands, projects approved today could affect energy prices, property values and water supplies for decades. Candidates who dismiss those concerns may be in for a rude awakening in November.

Data centers often increase demand on the electrical grid faster than utilities can add new generation, leaving existing customers competing with a facility that consumes as much power as a small city. During shortages, households and local businesses may face higher rates while technology companies secure favorable long-term contracts.

The economic payoff may also fall short of what residents are promised. Data centers create large construction projects, but once completed, many operate with relatively small permanent staffs. Communities can sacrifice land and grant major tax breaks only to discover that the development produces fewer lasting jobs than a factory or other large employer.

Voters have a chance to influence these decisions in the upcoming midterms. Candidates should be pressed to explain whether they support tax breaks for data centers and who should pay for the power, water, and infrastructure they require. It’s an issue that has already united voters across party lines because of how local the consequences and effects are, as well as how difficult they will be to reverse.