Reuse of a building that’s just sitting there
The plant is a big industrial structure that’s sat mostly idle, and fought over, for about fifteen years. A working tenant puts an existing building back to use instead of carving up open land.
Community Briefing · Mt. Shasta, California
A Data Center at the Former Crystal Geyser Site?
A balanced briefing for the Mt. Shasta community
What we know, what we don’t, the case for and against, the positions you might take, and how to make your voice heard. Sources are footnoted throughout and listed in full at the end.
Why this briefing exists
The former Crystal Geyser plant is the large industrial building outside Mt. Shasta that many residents know from the long fight over water bottling. It is now for sale again.
The listing markets the property for heavy industrial uses, including a data center. Separately, people have reported that a company made an early inquiry to City staff about the site.
The sale listing is public. The reported inquiry is not, so it should be treated as unconfirmed until the City or County confirms it.
There is no formal application, named data-center company, or technical plan on the public record. This is still an early possibility, not an approved project.
This early stage is the reason for the briefing. The best time to learn and ask questions is before a proposal is fixed and public choices have narrowed.
The briefing explains the site’s history, what data centers use, possible benefits, major risks, reasonable positions, and ways to take part in the public process.
It doesn’t tell you what to think. The point is an informed community, not a predetermined answer.
The site and its history
The building is at 210 Ski Village Drive, just outside the northern edge of Mt. Shasta in unincorporated Siskiyou County. The developed part of the site covers about 118 acres.1
The former bottling plant is about 145,000 square feet, and the County zones the land for heavy industry. The wider property covers about 260 acres, including production wells. The water rights run with the land.2
It started as a Dannon water-bottling plant in 2001, passed to Coca-Cola, then sat shut and mostly empty after about 2010, when the bottled-water business slumped. All through those years, neighbors kept complaining about wells running low, plus noise, vibration, night lighting, and truck traffic.3
Crystal Geyser bought the site in 2013 for about $5.2 million. Its plan to bottle Mt. Shasta water and truck it away led to about seven years of conflict. Community members pressed for a full environmental review.
An Environmental Impact Report was eventually completed, lawsuits followed, and WATER and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe continued pressing the issue.
Crystal Geyser had paid about $400,000 a year in county property taxes. It withdrew in 2021 and sold the property to One Shasta LLC in 2022 for about $7.1 million. The deed reportedly bars future water bottling or distribution.4
The deed restriction permanently bars the use that drew the strongest opposition: pumping groundwater and shipping it away as bottled water.
It does not bar other industrial uses, including a data center. The deed settles the bottling question, but it does not settle the water and power questions that another large industrial use could raise.
As of 2026, the asking price is about $7.6 million. The listing highlights two features: large electrical service and a water right tied to a spring.
The two electrical services are rated at 5,000 and 3,200 amps. The spring permit allows up to 500,000 gallons a day. Those features may attract a tenant that uses large amounts of power or water.
Where it is. The site is at 210 Ski Village Drive, about a mile north of downtown. Open the location in Google Maps
Two pieces of history that matter for any new user
First, the wells. Neighbors have said for years that the earlier operations here pulled down nearby residential wells and brought noise and traffic with them.5 Whatever moves in next, that history is the lens a lot of residents will judge it through, and fairly so.
Water is the central issue. Mt. Shasta’s aquifer supplies the city and feeds the Upper Sacramento, McCloud, and Shasta rivers. Those waters support trout, salmon, farms, and communities, and the mountain is sacred to the Winnemem Wintu and meaningful to many others.
There is still no complete baseline showing how much water the aquifer holds or how it moves underground. That gap is why many residents want independent study before any large new use is approved.6
What a data center is, and why these projects draw scrutiny
A data center is a building, or sometimes a campus, filled with computer servers that run around the clock.
Its local footprint is driven mainly by electricity and cooling. The growth of artificial-intelligence services has led to more data-center proposals and more local disputes over water, power, rates, and noise.
Data centers use large, steady amounts of electricity. A federal analysis found that they used about 4.4% of U.S. electricity in 2023 and could use 6.7% to 12% by 2028.7
Servers use about half or more of a data center’s electricity. Cooling uses much of the rest. Large sites may also use diesel or natural-gas generators for backup power.
The biggest facilities can draw 100 to 1,000 megawatts. A Department of Energy comparison says data centers can use 10 to 50 times as much energy as office buildings of the same size.8
Water use depends on the cooling system. No public technical plan exists for a Mt. Shasta project, so that central fact is still unknown.
Evaporative cooling can use millions of gallons a year. Closed-loop or air-cooled systems use much less water on site, but they usually require more electricity. Producing that electricity can use water elsewhere.
Water and power are therefore connected. The cooling design determines much of the local burden.
Data centers can also bring constant fan and chiller noise, waste heat, backup-generator emissions, and heavy construction traffic.
Towns across the West have handled this in different ways. Reno, Nevada paused new data centers with a moratorium. Oregon passed a law in 2025 to keep regular ratepayers from footing the bill for powering these facilities. Counties like Missoula, Montana have written their own local rules.9 None of that makes a data center automatically good or bad. It just means other places decided it was worth setting clear rules first.
The case in favor
There’s a real, reasonable case that a data center could be a better fit for this site than what came before. Here it is at its strongest.
It doesn’t truck the water away
This is the strongest point in its favor. Bottling exists to pull water out of the ground and ship it elsewhere. A data center’s water use depends on cooling instead, and a closed-loop or air-cooled one could use far less of the aquifer than a bottling plant ever did. For a town whose deepest worry has been water leaving, that difference is a big deal.
Tax base
Back when Crystal Geyser held it, the property threw off around $400,000 a year in county property taxes. A working facility brings that money back, and maybe more, to help pay for county services.
Jobs and a wider economy
Building it would bring temporary construction work, and running it would add some permanent skilled jobs in maintenance, security, and plant operations. The number is modest, but in an economy leaning hard on tourism and timber, a little variety helps. A project like this can also bring broadband or grid investment along with it.
Leverage to negotiate
Any project this size needs local approvals, which gives the community real bargaining power to demand enforceable conditions and benefits up front. That power mostly vanishes once a project is approved.
The concerns
There’s an equally real case for caution, or for flat opposition, rooted both in this particular site and in how these facilities have played out elsewhere.
Water, the unanswered question
Depending on how it’s cooled, a data center could put steady, serious demand on the same aquifer the community fought to protect. Given the well problems this site already has on record, neighbors have every reason to want hard, metered limits and independent monitoring instead of promises. Until someone discloses the cooling design and the projected draw, the core risk stays unknown.
Electricity and the grid
A big facility needs a big, steady supply of power out in a rural area. That brings up whether the grid can even handle it, who pays for any upgrades, and whether everyone else’s utility bills go up because of it. That last worry is exactly what drove Oregon’s ratepayer law. On-site gas generation is sometimes part of the deal too.
Air and noise
Backup diesel generators and cooling gear that never shuts off don’t sit well in an airshed this clean, and noise was already a logged complaint against the earlier operations here.
Not many jobs for the footprint
Once a data center is up and running, it doesn’t take many people. The permanent headcount tends to be small next to the size of the building and the resources it uses, so the jobs payoff can be thinner than it first sounds.
Tax breaks can eat the benefit
Data center developers often ask for property-tax breaks and other incentives. If those get granted, they can shrink the very tax revenue everyone’s counting as a plus, so the real fiscal gain is worth a hard look.
Character and brand
Mt. Shasta’s whole economy and identity rest on a clean, even sacred, mountain. A heavy industrial use rubs against that, and against the tourism economy built on it.
Process and transparency
Last time, the community got blindsided, finding out about a major project from a photo in the local paper. A lot of residents will want full disclosure, independent review, and public hearings before any decision gets made, not after.
Who actually decides, and the question that drives everything
The site is on unincorporated land, so Siskiyou County is the main land-use authority. The first public question is whether a data center would be allowed by right under existing heavy-industrial zoning or whether it would need a use permit, rezoning, or another discretionary approval.
That distinction matters because discretionary approval can trigger review under the California Environmental Quality Act and public hearings. During the bottling fight, the County first said no Environmental Impact Report was required. A full review followed only after years of public pressure and lawsuits.2
The City of Mt. Shasta is also an affected neighbor. City utilities and waste-discharge permits may give it a role. Residents may therefore need answers from both the County and the City.
The cooling design is the main deciding fact because it determines much of the water and electricity demand. Almost every argument for or against a project depends on that information.
No one outside a possible developer has supplied those details. Getting them into the public record should be the first priority.
A menu of positions you might take
Reasonable neighbors may reach different conclusions. The options below are not presented as one correct answer. They show several legitimate positions a person might take.
Some positions can also be combined.
1. Support
Put the weight on reusing a vacant industrial building, bringing back the tax base, and broadening the economy, and let the project move ahead through normal review.
2. Conditional, a “yes, if.”
Open to a project only if the conditions can be enforced. Possible conditions include closed-loop or air cooling, firm groundwater limits, real-time well monitoring, property-line noise limits, strict generator rules, a cleanup bond, and a written community-benefit agreement.
3. Information first
Hold off on any position until there’s a formal application, the technical details are out in the open, an independent CEQA review is underway, and public hearings are on the calendar. Demand transparency before judgment.
4. Policy first
Push the County, and the City, to adopt clear data-center standards or an ordinance now, the way other communities have, so any project gets judged against known rules instead of haggled over one at a time.
5. Opposition
Given how sensitive the aquifer is, the site’s track record of draining wells, and how much this community prioritizes protecting its water, oppose putting a big industrial water-and-energy user here at all.
Good questions to ask
Whatever way you lean, these are the questions worth putting to officials and to any applicant. Clear answers are what turn guesswork into real debate.
Is a data center a “by-right” use under the site’s heavy-industrial zoning, or would it need discretionary permits, a use permit, or rezoning, and with that, CEQA review and public hearings?
What cooling technology would it use, and what’s the projected water draw, both average and peak, in gallons per day? And would that water come from the municipal supply or an on-site well?
How much electricity would it need, in megawatts, where would that power come from, who pays for any grid upgrades, and what happens to everyone else’s rates?
How many backup generators, burning what fuel, with what emissions, and how many run-hours a year?
What are the noise levels at the property line, and what are the hours of operation?
How many permanent jobs, of what kind, and what local-hiring commitments come with them?
Are they asking for any property-tax breaks or other public incentives?
What enforceable caps, monitoring, well protections for the neighbors, and decommissioning guarantees are actually on offer?
How to make your voice heard
Two public bodies matter most. The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors is the lead authority for this unincorporated site. The Mt. Shasta City Council represents the neighboring city that may also be affected.
A short and specific message is stronger than a vague one. Name the site, ask the key questions, and request full public review of any proposal. Written comments and comments made at a public meeting become part of the record.
Meeting information was current as of June 2026 and is now archival. Check the official County and City calendars for the next meeting before making plans.
An issue does not always need to be on the agenda for a person to speak during general public comment. Still, check the posted agenda for the remote-attendance link and to see whether the site appears as a formal item.
Dates, times, and public-comment rules can change. Confirm them with the County or City before attending.
Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors
Mt. Shasta is in District 2, so Supervisor Ed Valenzuela is your direct representative. The whole five-member Board votes on county matters, so the other supervisors’ contacts are here too.
| Office | Supervisor | Phone | |
|---|---|---|---|
| District 2 (includes Mt. Shasta) | Ed Valenzuela | 530-926-1733 | evalenzuela@co.siskiyou.ca.us |
| District 1 | Jess W. Harris | 530-643-9084 | jharris@co.siskiyou.ca.us |
| District 3 | Michael N. Kobseff | 530-842-8397 | mkobseff@co.siskiyou.ca.us |
| District 4 | Nancy Ogren | 530-643-3503 | nogren@co.siskiyou.ca.us |
| District 5 (Board Chair) | Ray A. Haupt | 530-925-0444 | rhaupt@co.siskiyou.ca.us |
County offices are at 311 Fourth Street, Yreka, CA 96097.
Mt. Shasta City Council
The Council generally meets on the second and fourth Monday at 5:30 PM at the Recreation and Parks District Lodge, 1315 Nixon Road. City Hall is at 305 N. Mt. Shasta Boulevard, and the main line is (530) 926-7510.
The roster below is archival. Check the City website for the current council and email contacts before writing.
| Role | Council member |
|---|---|
| Mayor (2026 term) | Casey Glaubman |
| Mayor Pro Tem | Tessa Clure |
| Council member | John Stackfleth |
| Council member | Jeffrey Collings |
| Council member | John Redmond |
Find the current roster and agendas on the City Council page. Agendas go up at least 72 hours before regular meetings and include instructions for public comment.
How to get involved
One comment is a useful start, but a community often needs several people following the issue while the questions are still open.
Nothing here assumes support or opposition. A full public process helps people who might welcome a project, support it only with strict conditions, or oppose it. The next section lists practical ways to help.
Start by watching Siskiyou County Planning and Mt. Shasta City Council agendas. Sign up for notices. Follow the property listing and any permit, rezoning, or application tied to the site.
When an item appears, attend the meeting or submit written comments. Share verified information with neighbors and clearly label what remains unconfirmed.
Residents have organized around land-use questions at this site before, the grassroots group W.A.T.E.R. (We Advocate Thorough Environmental Review) among them, and connecting with people already paying attention saves everyone time.
The kinds of help that make community participation effective:
Zoning, permits, and land-use process. Including the pivotal question of whether a data center would be “by-right” here or need discretionary review.
CEQA and environmental review. Knowing what triggers a review, and what a thorough one should cover.
Water rights and hydrology. The aquifer, the wells, and what the permitted water right actually allows.
Legal experience. Reading deeds, permits, and the rules that govern the approval process.
Research. Property records, public records, and county planning files.
Tracking meetings. Watching agendas and deadlines so nothing slips through unnoticed.
Writing and public speaking. Turning concerns into clear, specific comments for the record.
Organizing and outreach. Coordinating volunteers and connecting with neighbors, journalists, environmental groups, business owners, and tribal contacts.
People with relevant skills can connect with neighbors and existing groups now instead of waiting for an application.
The public has the most room to request studies, conditions, and protections before a project is approved. That room narrows after approval.
A note on balance, and on what’s still unknown
There is no formal data-center proposal for the former Crystal Geyser site at this time. The public record shows only that the property is for sale and is marketed for industrial uses that include a data center.
No specific project, company, or application is public. This briefing is meant to help the community prepare and ask better questions. It is not an alarm or a position for or against a project.
If a real proposal does show up, the details it puts on the table, above all the cooling design and the water and power it would need, should steer the conversation more than any general take on data centers.
References
Links are live, and details are current as of June 2026. Check the time-sensitive items like officials, meeting dates, and project specifics directly with the County and City.
The site and the bottling history
Crystal Geyser pulls out of Mount Shasta water bottling plant. Skye Kinkade, Mt. Shasta Area Newspapers / Siskiyou Daily News, May 17, 2021.
Crystal Geyser sells Mt. Shasta plant to Bay Area company; no plans for water bottling. KRCR News, April 2022.
Commercial sale listing, 210 Ski Village Drive. Brevitas / LoopNet, 2026. For-sale status; marketed for industrial uses including a data center; heavy electrical capacity; an included water right permitted for up to 500,000 gallons a day.
One Shasta LLC acquires industrial property on Ski Village Drive. Traded.co, 2022. Records the 2022 sale: about $7.1 million, buyer One Shasta LLC.
Crystal Geyser sells scrapped bottling facility in Siskiyou County. Roman Battaglia, Jefferson Public Radio, March 21, 2022. (The deed stipulation barring water bottling or distribution.)
Notice of Final Environmental Impact Report for Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant. Siskiyou County / Mt. Shasta Area Newspapers, Sept. 7, 2017 (site address and acreage).
Environmental studies not required for Crystal Geyser. Mount Shasta Herald, Nov. 2013 (building size and the heavy-industrial “by-right” zoning).
Crystal Geyser a hot topic at Mount Shasta council meeting. Mt. Shasta Area Newspapers, Nov. 26, 2013 (community concerns).
History. We Advocate Thorough Environmental Review (W.A.T.E.R.), on the Dannon and Coca-Cola timeline and neighbor complaints.
Below Mount Shasta, a fight burbles over bottled water. Jane Braxton Little, High Country News, May 28, 2018.
Mount Shasta Spring Water Management. California Trout, on the aquifer, the rivers, and baseline data.
Data centers, water and energy
2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report (PDF). Shehabi et al., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-2001637, Dec. 2024.
DOE Releases New Report Evaluating Increase in Electricity Demand from Data Centers. U.S. Department of Energy, Dec. 20, 2024.
Data Centers and Their Energy Consumption: Frequently Asked Questions (R48646). Congressional Research Service, May 12, 2026.
Water and energy use is growing as data centers are built across the Midwest and Great Plains. Associated Press (via KCUR), Aug. 2025.
Can you build data centers in a desert without draining the water supply? Utah is finding out. Grist / The Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 2026, with real-world per-facility water figures.
How other communities are responding
Data center water/power needs, regulatory challenges strain rural communities. Nevada Current, Feb. 9, 2026, on the Reno moratorium.
Oregon communities envision 9,100 acres for new data centers. The Oregonian / Lincoln Chronicle, March 2026, on the ratepayer law and tax-break moratorium.
Missoula panel highlights data center concerns as county reviews nearby facility. Montana Free Press, May 21, 2026, on the county regulations.
Officials and meetings
Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors. Members, districts, and contact information.
City of Mt. Shasta, City Council page. Council roster, meeting schedule, and agendas.
Prepared as a neutral community resource. Facts are current as of June 2026, so please double-check anything time-sensitive.