I had a great conversation with an old college friend last night regarding a proposed datacenter around Colorado Springs (where he lives), and my response to his frustration with "NIMBY" people was to note that if a datacenter is constructed correctly, it need not use a lot of water or produce a lot of noise.
The water issue with datacenters is cooling water--high power systems (like IBM mainframes) are not air-cooled, but water cooled. That noted, water out of the well tends to contain a fair amount of mineral content, which tends to clog hoses and pipes, and it's worth noting that power plants don't need to use a ton of water--you simply let the air carry the heat away in the cooling tower instead of water. There is no reason why, in my view, a datacenter ought to use a lot of water.
In the same way, I personally work around datacenters at work here, and if you walk around the plant, you will not hear those datacenters. What makes a lot of datacenters noisy is that they are more or less kept in tin sheds, and hence that noise escapes. If one constructs the building properly--with insulation for climate control and such--the noise is quite manageable.
Now you can't do much about the power use, but even that ought to be manageable--"OK, you're going to need a peak of 5MW, that will require that you install a new transformer and pay this much to augment the local power distribution system."
In other words, most of the problems that are seen with datacenters are a classic example of the problems of unplanned externalities, economically speaking. That leaves the real gorilla in the room; what is being done in those datacenters? It could be groundbreaking cancer research, or it could be some government's attempt to install Jeremy Bentham's "Panoptikon" on the public. My response to the datacenter is going to depend a lot on what the actual purpose might be.
