ASHVILLE, Ohio — As debate continues over a proposed data center and its potential impact on Ashville’s water system, some local opposition has focused on one argument: Ohio EPA never ordered the village to build a new water treatment plant, so the existing facility must be adequate.
Ohio EPA records, however, paint a considerably more complicated picture.
The agency has not ordered Ashville to abandon its existing treatment plant or issued an ultimatum requiring construction of a new facility. But that does not mean the existing plant is in good condition or that the village could continue operating it indefinitely without significant investment.
The plant dates to 1935, with an expansion completed in 1970. Ohio EPA’s environmental assessment identifies the facility as aging, with numerous components reaching the end of their useful lives.
The village and Ohio EPA also identified treatment and infrastructure concerns, including difficulties maintaining appropriate levels of iron, manganese and hardness in treated water.
## No replacement order does not mean no problem
Critics of the new plant have pointed to the fact that Ohio EPA did not command Ashville to replace its treatment facility.
That is true.
But the Ohio EPA documents do not say the existing plant is in excellent condition or that it has decades of useful life remaining.
Instead, the agency’s project assessment explains that Ashville evaluated rehabilitation of the existing facility and determined that the extensive work necessary to continue relying on the aging plant would cost nearly as much as constructing a new plant.
The village also determined that additional repairs would likely be necessary in the future.
That left Ashville with a choice: continue putting substantial amounts of money into a facility approaching a century old or invest in a new treatment plant designed to serve the community for decades.
Ohio EPA ultimately determined that the proposed replacement project was environmentally acceptable.
## The compliance history matters
Ashville’s drinking-water system has a long regulatory history that includes violations involving monitoring, reporting, treatment and other requirements.
Not every violation means residents were drinking unsafe water.
Many drinking-water violations involve failures to conduct required monitoring, submit reports or provide required notifications. Those should not be confused with an allegation that the treatment plant routinely produced contaminated drinking water.
But the history demonstrates that the system has not operated without regulatory issues.
More recently, Ohio EPA inspected the treatment facility in January 2026 and identified physical maintenance deficiencies.
Among the issues cited by the agency were problems involving the facility’s sodium hypochlorite tanks, including conditions that could allow dirt, debris and insects into the tanks.
Ohio EPA issued a Notice of Violation requiring corrective action.
Again, that inspection did not order Ashville to replace the entire treatment plant.
But it does undermine the argument that the existing facility is simply a modern, trouble-free plant requiring little investment.
## The age of the plant is the bigger story
The most important fact in the debate may be one that has little to do with the proposed data center.
Ashville’s water treatment plant was built in 1935.
The plant has been operating for approximately 91 years, with its major expansion occurring more than five decades ago.
Water treatment technology, regulatory requirements and engineering standards have changed dramatically during that time.
The village’s own evaluation found that keeping the existing facility in service would require extensive rehabilitation.
And when the cost of rehabilitating a facility approaches the cost of constructing a new one, the economic argument for replacement becomes much stronger.
## Someone has to pay for the replacement
This is where the data-center debate becomes especially important for Ashville residents.
The water treatment plant needs to be replaced because of its age and condition regardless of whether the data center ultimately comes to Ashville.
But if the data center does not contribute to the additional investment or generate the anticipated water revenue, the cost of maintaining and replacing the community’s water infrastructure does not simply disappear.
Ashville’s residents and existing water customers ultimately remain responsible for paying for the water system, that cost was reported by the Village at around 120 dollars per month on Ashvilles residents thats on top of what they pay for water now.
The key point is that the village cannot avoid the underlying infrastructure expense merely by rejecting the data center.
The plant is already decades beyond the age of the existing facility, and Ohio EPA’s environmental review found that extensive rehabilitation would approach the cost of constructing a new plant.
The difference is that additional commercial and industrial customers can potentially provide additional revenue to the system, helping spread infrastructure costs across a larger customer base.
Without those customers, the financial burden remains concentrated among the village’s existing customers.
That does not mean Ashville should approve a data center regardless of its environmental or community impacts.
It does mean the financial question deserves to be part of the discussion.
## The data center did not make the plant old
Ohio EPA specifically reviewed concerns that the new treatment plant was being built because of the planned data center.
In its environmental review, the agency concluded that the aging condition of the existing water treatment plant was the primary driver of the project, rather than the data center.
The new facility will provide additional capacity, and the data center is expected to become one of its customers.
But that does not mean the data center created the underlying infrastructure problem.
Ashville was already dealing with a treatment facility constructed in 1935 whose major components were approaching or had reached the end of their useful lives.
The data center may affect how much additional capacity Ashville needs and how many customers share the cost of the system.
It does not explain why the existing treatment plant needs replacement.
## Two questions are being confused
There are two separate questions being raised in the public discussion.
Did Ohio EPA order Ashville to replace its water treatment plant?
No, not yet but because they are working with officals
Was the existing plant an aging facility with significant infrastructure needs that Ashville determined was no longer economically practical to rehabilitate?
The Ohio EPA project documents say yes.
Those facts can coexist.
Ohio EPA does not have to issue a replacement order before a community determines that an aging facility should be replaced.
In fact, waiting until a regulatory agency orders replacement could be considerably more expensive and disruptive than replacing a deteriorating facility before it reaches a crisis point.
### The bottom line
The evidence does not support the claim that Ohio EPA told Ashville, “You must build a new water treatment plant.”
But it also does not support the claim that the existing plant is fine and the new plant is being built simply because a data center needs water.
The regulatory and engineering record shows an aging treatment facility, components reaching the end of their useful lives, documented treatment and maintenance concerns, a history of compliance issues and a determination that extensive rehabilitation would approach the cost of constructing a new facility.
The plant is going to require substantial investment whether the data center is built or not.
The question for Ashville residents is therefore not simply who caused the need for a new plant.
The plant’s age already answered that question.
The more consequential question is who will help pay for the infrastructure Ashville needs anyway.
If the data center becomes a major water customer, it could contribute revenue to a system that otherwise must be supported primarily by existing customers. If it does not, Ashville will still have to address the aging treatment plant — and the financial responsibility will remain with the village and its water customers through whatever combination of rates, financing, grants and other revenues is ultimately approved.
