The Manse Technology Campus, shown in a rendering, is a proposed 900-acre data center facility. Image Credit: Manse Technology Campus/Pahrump Valley Times
Two companies have sued Nye County in Nevada after officials banned data centre development across the Pahrump Valley and the surrounding groundwater basin in August 2026. The dispute centres on nearly 911 acres of land intended for the proposed Manse Technology Campus, a large technology project that its developers say had already undergone years of planning. The companies involved in the legal dispute are CDDC, LLC and 9 of a Kind, LLC, according to KTNV. Together, they own nearly 911 acres along Carpenter Canyon Road and Nevada State Route 160, where they had planned to establish the Manse Technology Campus, also known as the MTC Project. They argue that their plans followed the applicable requirements, including changes made to county zoning rules in 2023. The dispute intensified when the Nye County Board of Commissioners voted on August 18, 2026, to prohibit data centres in the Pahrump area and Water Basin 162. Which examined the court filing in an October 1, 2026, report, the companies filed their petition on September 11, less than a month after the county adopted the ban, according to Nye’s Lies. 631 overturned.
Because existing county zoning rules and guidance from officials indicated that development could proceed, the developers claim they moved forward with the project. Because large data centres can require substantial infrastructure, including electricity supplies, cooling equipment and water resources, the proposal attracted attention.
KTNV said the companies believe the county’s decision undermined their property rights after they had committed substantial resources to the project. Developer Sean Dalesandro also told KTNV that the project had proceeded in reliance on the county’s zoning framework and the guidance received during the planning process. The report said the companies claim they spent millions of dollars on engineering work for the proposed development.
The companies argue that county officials changed the rules after they had invested heavily in the development. The lawsuit now challenges the legality of the ban and raises questions about landowners’ rights. The decision affected the location selected for the proposed campus. The companies are asking the court to review whether officials could lawfully change the rules in these circumstances. A report by the Pahrump Valley Times described efforts by the project’s proponents to address residents’ concerns. The developers planned to hold an informational meeting to discuss the proposal and engage with the local community. The controversy reflected a wider debate about whether large technology facilities are suitable for areas where residents are concerned about the availability of natural resources and the effects of industrial development. For the developers, the project represented an investment opportunity tied to the growing demand for facilities that support digital services. For residents concerned about its potential effects, however, the proposal raised questions about how such developments should be assessed and regulated. The dispute developed against a background of changing county policy on data centre construction. Their case seeks to have Ordinance No. They also point to the county’s handling of their application, including the payment of a fee in June and the receipt of comments on their plans in August. The companies argue that these steps, together with the guidance they received, supported their expectation that the project could move forward.
The Manse Technology Campus had become a source of local debate even before the lawsuit was filed.
Reno introduced a temporary moratorium on new data centre construction permits in May 2026 and extended it in June, while Henderson rejected a proposed temporary moratorium in July. The new regulations also cover data centre development outside Pahrump’s Basin 162. Because it prohibited data centres in the Pahrump Valley and the Water Basin 162 groundwater area, nye County’s August decision was particularly significant.
However, the account published by Nye’s Lies also highlighted an important distinction. The available planning steps did not necessarily amount to final approval of the data centre itself. The land still required relevant planning changes and rezoning, and the development agreement sought by the companies had not been formally approved by the county commission. This distinction is central to the dispute. The developers argue that the county’s conduct and existing zoning framework justified their investment, while the legal question includes whether those circumstances created an enforceable right to proceed. Nye County’s decision forms part of a wider debate across Nevada about how local governments should regulate data centre construction. The state has seen several local authorities consider different approaches to managing development. The lawsuit seeks to challenge the county’s ban and obtain judicial review of the decisions affecting the development. They also challenge the county’s zoning designation for their property, arguing that it is too vague and could allow arbitrary enforcement. You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.