Are the New Jersey Pinelands safe from data centers? 

As concerns grow about the rise of data centers, a central question has emerged: is the New Jersey Pinelands adequately protected?

After a recent presentation by staff to the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, the answer is clearer than many expected. The Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP), adopted in 1981, remains remarkably strong, even in the face of technologies its authors could never have imagined.

Pinelands Commissioner Rittler-Sanchez captured this perfectly: the CMP “holds up pretty well” because it was designed not around specific threats, but around enduring values: protecting land, water, and ecological integrity. That approach is now proving its worth. While data centers pose new challenges, the framework governing the Pinelands is not starting from scratch. In many ways, it is already doing its job.

Consider development intensity. Hyperscale data centers require vast amounts of land, but the CMP tightly restricts where that level of development can occur. Only a small portion of the Pinelands—primarily Regional Growth Areas and Pinelands Towns—could even accommodate such facilities. And even there, data centers are not automatically allowed. 

Municipalities must actively amend their zoning, and so far, only two have done this: Monroe and Manchester Township. For both, data centers are permitted as a use on only one or two lots in the entire municipality. On April 22, Monroe Township reversed this decision and passed an additional ordinance to ban all data centers. Monroe joins a growing list of municipalities, such as Pemberton Township, that have taken definitive action to prevent data center development within their borders.

Water protections in the Pinelands are similarly robust. The CMP limits new large-scale withdrawals from the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer, one of the most important groundwater systems in the region. In practice, this makes it difficult for water-intensive data centers to proliferate, because the million gallons of water per day that most hyperscale data centers require is simply not available.

These are not minor safeguards. They are powerful constraints that significantly limit where and how data centers could be built. And they exist because the CMP was designed to protect resources first, rather than react to each new industry as it emerges. But “holding up well” is not the same as being perfect, and there is always room for improvement.

The discussion at the commission made clear that there are still gaps—relatively narrow ones, but important nonetheless. One involves municipal water allocations. While new wells are restricted, towns can still allocate existing water supplies to large users like data centers. That raises the risk that local decisions could commit shared resources in ways that affect long-term community needs.

Another gap is noise. The CMP does not currently address the constant, low-frequency sound produced by data centers. For residents, this can mean a diminished quality of life. For wildlife, these impacts could be more profound, especially for nocturnal species like the Pine Barrens tree frog and the Barred owl that rely on sound. The CMP’s existing buffers were designed with physical disturbance in mind, not continuous acoustic disruption.

There is also the issue of development that sits outside of the jurisdiction of the Pinelands Commission, but still shares the Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer. This is true of the city of Vineland, where DataOne has been building a hyperscale data center. The developer claims in the environmental impact statement for the project that it will be a “net generator of water”, producing more than it uses. Whether the developer holds up this promise will have serious consequences for the people of Vineland as well as the aquifer upon which most of South Jersey relies.

Still, these issues should be understood in context. They are not signs that the CMP is failing. They are signs that it is being tested, as it has been many times before. Data centers are simply the latest chapter in that ongoing story.

The strength of the CMP lies not only in its current protections but also in its ability to evolve. Over the decades, it has been amended to reflect new science and new threats, often resulting in stronger safeguards. That process is deliberate and thorough by design, ensuring that changes are informed and durable.

The takeaway from the commission’s discussion should not be alarm, but confidence—with a clear-eyed recognition that refinement is needed. The Pinelands is not an unprotected landscape facing an unchecked wave of development. It is one of the most carefully managed ecosystems in the country, backed by a planning framework that continues to prove its value.

Now is the time to do what the Pinelands CMP was built to do: identify the gaps, address them thoughtfully, and ensure that its protections remain as strong tomorrow as they are today. Because the real lesson here is not that the Pinelands is vulnerable—it’s that it is resilient, as long as we continue to take its stewardship seriously. 

So the Pinelands is mostly safe, but what about the rest of the state? 65% of New Jerseyans support a ban on new data centers until our energy crisis can be addressed. The Pinelands Alliance has been circulating a petition asking Governor Mikie Sherrill for a temporary moratorium on new data center approvals. This is a pivotal moment to ensure that the future is guided by the public interest, not driven by corporate priorities. The choices being made right now will shape New Jersey’s future for decades.