NetChoice sent a veto request letter to Gov. Stitt of Oklahoma, respectfully requesting that he veto Senate Bill 259. We share the Oklahoma Legislature’s concern for the state’s long-term water security, and we support the metering and reporting provisions of SB 259 that will finally give the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) accurate data on actual groundwater consumption. However, the data center cooling mandate added by amendment is a blunt, statewide prohibition that fails to account for Oklahoma’s diverse hydrogeological conditions, risks unintended economic consequences and is unnecessary given the tools already available to the OWRB.
NetChoice Veto Request Letter on Oklahoma SB 259
May 21, 2026
The Honorable Kevin Stitt
Governor of Oklahoma
Dear Governor Stitt,
On behalf of NetChoice, we respectfully request that you veto Senate Bill 259. We share the Oklahoma Legislature’s concern for the state’s long-term water security, and we support the metering and reporting provisions of SB 259 that will finally give the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) accurate data on actual groundwater consumption. However, the data center cooling mandate added by amendment is a blunt, statewide prohibition that fails to account for Oklahoma’s diverse hydrogeological conditions, risks unintended economic consequences and is unnecessary given the tools already available to the OWRB.
SB 259’s data center cooling mandate raises two fundamental concerns:
- A blanket statewide mandate fails to account for Oklahoma’s diverse water conditions and risks unintended consequences, and
- Better tools already exist to protect the resource.
A Blanket Statewide Mandate Fails to Account for Oklahoma’s Diverse Water Conditions and Risks Unintended Consequences
Oklahoma’s 23 major groundwater basins each have distinct recharge rates, saturated thickness and demand profiles. What constitutes a threat to long-term supply in the Ogallala — where recharge may be less than half an inch per year — is fundamentally different from conditions in the alluvial aquifers of eastern Oklahoma, where annual recharge can exceed 6 inches. By applying a single prescriptive standard to all basins regardless of local conditions, this legislation risks discouraging economic development in water-abundant regions that can sustainably support additional permitted uses — while doing little to address basins already under stress, where existing OWRB authority and maximum annual yield determinations are the appropriate tools.
A uniform mandate may also inadvertently freeze technology standards in statute, limiting the OWRB’s ability to adapt permitting decisions as cooling technologies and hydrogeological understanding evolve. The legislature should not be in the business of picking specific engineering solutions for industrial facilities when that determination is better made by the Board on a basin-by-basin, project-by-project basis.
Better Tools Already Exist to Protect the Resource
The concerns behind this provision are legitimate, but they can be addressed without a blanket prohibition. Permit applicants can be required to demonstrate no harm to the watershed or neighboring wells before a permit is issued. Existing state and federal permitting processes already provide environmental review for large facilities. These targeted approaches protect Oklahoma’s water while preserving the OWRB’s flexibility to evaluate each project on its merits, considering basin-specific recharge rates, existing allocations and the actual water consumption profile of the proposed facility, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all technology mandate that may be unnecessary in water-rich regions and inadequate in the most stressed basins.
In fact, the metering and reporting provisions at the heart of SB 259 are themselves a meaningful step toward better groundwater governance: accurate consumption data is the prerequisite for any evidence-based permitting regime. Those provisions deserve to become law. The cooling mandate does not.
Conclusion
Effective water policy must be grounded in hydrogeological reality. Oklahoma’s water security deserves a strategy tailored to the actual conditions in each basin — not a statewide engineering mandate that applies the same rule to the Ogallala and the Arkansas River alluvium alike. SB 259’s data center cooling mandate is not that strategy. That risks chilling economic development in parts of Oklahoma where new industry could be accommodated, while bypassing the OWRB tools that are best suited to protecting aquifers genuinely under stress. We urge you to veto SB 259, protecting Oklahoma’s water resources through accurate data and targeted oversight rather than blunt statutory prescription.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bartlett D. Cleland
General Counsel, NetChoice (The views of NetChoice expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of all NetChoice members.)
NetChoice is a trade association that works to protect free expression and promote free enterprise online.