Wednesday, December 11, 2024
The Hood County Commissioners Court recently voted 3:2 to commission an engineering firm for a sound study on the bitcoin data center.
Following an hour-long discussion, the court declared HGC Engineering: Noise, Vibration & Acoustical Consulting Services to be the most qualified firm to conduct the study, with expenses from the study not to exceed $6,500.
The decision came immediately after the court approved a resolution seeking legislative action to address the acoustical and noise pollution, destruction of property values, and the demand on the Texas energy grid caused by the cryptocurrency mining.
For more than a year, residents have complained about the sound emanating from the bitcoin data center owned by Marathon Digital Holdings LLC. According to residents, the low-frequency hum has greatly impacted their lives and health, with many complaining about vertigo, migraines, hearing loss and nausea.
The idea for a sound study was previously brought to the court by Precinct 2 Commissioner Nannette Samuelson during the July 9 meeting but was eventually tabled to allow for more research and information.
A major setback in passing the agenda item during the last court was due to a question posed by resident Tina Brown regarding the legality of using the county’s taxpayer dollars to fund a sound study.
At that time, County Attorney Matt Mills said he was unsure whether the county could legally fund an independent sound study but said he would like to discuss the situation further with Austin lawyer David Brooks. In the meantime, the court was asked to conduct more research to figure out who to hire for the project.
During the regular meeting July 23, Mills said he received confirmation from Brooks that it is legal for the county to pay for a study under public health and safety provisions.
Hood County Judge Ron Massingill asked Mills what he would do with the sound study findings if it shows the bitcoin mining operation exceeds 85 decibels. Mills said the findings could potentially be used as a witness for a future trial, as they could be relevant to the case.
“So, you could use the study?” Massingill asked.
“It’s possible,” Mills said. “One of the issues, of course, is if they do a study in August, and it says they're making a lot of noise, and we have a citation from February. Arguably, a lawyer can say, ‘Look, this isn't relevant to what happened in February,’ so there's evidentiary issues and things that a judge can weigh in on. But I don't know what the sound study says. I don't know if it goes further into, ‘OK, this is how it impacts health,’ or ‘This is just how we measure decibels.’ I don't know the nature of it, but if it gets into the difference between the dBA, dBC, all that stuff, it could have some relevance if we subpoenaed them. We'd have to pay them more, of course, if we want to bring them in for trial.”
Massingill also asked Mills if he would have the jurisdiction to abate the noise following the results of the sound study. Mills stated under the Health and Safety Code Chapter 343, there are 13 definitions of what a public nuisance is — ranging everywhere from abandoned vehicles to high weeds. However, he said there is nothing in the code about noise.
Massingill expressed sympathy for those affected by the bitcoin sound, particularly resident Sarah Rosenkranz’s daughter, who has suffered numerous ear infections allegedly caused by the plant. While he questioned the selection of HGC Engineering to be the “most qualified firm” for the sound study, he added he was also unsure how the study will benefit residents.
"I don't know what the $6,500 is going to do,” Massingill said. “There's nothing that Mr. Mills can do with that study, as far as giving these people any type of relief. They want relief from the noise ... I'm really glad about the resolution. I hope the state comes back and does something for the benefit of everybody here, but what I'm saying is, I don't see how this $6,500 is going to do anything to give any relief to you people right here. Ultimately, no relief is going to come from it.”
During the citizen comments portion of the meeting, resident Richard Hoefs expressed gratitude for the court for passing the previous resolution and empathized with those directly affected by the noise from the bitcoin plant. He also emphasized that legislative change is necessary to address the issue effectively.
"We've started a journey together with this resolution — but it's not a short trip,” he said. “Because we have to get the legislature to change the law. The legislature only meets periodically, but they're going to need our help. This isn't the end; it's about one step and a very important step. Going forward, we have to have proof and help them to craft the law that will protect all of our citizens — and that means we need some expert information ... For that reason, I encourage you to fund the sound study.”
Ron Liddell, drawing on his extensive background in mathematics and physics, shared insights on the complexities of sound waves and decibels. He emphasized that decibels are not linear but rather rhythmic, with a three-decibel change indicating a doubling of energy. He also highlighted how resonances can amplify wave effects, akin to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse in 1940 due to wind resonance.
“That bridge was built in 1940 and never made it a few months,” Liddell said. “This was the third largest suspension bridge in the world, but a 35-mile-an-hour wind hit it and put it into resonance. It was vibrating 20 feet this way and 20 feet that way and destroyed the bridge. The military never marches in unison over a bridge because you can put the bridge into resonance. A sound does the same thing. A sound is just another wave out there.”
Resident David Blankenship noted that while the state is examining the impact on the grid, there remains a need to thoroughly address the noise issues affecting Hood County. He also stressed the significance of the $6,500 sound study, as it is extremely important to the residents to find the root cause.
"We want the noise to stop, but if there are further issues with low frequency noise in sounds that affect our health, (we need to know),” Blankenship said. “We need the sound study to take this all the way across.”
Somervell County resident Jenna Hornbuckle asked the court why some did not see the need for a sound study and asked if any of their family members were affected by the issue. She expressed frustration over why the concerns are only now gaining attention after several years of operation and why it has taken so long for action from the county and state levels.
"Why is it that we have to work so hard among ourselves to even get to the point that we're at today?” she asked. “Why are we not getting the help that we need from you guys from the county, from the state or anybody? We're literally begging for help at this point. We don't know what else to do. Why can we not bring this company in? ... Let's get something done. It's not just for Hood County; it's for the state of Texas.”
As resident Sarah Rosenkranz began her comments, she shared a statement from bitcoin plant owner Marathon from a CBS news article in response to community concerns about the data center. The statement reads: “When evaluating the impact on the local community, it's important to bear in mind that this is an industrial area and has been for years prior to the existence of the digital asset data center. MARA did not build the digital asset data center. The data center was originally built by Compute North, and until recently, it was operated by US Bitcoin Corp/Hut8. MARA only took ownership of the site and its operations at the start of this year, well after it was constructed and began operating."
Rosenkranz continued reading the article, stating: “The company said shortly after taking over, the site has commissioned multiple sound studies from third party acoustic experts which determined the site is operating within legal limits.”
“In my opinion, that's why it's very important that we get this sound study, because Marathon is publicly stating, in writing to CBS News, that they've conducted third party sound studies and everything's OK, and everything's within legal limits,” she said. “I think independently, as a community, it's important ... that we get a sound study so that way, we're protected, and that way, the numbers are coming from you guys, an independent source and not Marathon, who's the company that's hurting us who just lost $138 million lawsuit in California for violating a contract. That's how this company is. I just really want us protected as a community.”
Before the next speaker presented her comments, Precinct 1 Commissioner Kevin Andrews chimed in, raising concerns about the practical implications of conducting a sound study and expressed his skepticism about the study’s ability to address all community concerns.
“I’m struggling mightily with this issue,” he said. “One of my biggest concerns here is, what do we do with this data? ... I understand that there could be things going on here, but is this symbolism over substance? What can we do with this data? Where do we take it? What's the next step? ... It's not about the number of people that are affected. I do believe that this is affecting the entirety of Hood County for various reasons, but where do we go from here? What do we do with this info?”
Samuelson responded that the court would provide the sound study to the legislators as data points. She said a committee has already been formed in the Texas Senate to look at the bitcoin sound issue.
“This will be another independent data source that can help them understand what is going on from experts that do this every day. This is their job all over the world ... This is scientific data that will help our legislatures understand the issue with cryptocurrency not just in Hood County in Granbury, but in the state of Texas.”
Resident Tina Brown then proposed a pragmatic approach and asked whether the court had established a policy governing expenditures on projects that benefit only a few or fall outside its jurisdiction.
“It seems that the court turned down an arts council last year for $1,000 because you didn't think it was part of your job title or job description,” Brown said. “So maybe this court should come up with a policy for how much you will spend on projects that are not part of something you can do anything about.”
Precinct 211 Chair Shannon Wolf responded to Andrews' concerns about the significance of the sound study and clarified its importance based on recent discussions with state Rep. Shelby Slawson.
"I met with Shelby Slawson a few weeks ago, and in her office; she said she needed the sound study,” Wolf said. “Marathon has a sound study. If the citizens in Precinct 2 pay for a sound study, it would be one sound study against another. If this court asked for a sound study, this sound study would not be viewed as partisan; it would be viewed as an independent, unbiased sound study. She wants that sound study so that she could base legislation similar to what was just passed by you and the rest of the court to form legislation. They need the sound study, not from us, but from you.”
Wolf also addressed Brown’s comment about how the sound study was a “project.”
"We are not a project; we are citizens of Hood County that need your help. We need legislation to stop people from going deaf, from people having to be in the hospital, from property values plummeting, from wildlife leaving an area,” she said. “Hood County has a problem ... Everybody in this room has a problem, and I'm asking for a sound study from this court to alleviate the problem and to give our legislators the information that they need in order to form legislation that will end the problem.”
Precinct 4 Commissioner Dave Eagle highlighted previous county investments in projects like Stroud Creek and Old Granbury Road, noting that while the projects were located in different precincts, they affected the entire county.
“My question for $6,500 at this stage is why not do a sound study?” he said. "They may come back and say, ‘Everybody that came up here today is crazy out of their mind. They don't know what they're talking about. They're all imagining things’ ... That could happen, right? But the flip side of that is they actually might find some issues ... The sound study reached a certain point in decibel. There's all kinds of data out there that talks about health issues in certain decibel levels, so I don't understand what the problem is. Why not do that with the many people that's being affected by it?”
Samuelson then talked about research findings from Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira, a notable researcher who has dedicated over 30 years to studying infrasound and low-frequency noise and acoustical pollution. She explained that she specializes in Vibro-Acoustic Disease (VAD), a documented condition affecting those exposed to prolonged low-frequency noise.
“One of the things she says is, ‘It's not just the sound you can hear that impacts you; it's the sound you can't hear that's impacting you.’ She says hearing loss is the least of your worries,” Samuelson said. “What your body does is it builds fibro cellular structures around your veins and your capillaries to protect itself from the onslaught of the vibration and the acoustical sound, so your body is constantly working to protect itself from this constant noise and sound vibrations that are attacking the body ... This is a real thing. This isn't something these people are imagining.”
Before the court voted on the agenda item, Andrews continued to express his hesitancy about whether the sound is a public safety issue, adding that he was still struggling with the idea.
However, Andrews ultimately cast the deciding vote and shifted the balance in favor with a last-minute "Aye," despite his persistent reluctance throughout the discussion.
The motion passed 3:2, with Massingill and Precinct 3 Commissioner Jack Wilson voting, “No.”
