Atlas / Texas / Irving Texas · City edition Irving data center record . Explore documented data center records linked to Irving.
About map locations Records retain this city or place label in the Atlas sources. The map keeps each record's own location limits. A shared city label does not establish a municipal boundary, parcel jurisdiction or a complete list of operating buildings.
Open the full Texas map · State source notes
Compilation dated October 24, 2026: 3 Atlas records linked to Irving, Texas, drawing on 17 public source links. Records can describe sites, campuses, buildings or proposals. Records and source links . Download this data: CSV / JSON .
3 research records
3 status supported
0 status still open
2 mapped references
Reset filters
3 records Status
2 reviewed map references:
Edged Dallas (Irving) Irving · Dallas · Source context reviewed Operating phase Equinix DA9 (Irving) Irving postal locality · Equinix operator listing · no site point Operator-listed service QTS Irving 1 Irving · Dallas · Source context reviewed Operating phase No records match these filters. Use Reset filters to start again.
Concerns and records. 4 documented items. Counts describe documentation, not harm or severity. One item can have more than one category.
Land use and zoning: 1 · Noise: 3 · Power and electric rates: 1 · Water use: 1
This is a bounded source collection. Missing items do not establish that no concern was raised. A case disposition does not establish facility operating status or resolve the underlying allegations.
View 4 documented items Legal action Noise
Supreme Court of Texas issued an order denying the petition by MARA Holdings for a writ of mandamus in the proceeding linked to the Granbury nuisance case. The court also dismissed the motion to stay as moot. This procedural order does not decide the truth of the noise allegations or establish that the underlying concern was resolved.
Record status: Resolved. Supreme Court of Texas issued a denial of this mandamus petition on September 9, 2026. Resolved describes this procedural item only; it does not mean the nuisance merits or alleged effects have been resolved.
Event date September 9, 2026
Source publication date September 9, 2026
Disposition date September 9, 2026
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The orders page and official docket both date this procedural disposition September 9, 2026. The official Supreme Court orders page is dated September 9, 2026. First publication date of the dynamic docket is unknown.
Raised or recorded by Supreme Court of Texas.
Company statement published by an agency or court. MARA Holdings stated in its court-filed reply that the association lacked standing and that mandamus relief should be available. This is the company's legal argument, not a ruling on the nuisance allegations.
The official case 26-0337 docket links this operator reply filed August 3, 2026 to lower-court cause C2024253. The statement precedes the September 9 procedural order and does not answer that later order or resolve the alleged noise impacts. First public-posting date is unknown.
Response publication: Not established. Response sources checked: October 18, 2026.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Legal action Noise
Citizens Concerned About Wolf Hollow filed a petition alleging that noise and vibrations from the Granbury bitcoin mine created a private nuisance and requesting a permanent injunction. The petition is an allegation, not a merits decision. The separately recorded denial of a later mandamus petition does not decide those nuisance claims.
Record status: Unknown. The current merits disposition of the nuisance claims is not established by this bounded review. A procedural mandamus denial does not resolve those claims.
Event date October 4, 2024
Source publication date October 7, 2024
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The original court-filed stamp is October 4, 2024. It is distinct from the October 7 press release. Earthjustice published its release on October 7, 2024. First posting date of the retained petition copy is unknown.
Raised or recorded by Citizens Concerned About Wolf Hollow.
Company statement published by an agency or court. MARA Holdings stated in its court-filed reply that the association lacked standing and that mandamus relief should be available. This is the company's legal argument, not a ruling on the nuisance allegations.
The official case 26-0337 docket links this operator reply filed August 3, 2026 to lower-court cause C2024253. The statement precedes the September 9 procedural order and does not answer that later order or resolve the alleged noise impacts. First public-posting date is unknown.
Response publication: Not established. Response sources checked: October 18, 2026.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Public concern on the record Power and electric rates
Public Citizen filed comments on the separate Wolf Hollow power-plant expansion expressing concern that additional electricity could support the neighboring Marathon Digital mine. Its letter speculates about possible mine expansion; it does not establish that an expansion occurred. These are group comments in a public permit packet, not a mine air permit or an agency finding.
Record status: Unknown. No disposition of this specific group concern about possible electricity supply to the mine is established by this bounded letter review.
Event date September 9, 2024
Source publication date Not established
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The letter and agency received stamp both show September 9, 2024; actual pages 92 and 94 were visually verified. The letter is dated September 9, 2024, but first public publication date of the aggregate packet is not established.
Raised or recorded by Public Citizen.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Permit and comment Water use · Noise · Land use and zoning
City of Temple described domestic water limits and noise safeguards for the Rowan Project Temple development. The FAQ describes a contractual domestic water cap and requires acoustic review before occupancy. These are agency described development controls, not measured water withdrawal, a noise violation, completed compliance or an operating milestone.
Record status: Unknown. The bounded review establishes the documented action and attributed statements only. It does not establish final resolution of underlying public concerns, present compliance or measured site effects.
Event date Not established
Source publication date Not established
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 22, 2026 The exact agreement execution or first condition adoption date is not established from this undated FAQ. An exact first publication or revision date for the city FAQ is not established.
Raised or recorded by City of Temple.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Community concerns tracker
Rules and source checks. These are county source reviews linked to the retained records. They do not establish municipal boundaries, city zoning, parcel permission or current compliance.
Dallas County Policy context found · Checked October 22, 2026.
Dallas County guidance says development activities in its unincorporated areas require a permit and directs applications through its current permit system.
This guidance does not establish a specific data center entitlement, a countywide zoning permission, a full municipal code audit or an issued permit. Dallas, Irving and other cities have separate land use review. No facility stage or compliance changes.
Official source 1
Power and water. Each figure keeps its measure, basis, date and sources. Forecasts, utility requests, generation and IT capacity are different. These figures are not added into a county total.
No separately typed power or water fact is retained for this county cohort yet. That means unknown, not zero use.
The dated record. The retained event log distinguishes announcements, scheduled dates and status-source checks. A review date is not an opening day. A target never becomes a completed event merely because time passes.
Recorded events and announcements. December 20, 2023 QTS Irving 1 QTS published a construction recap reporting that Irving 1 DC3 opened in March 2023. December 20 is the publication date, not the opening date. The recap does not establish operation of all planned campus facilities.
View 3 status source checks Status source checks. Source checked: October 22, 2026 QTS Irving 1 QTS reported the opening of Irving 1 DC3 in March 2023 and currently lists Irving 1 as a data center campus with facility tours. Operating phase describes an operator reported existing phase within the named campus. It does not establish that all six master planned facilities are operating or an exact opening day.
Source checked: October 19, 2026 Edged Dallas (Irving) Edged reported on January 15, 2026 that the first Irving facility opened in January 2025 while announcing a second facility with future groundbreaking. This supports an operating phase, not completion of the second facility or the separate Fort Worth development. This supports only the qualified stage described by the source, not an opening date, every hall being operational, full energized capacity, independently verified certification, legal ownership or parcel accuracy.
Source checked: October 16, 2026 Equinix DA9 (Irving) Current operator-listed DA9 colocation service context. The named facility page and published specifications support an operating service component; individual expansions, live availability and complete campus buildout are not independently inspected.
Questions about these records How many records are listed for Irving, Texas? In the October 24, 2026 compilation, 3 research records are linked to Irving, Texas. This count is not a count of distinct operating buildings. Records and source links .
How many records have an unclear status? In the October 24, 2026 compilation, 0 of 3 records retain an unclear status. Each record links to the evidence for its own stage. Records and source links .
How many records have a reviewed map reference? In the October 24, 2026 compilation, 2 records have a reviewed map reference, 1 show only a county area and 0 have no map point. Street references and approximate areas do not certify a roof or parcel. Records and source links .
