There's a lot of ways a datacenter in your backyard might be less desirable than a corn-field.
Most data center cooling works by evaporation. Hot air or hot water from the servers passes through cooling towers, and water is deliberately evaporated into the atmosphere to carry heat away. That water vapor rises, disperses, and eventually falls as precipitation, but not locally, and not on any useful timescale for the watershed it was drawn from. So the water still exists, but it's been removed from the local hydrological system
Then, there's the ecological angle. Even when companies claim green credentials, locals often scrutinize the actual power mix feeding the facility. If the regional grid is coal or gas-heavy, a data center's carbon footprint can be substantial. There are also concerns about diesel backup generators, potential groundwater contamination, and heat discharge.
Then there's an increased power bills for locals situation, although this one is not as clear and is often disputed. The argument typically goes something like this: utilities operate on cost-recovery models. If a massive new load comes onto the grid and requires infrastructure upgrades like new substations, transmission lines, grid hardening. Those capital costs get socialized across all ratepayers. The data center pays for its energy consumption, but not necessarily for the full cost of the infrastructure built to serve it. That gap gets spread to everyone else's bills.