POLITICS

Visakhapatnam’s Hills Face New Threat: Google‑Linked AI Data Centre Sparks Environmental Scrutiny

A sprawling Google‑affiliated AI data centre on 600 acres in Visakhapatnam has reignited a decade‑old battle over hill cutting and ecological safeguards. Activists allege procedural shortcuts, while officials claim compliance, raising questions about the state’s environmental standards.

By Open Vaartha Desk · 2026-08-04

TL;DR

Activists allege a Google‑linked AI data centre in Visakhapatnam bypassed environmental clearances, reviving a decade‑old hill‑cutting controversy.

Key points

The AI data centre spans over 600 acres across three sites, with Adavivaram‑Mudasarlova facing the strongest opposition
Activists claim hill‑cutting, tree removal and road building began before clearances were granted
Project’s SPV structure is alleged to have lowered its environmental classification, avoiding a full EIA
Water‑use estimates for the hyperscale facility are questioned for potential strain on the Mudasarlova Reservoir
The dispute mirrors global push‑back against data‑centre projects over environmental impacts

Visakhapatnam’s coastline and hill ranges have long been a flashpoint for environmental debate in Andhra Pradesh. Ten years ago, the state’s rush to develop the Rushikonda beachfront sparked sustained opposition from the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), Jana Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The parties, then in opposition, argued that no hill should be cut and that Vizag’s ecology could not be traded for development – a stance that resonated widely with the public.Today, the same political alliance governs the state, and a new, far larger project has entered the arena: a Google‑linked artificial‑intelligence (AI) data centre ecosystem spread across more than 600 acres. The state government has earmarked three parcels of land – Tarluvada, Adavivaram‑Mudasarlova and Rambilli – for the venture. Of these, the Adavivaram‑Mudasarlova site has drawn the sharpest criticism because it lies adjacent to the Simhachalam hill range, the catchment of the Mudasarlova Reservoir, and the eco‑sensitive zone that borders the Kambalakonda Wildlife Sanctuary.Allegations from activists The Human Rights Forum (HRF), former Union secretary E.A.S. Sarma and other local activists have lodged a set of specific allegations:<ol><li>Hill‑cutting and land‑levelling work began before all statutory environmental clearances were secured.</li><li>Trees were cleared during the preliminary site‑preparation phase.</li><li>Temporary access roads were constructed ahead of final approvals.</li><li>The project is structured across multiple Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), a configuration they argue was chosen to qualify for a less stringent environmental classification, thereby sidestepping a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a public hearing.</li></ol>These points remain allegations; the state government and the project’s developers have denied the characterisations, insisting that the venture complies with all applicable clearance procedures. No independent inquiry or judicial review has yet tested either side’s claims, and this report does not adjudicate the dispute.Water and power concerns Hyperscale AI data centres differ from conventional construction in two key respects: their massive electricity demand and, depending on the cooling technology employed, their water consumption. HRF has questioned whether the water‑use figures declared for the Visakhapatnam project accurately reflect the needs of a facility of this scale. They warn that excessive water draw could strain the Mudasarlova Reservoir catchment, a critical source for the city’s water supply.Geography and climate risk Visakhapatnam is one of India’s most cyclone‑exposed coastal cities, having endured severe storms such as Cyclone Hudhud. Its hills, forest patches and natural drainage channels help manage storm‑water runoff and curb erosion. While no credible evidence links a data centre directly to cyclone risk, experts caution that large‑scale alteration of hills and drainage in a storm‑prone zone warrants the thorough review an EIA is designed to provide – a process activists say was bypassed.A broader pattern The clash between AI infrastructure expansion and local environmental review is not unique to Andhra Pradesh. Communities in the United States, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany have pushed back on data‑centre projects over electricity load, water use and pressure on local infrastructure versus the long‑term jobs created. In those jurisdictions, Google’s data‑centre projects typically undergo extended public consultation and environmental review, a contrast critics highlight when comparing to the approvals granted for the Visakhapatnam site.Political contrast The core tension is political rather than technical. During the Rushikonda dispute, the parties now in power championed the message that Vizag’s hills should not be sacrificed for development, a narrative that garnered broad public support. In the current debate over the Adavivaram‑Mudasarlova site, environmental groups say they have not received the same level of governmental receptivity. Government officials, based on publicly available statements reviewed for this report, have not directly addressed this perceived shift.What is not in dispute Andhra Pradesh has a clear economic interest in attracting AI‑infrastructure investment, and the state has been actively courting such projects. This report does not argue against the data centre, Google, or industrial development in Visakhapatnam. The substantive question raised by activists and independent observers is procedural: are environmental clearance standards being applied uniformly, regardless of the investor’s scale or the ruling party?Open questions awaiting independent verification<ul><li>Did site work at Adavivaram‑Mudasarlova commence before the legally required clearances were obtained?</li><li>Was the SPV structuring deliberately designed to lower the project’s environmental classification?</li><li>Are the declared water‑use figures consistent with the operational requirements of a hyperscale AI facility?</li><li>What environmental safeguards, if any, are attached to the current approvals, and how will they be enforced?</li></ul>To date, none of these questions has been resolved through an independent audit, court proceeding, or government‑commissioned review. Consequently, the claims of environmental groups remain allegations, and the assurances of project proponents remain rebuttals – not definitive findings.Sources The analysis draws on public statements from the Human Rights Forum, former Union secretary E.A.S. Sarma, local activist groups, and the pattern of allegations they have raised. It also references historical opposition to the Rushikonda project and comparative international cases involving Google’s data‑centre roll‑outs. The report will be updated should the state government, Google, or the project SPVs issue formal responses.