‘David against an army of Goliaths’: The fight over a proposed data center in Sand Springs

Frontier Executive Editor Dylan Goforth spoke with Michael Patton, executive director of Land Legacy, a nonprofit that works to conserve natural areas across Oklahoma. Land Legacy is at the center of a legal fight over a proposed Google data center in Sand Springs. The organization holds a conservation easement from a family that previously owned ranch land that is part of the site that it believes restricts industrial development.

For the full interview, listen to our podcast.

Dylan Goforth: Before anyone was talking about Google or a data center, what exactly did the family — and tell us a little bit about the family there who signed that conservation easement — but what did they agree to when they signed it with Land Legacy, and what did Land Legacy receive in return?

Michael Patton: What Land Legacy does is conservation easements, and that puts restrictions on land forever and ever. And people can do it a variety of ways. They can donate them to us. They can sell them to us if we have a buyer for those. But it protects land forever. It’s a green space that, forever and ever, Land Legacy will put those restrictions and fight them in court.

So in 2013, the Ringel family decided on their family ranch they would put these restrictions, and it’s a unique easement. And they put a circle around the entire property. All the stuff near the highway was the easement, plus a big spot in the middle. So 270 acres of their 835 acres were restricted, and they all signed an agreement. Everybody in the family signed it and notarized it that they would follow these restrictions.

And the restrictions are fairly simple: no industrial park, no access, no roads, no buildings. We do that all the time. We have 18 of these in Osage County, Oklahoma, alone, and we have 130 of these around the state, around 30,000 acres.

A family would do this for the tax benefits. So, in 2013, the Ringel family made a non-cash donation to Land Legacy, $3.822 million, that they were able to use as a tax write-off, as a deduction off their income. So that was 13 years ago. Now suddenly they just feel they can break the rules.

So without our knowledge, they went to the city of Sand Springs and got it annexed. I heard about it after, when they started to get rezoned, and it’s restricted. So we have filed a lawsuit against the Ringel family, who have now sold those rights to Google. So now we’ve amended our lawsuit to add two developers and the Google people.

So we have restrictions on the land. We are going to win in court. Every lawyer tells me they can’t do this project, and they just thought they would lie about it.

Goforth: We’re talking about a lot of land and a lot of development. What I was wondering, like you said, the easement protects roughly, I think you said 270 acres, is that right? But it doesn’t prevent development elsewhere on the property.

Patton: No, it does not.

Goforth: So how do those things interact? You know what I mean? Is the development touching these 270 acres?

Patton: Yes. In fact, the Ringel family has tried to change the easement boundaries to make the Google plant fit, but no, we have an entire circle around it. It’s a ring around the property that you can’t cross. No roads can cross that. So even if they could build something in the middle, they couldn’t get to it because there’s an easement prohibiting a road.

And the main part of it is there’s a big swath of it that’s two beautiful Osage hills and a ravine between them that they plan to blow up and flatten to make the Google plant fit. So they took that part of the easement on their own and said, “Oh, we’re just going to move this and put some other land way over here and give that to Land Legacy.”

So they don’t have the right to change legal boundaries. You don’t have the right to change your neighbor’s fence on your own and file these things. So I think that will also be thrown out.

So they’ve been telling people and telling Google, “Oh, we can fit it now because we changed the easement,” and they can’t unilaterally change the easement.

And this will be dramatic changes to Osage County. They’re going to have to flatten — dynamite — these two hills, and fill the ravine. And this is the start of Turkey Creek. I just can’t imagine the amount of environmental damage that’s going to happen from this. There’s much higher conservation value in protecting those hills and that ravine than there is just some pastureland over on the side that they want to swap out.

Goforth: Now I know that you appeared before the Sand Springs Planning Commission earlier this year, and correct me if I’m wrong, but you told them there that Land Legacy had rights involving this property. Can you tell us a little bit about that meeting and what you told the Planning Commission? Maybe what they said in return, and sort of where all that stands now.

Patton: Yeah, I literally was not notified by state law. The annexation is still being fought by a separate group, but they have to annex.

We are a property rights — this is not an anti-data center argument. It’s a property rights issue, and property rights are part of the bundle of rights you have when you own property. You may own mineral rights or water rights, and development rights can be donated to a nonprofit.

The mineral rights are owned by the Osage Nation. They own all the mineral rights in the county, so it’s a whole separate issue from us.

But yeah, I literally did not know about this. They’d already annexed it. Suddenly had rezoning, and no one notified us. And then at the Sand Springs Christmas Parade, someone said, “Oh, this is Michael’s Land Legacy stuff.” So I heard about it quickly … They’d already filed the papers for rezoning.

I went to the Planning Commission and said, “You can’t do this. I have an easement. Please step back from this.” And they ignored me.

Then I said, “You have this easement, and you should have found it.” Their attorney, the developer’s attorney, which is a very famous Tulsa attorney, Lou Reynolds, admitted in writing, “Whoops! I never did a title search.”

This easement was so easy to find. Any person who looked at anything would have found this. The developer never looked for a title search, and then so did the city of Sand Springs. They also failed to look for this, so they went ahead and did all these things they can’t legally do without notifying us.

And so I said that at the planning meeting, and then I said that for the City Council meeting afterward for rezoning. I handed them a piece of paper, date-stamped, that said, “This is the easement. This is not legal to do this. You can’t.”

And they simply asked the developer’s attorney, who said, “Oh, it’s no big deal,” and slowly passed it. It was really flying in my face just to say, “Wow! Even though I’ve shown you the evidence, you ignore us.”

And I think that’s one of the issues on this, is that people think this is no big deal, yet the courts, I believe, will say otherwise.

The Frontier Watchdogs

Never miss an investigation that changes Oklahoma.

Independent investigative journalism delivered free to your inbox.

Email address

Always free. Never a paywall.

Leave this field empty if you're human:

Goforth: Right. Let’s talk about the court a little bit because there was a recent-ish ruling, I guess, from Judge Burl Estes about some of the central claims against the Ringels and against this development. Can you tell us what that ruling actually was, and maybe what still has to be proven before Land Legacy could prevent the development of this property?

Patton: So it took four months for the judge to decide, but he came out on Sept. 2 with a ruling denying the motion to dismiss. It was a declaratory judgment. He said it’s inappropriately resolved through this process. There are significant issues here that render dismissal inappropriate.

Fairly strong language to say to the Ringels: No, this will go forward to court. That’s quite a victory for us. I was concerned. Even though everyone tells me I have a great case on this, you don’t know in the court’s case, and then there is some ambiguity once you try to falsify documents, and I just didn’t know.

So I was very pleased the judge said there’s plenty more to go here and go forward. So it was pretty much a rebuke, and a motion to dismiss was denied by Judge Justice.