Finnish police investigate ditching and water management at Google's Muhos data centre site
Oulu police opened a criminal investigation on 29 October into preparatory works by Google's Finnish subsidiary Tuike Finland Oy. The offence label is environmental despoliation, and the police point to ditching and water management among other matters.
Google's Finnish subsidiary Tuike Finland Oy faces two separate proceedings over preparatory works at Muhos. The permitting authority, Lupa- ja valvontavirasto (LVV, the Finnish Permit and Supervision Agency), has suspended the work. It is waiting for environmental impact assessments. Oulu police opened a criminal investigation on 29 October that names ditching and water management among the matters under scrutiny.
The Oulu Police Department says preliminary information points to uncertainties and deficiencies in ditching and water management. It adds that the investigation will clarify, among other things, such matters. The relayed text does not mention felling.
The site is the Muhos data centre project in Northern Ostrobothnia, owned by Tuike Finland Oy, Google's Finnish subsidiary.
The suspected offence and the two proceedings
Police are investigating suspected ympäristön turmeleminen (environmental despoliation). Police say it also covers any lesser offences that emerge, and the suspected offence labels may change as the investigation proceeds. Five requests for investigation are handled as one case.
LVV filed its request on 22 October, before police opened the criminal investigation. A request from a private individual had earlier led Oulu police to a preliminary inquiry, Iltalehti reported. Police expect a long investigation, aim to finish it during 2027 and plan to say more in December 2026.
LVV told Tuike Finland to suspend preparatory works at Muhos and at Kajaani, Otanmäki until environmental impact assessment procedures are complete. That order is the administrative track, and the police case runs beside it.
The ditching notice check
The reported ditching dates allow a timing calculation that neither police nor LVV has published. LVV's figures, as reported by STT on 22 October, say a ditching notification should be filed at least 60 days before works. Tuike Finland filed on 18 September 2026. About 9 km of new ditches were planned, and most were already dug.
On CTOL's calculation from those figures, 18 September to 22 October is 34 days. Suppose the stated 60 day requirement applied to this ditching. Then work already dug by 22 October began with at most 34 days' lead time, at least 26 days below the requirement.
The 60 days would have run to 17 November. The 34 days is a ceiling on lead time for work already dug, not a recorded start date. The calculation is not a finding of breach by LVV or the police, and an applicable exemption could make the requirement inapplicable.
LVV figures reported by STT give a 60 day minimum notice before ditching. Tuike Finland filed on 18 September 2026, and most of about 9 km of new ditches was already dug by 22 October, so works that had begun started at most 34 days after notification, a shortfall of at least 26 days.
View data
| Measure | Calendar days |
|---|---|
| Required notice before works | 60 |
| Maximum days from notification to 22 October | 34 |
| Minimum shortfall | 26 |
What Google and the municipality say
Google has cited forest use notifications under the Forest Act and section 109 of the Building Act to justify the felling and preparatory work, STT relays. LVV holds that ditching needs a Water Act permit. Those forest and building grounds are separate from LVV's contention that the ditching needs a Water Act permit.
Muhos municipality told LVV it had granted no building permits or other permits for the project. It distanced itself from the felling, MTV Uutiset reported on 29 September. A municipal permit and a forest use notification are different routes, so that statement does not by itself contradict what Google says it relied on.
What LVV says about water and nature
LVV's reasoning on the ditching is specific. It says the methods cannot be shown with sufficient certainty to prevent and manage the effects on water. The area lies in the influence area of a black schist deposit, a sulphide soil where ditching and excavation can raise acidity and metal content.
LVV adds that Tuike Finland's own monitoring results already show changes pointing to acidification. It says liming and lime filter dams alone are not enough. Those statements describe signals and a control LVV considers inadequate. They are not a measured level of contamination.
The site also faces concerns about nature protection. LVV asked for a report on the status of a moor frog breeding and resting place in the Muhos felling area. The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation asked LVV for administrative coercion. Its chair said four of the nature sites meant to be spared under the plan have already been flattened.
The figures for the two sites are separate. Google confirmed to Yle that it cleared 330 hectares at Muhos and just under 200 hectares at Kajaani, Otanmäki. The approximately 9 km of planned ditches relates only to Muhos. These figures do not establish the extent of environmental damage or the amount of ditching completed.
Deadlines and open questions
LVV has already suspended preparatory works at both Muhos and Kajaani pending completion of the environmental impact assessments. The suspension directly restricts preparatory works at two data centre project sites.
LVV also wants further clarifications on maintenance, securing and environmental protection by 5 November 2026, plus a more detailed water management plan. That is a deadline for clarification and response, not a permit decision.
The timetable has one stated administrative deadline, LVV's 5 November submission date. It also has two police targets: a planned update in December 2026 and intended completion of the investigation during 2027, followed by a prosecutor's decision.
The immediate constraint is LVV's suspension of preparatory works pending environmental impact assessments. LVV has stated that the ditching requires a Water Act permit, and the outcome and timing of that permitting question are open. The apparent shortfall against the stated notice interval is the other open question, and the criminal investigation runs alongside both.
The evidence supports three separate conclusions. LVV has identified water management concerns tied to the site's black schist geology and monitoring results. It maintains that ditching requires a Water Act permit. The reported dates support a conditional minimum notification shortfall of 26 days. None establishes criminal liability, a quantified environmental loss or a financial cost.
What to watch
The primary indicators are the status of LVV's suspension pending the environmental impact assessments and the resolution of its Water Act permit position.
Separately, a documented date of ditching before 22 October would raise the minimum shortfall beyond 26 days. A later documented excavation, even inside the 60 day notice period, would not improve that bound or show when excavation first began.
The timing calculation would not establish criminal guilt, environmental damage or cost.