I've been out of direct involvement in the space for a while, but my understanding that Arizona nad parts of Nevada were probably the safest locations with respect to natural disasters that could affect data centers.
Absent heatwaves and water shortages, generally, yes.
Pros: Cheap land, generally predictable weather, few severe storms, little seismic activity, reasonably close to population centres (Phoenix, Tuscon, Las Vegas).
Cons: Little water, wildfire hazard, heat, sand and dust storms.
Inland northern locations (Dakotas, say) might also work. Moderate tornado risk, cooler weather (particularly in winter). Subject to winter storms, but generally more water availability. Technical populations might be difficult to recruit.
Water is definitely an issue--I thought it and didn't write it down. The heat, yes, but also a dry heat :-) so some evaporative cooking; I think Intel has at least one fab plant in Arizona. As I say, no longer really in the space, but areas of the northern Midwest not subject to flooding are possibilities. For datacenters, onsite technical staff is not really an issue as datacenters have very little of that after initial construction.
Evaporator-cooking: good for preparing server / GPU jerky.
Midwest has tornado hazard, and that's both getting worse and spreading well outside traditional high-risk zones. Michigan and Illinois in particular have seen a large increase in recent incidents, though intensity has been lower.
Tornadoes are still relatively low-risk overall given their small footprint. But it's a bad day when one reaches out to touch you.
Flood risk patterns are also changing. Chicago's TARP project aka the Chicago Deep Tunnel, one of the largest, longest-in-construction, and most successful major urban civil engineering projects, recently hit > 96% capacity after one weekend's worth of rains. Begun in the 1970s, full build-out is anticipated in 2032. It's never previously been at more than about half its capacity (55% in June 2019). Draining it will take a month.
Yucca Mountain is quite probably more than adequate to task. But nuclear waste's long-lived nature makes long-term planning problematic. Human institutions such as corporations, not-for-profits, governments, and even language, writing, and culture, are minuscule by comparison.
Consider that the world's worst nuclear accident site has seen four changes in national government (USSR -> Commonwealth of Independent States -> Russian Federation -> Ukraine), and is presently enemy occupied territory in a free-fire active war zone.
Pros: Cheap land, generally predictable weather, few severe storms, little seismic activity, reasonably close to population centres (Phoenix, Tuscon, Las Vegas).
Cons: Little water, wildfire hazard, heat, sand and dust storms.
Inland northern locations (Dakotas, say) might also work. Moderate tornado risk, cooler weather (particularly in winter). Subject to winter storms, but generally more water availability. Technical populations might be difficult to recruit.