Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State officials urge better tracking of data centers’ water demand as facilities expand
Summary
Researchers and State Water Board staff told the Water Quality Coordinating Committee that hyperscale data centers are rapidly expanding into new areas, can use hundreds of thousands to millions of gallons per day, concentrate consumption in hot months, and that better reporting and local planning are needed to avoid strain on water systems.
At a June 13 Water Quality Coordinating Committee meeting, researchers and State Water Board staff warned that the rapid expansion of large "hyperscale" data centers could create significant local water and wastewater impacts unless reporting and planning improve. Heather Kulie, director of research at the Pacific Institute, said data centers are shifting to much larger facilities that “can withdraw hundreds of thousands to millions of gallons per day” and that roughly 75% of withdrawn water is consumed on site for cooling.
"Most of the water is consumed," Kulie said, and peak daily demand can be three to ten times higher than annual averages on hot days — a pattern that can strain local systems. James Knockbower, director of the board’s Office of Research, Planning and Performance, noted that utilities should insist on a formal "will‑serve" evaluation and source‑capacity analysis before connecting large industrial customers. "A water system has to determine whether it can meet the needs of a new customer or whether upgrades or additional sources are required," Knockbower said.
Candace Cotton, the board’s director of legislative affairs, briefed the committee on pending bills. She said AB1619 (Papen) would require operators to report projected and annual water demands and identify water sources; AB577 (Bower Cahan) emphasizes energy reporting and had recent amendments removing some water reporting language; and AB2416 (Papen) would add local requirements tying permits for large consumptive users to water scarcity plans.
Panelists and attendees urged that reporting be standardized and aggregated at the state level, or at least routed through urban water suppliers and the California Energy Commission so state agencies can understand cumulative impacts. Several participants said recycled water and co‑location near recycled‑water facilities can reduce potable demand, but that water quality and treatment costs can limit that option.
The panel also cautioned that data on existing facilities is incomplete. Kulie said available national and state databases produce varying counts of California data centers, especially smaller on‑site operations. "We need more and better data to anticipate local and regional impacts," she said.
What happens next: Panelists recommended improved water‑use reporting tied to energy filings, stronger coordination between local water suppliers and land‑use authorities, and more robust monitoring of wastewater discharges from cooling systems. Several committee members signaled support for following bills that would require reporting and for tools that let suppliers factor projected data‑center demand into urban water management planning.
