Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Water Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews new data‑center water‑use notice and reporting duties from 2026 law
Summary
Staff presented the board with the form and implementation approach for a new 2026 law requiring large data centers (≥10 MW) to notify local water providers and submit semiannual use reports; the board discussed how local determinations about supply compatibility will feed into the board’s public statement and allocation limits.
Board staff briefed members on recently adopted state legislation (introduced as SB135) that adds a notification and reporting requirement for large data centers. The statute requires any data center with a peak demand of 10 megawatts or greater to notify local water providers of projected water consumption; each notified provider must determine whether the projected consumption is compatible with local supply and issue a written determination. Those determinations are provided to the board; if all applicable providers concur that the projected consumption is compatible, the board must issue a public statement that the operator satisfied the statutory requirements.
Staff circulated a draft two‑page form intended to collect facility contact information, projected consumptive use and whether the operator intends to be self‑supplied or connect to a public water system. The statute authorizes the board to set limits to ensure allocations preserve water for residential and essential public services, and requires semiannual reporting by the data center to the board (average usage data and certification of compliance). Staff emphasized the board’s role is not to preempt the board’s water-right permitting authority: a data center that self-supplies must still secure necessary water rights and demonstrate availability under the board’s existing processes.
Board members raised practical questions about how local providers will evaluate compatibility, whether a single local provider could effectively block a project by declining to concur, and how the board would set allocation limits. Staff said the board’s follow-up order or statement could include limitations and qualifications and noted that the statute envisions the board seeking to prevent disproportionate use by data centers. Members discussed learning from other jurisdictions and the need to refine forms and internal guidance before posting the process publicly.
Why it matters: The law creates a new procedural step for large water‑demand users and gives local providers and the state board a formal role in assessing and documenting compatibility with local water supplies; it establishes a public reporting requirement and an avenue for the board to set allocation limits to protect essential services.
Next step: Staff will finalize the draft form and recommended procedures for implementing the statute and return to the board with proposed guidance and potential administrative steps to operationalize reporting and compatibility determinations.
