Developer presents data‑center water study; residents warn of contamination risk

Russ Meads, presenting for the project developer, told the Nye County Water District Governing Board that engineering by WSP showed the proposed 920‑acre data‑center campus would use far less potable water than the previously approved residential master plan. Meads summarized the engineering totals and said potable water demand for full buildout was roughly 70.41 acre‑feet annually by engineering standards and that closed‑loop, air‑cooled chillers would minimize daily evaporative cooling losses.

"So the total potable annual water use is 70.41 acre feet for the entire 920 acres," Meads said in his summary of engineering outputs, adding the systems would require a one‑time fill of about 141,032 gallons to charge closed‑loop cooling systems that are intended to remain sealed for years. He also described a proposed management plan for contaminated water (e.g., spent chiller fluid or sprinkler discharge): capture into NDEP‑approved containers and transport to the US Ecology hazardous‑waste facility near Beatty.

The presentation prompted extensive questioning from board members about whether the project’s claimed "savings" would be real — i.e., retired from active use — or simply remain as transferable ledger rights inside utility service areas. Board member Michael Locke asked whether the developer would retire water rights to ensure actual reductions in local consumptive use rather than merely reassigning previously dedicated municipal rights.

"If you're saving 1,500 acre feet, are they retiring the 1,500 acre feet so that's an actual savings?" Locke asked. Meads responded that the developer had discussed retiring rights in good faith and was willing to work with the board on a specific retirement plan and permit numbers before any entitlement.

Public comment was heavily skeptical. Ruth Matthew, a longtime local water advocate, warned the board that Basin 162 is a closed, nonrenewable aquifer and characterized industrial consumptive use as "water mining." She said the basin’s recharge and historic allocations already show over‑commitment and urged the board to hold the line. John O'Brien and multiple other residents raised location and alluvial‑fan concerns, arguing placement on the fan raises contamination and recharge‑disturbance risks.

The board did not vote on any entitlement at the meeting; the presentation and public input were recorded for further review and for staff and consultants to develop specific, enforceable protections if and when a formal application advances.