This Tribune pick-up from Tribune News Service, written by Bryce Gray of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, asks a fair enough question: do data centers really use that much water? Then it answers it in the most national-media way possible, with broad examples, fuzzy caveats, expert quotes, and just enough alarm to keep people reading without getting specific enough to actually settle much of anything. The article walks through five issues, including how data centers are cooled, where their water comes from, how peak demand matters, whether utility bills rise, and why residents often feel like they are being asked to trust giant corporations with suspiciously little detail.
To its credit, the piece does surface some real concerns. It notes that medium-sized facilities may use around 1 million gallons on peak days, while larger ones can need far more. It points out that rural communities are especially sensitive because many rely on wells, smaller utility systems, and finite local supplies. It also highlights the transparency problem, with experts and residents complaining that proposals are often vague enough to make real scrutiny almost impossible. In other words, the article is not wrong. It is just generic.
And that is the problem. “Data centers use water” is not a useful conclusion by itself. Of course they do. So do homes, farms, factories, schools, hospitals, and breweries. The real question is not whether data centers can coexist with a community. It is whether local government is smart enough to put proper guard rails in place before the cement dries. That is the question this article brushes up against without really drilling into.
The Bullet Point Brief
- The article says data centers can use serious amounts of water, especially on peak days, with experts citing anything from about 1 million gallons for medium-sized facilities to 8 million gallons for larger ones. That tends to get people’s attention, especially if they would also like to keep drinking water in the pipes.
- Cooling method matters. Some facilities rely mostly on air, some use evaporative cooling, and some run closed-loop systems with water and chemicals. Which means “data center” is not one thing, no matter how badly national coverage wants it to fit on a bumper sticker.
- Peak demand may matter more than annual averages. The article notes that the hardest stress on a water system often comes during the hottest parts of the hottest days, which is a wonderful time to discover your planning assumptions were written in crayon.
- Rural areas have more reason to be cautious. The story says concerns are especially heightened where residents rely on wells and where local water systems are small enough to be dwarfed by a single industrial user. That is not anti-growth. That is basic math.
- The biggest theme in the piece is vagueness. Experts quoted in the article complain that proposed projects often lack the basic information needed to evaluate real water impacts. Nothing says “trust us” quite like asking the public to approve a giant facility without telling them what it will actually take out, where, and how fast.
My Bottom Line
This is exactly why I was the lone no vote when Weld County wrote data centers into our code. Not because I oppose data centers. I do not. I think they are critical infrastructure for the new economy in much the same way roads, water, sewer, and electric are critical infrastructure for the economy we already have. If Colorado wants to compete, we are going to need data centers. That part is not controversial to me.
What is controversial is pretending that because something is economically important, it therefore deserves a vague permission slip and a handshake. No thanks. I wanted tighter guard rails around water usage, because I do not think the farmer down the road should wind up competing with Meta or Microsoft for water. That is not some fringe concern. That is exactly the kind of question local government is supposed to ask before it starts congratulating itself for being future-ready.
And this is where the article, bland as it is, still stumbles into something real. The experts it quotes keep saying the same thing in different words: we often do not have enough detail. That should make every county commissioner, mayor, water district board member, and planning commissioner sit up a little straighter. If the numbers are vague, the promises are broad, and the real peak demand is still fuzzy, then the answer is not to shrug and hope innovation saves us. The answer is to write better code, demand better disclosures, and set firmer conditions on size, siting, and water use.
I still believe we can coexist with data centers. I really do. But coexistence does not happen by accident. It happens because local officials are intentional, serious, and willing to say no until the terms are right. Weld County needs to revisit this issue, especially around the size of proposed centers and the zones where they are allowed. We can welcome this infrastructure without selling out the people who were here first. That is the balance. That is the job. And I intend to keep working on it.
Source: The Greeley Tribune
Share your thoughts...