If You Cannot Explain the Water, You Cannot Build the Data Center

Water has become the defining issue in the data center debate. Not because it is misunderstood, but because it is experienced locally, immediately and, in many cases, under stress.

Communities do not need to be convinced that data centers use water. They want to know how much, from where, and at what cost to everything else that depends on it.

The industry has not answered those questions clearly enough.

From Arizona to Virginia, water has emerged as one of the most common sources of community concern, regulatory scrutiny and project opposition. 

Part of the problem is that water use is often discussed in aggregate: national estimates, annual consumption figures, or generalized comparisons. These numbers can be accurate, but they do not reflect how water is actually experienced at the local level. Water is not a national resource. It is a local constraint.

A facility in a water-abundant region with access to recycled supply operates under a very different reality than one in a drought-prone area drawing from municipal or groundwater sources. Treating these projects as equivalent obscures the real issue.

Cooling architecture matters just as much as geography.

Air-cooled systems rely primarily on electricity and minimize direct water use. Evaporative cooling systems can consume significant volumes of water, especially during peak conditions. Closed-loop systems can reduce freshwater demand but still require careful sourcing and management.

These are not technical details. They are the difference between a project that fits within a local water system and one that strains it. Right now, that distinction is rarely made clear in public discussions.

Instead, the debate collapses into extremes. Either water use is minimized in broad terms, or it is amplified using worst-case examples. Neither approach builds trust.

The path forward is not to minimize consumption. It is to quantify it, specify it, and locate it within the context of the local system. That begins with a simple standard.

If a project cannot clearly disclose its water source, expected consumption, and mitigation strategy in terms a community can understand, it should not be approved.

Not summarized. Not generalized. Disclosed in a way that a community can understand without interpretation. This is a higher bar than what the industry currently meets.

In many cases, water sourcing details are treated as proprietary or buried within technical filings that are difficult for non-specialists to interpret. In others, consumption estimates are presented without context about seasonal variability or long-term impact on local supply.

That lack of clarity creates a vacuum. And, in that vacuum, opposition forms.

Communities assume worst-case scenarios when they cannot see actual data. They fill in gaps with examples from other regions, often the most extreme ones. Once that perception takes hold, it becomes difficult to reverse.

Transparency is not a public relations strategy in this context. It is a prerequisite for approval.

It also forces better project design. A developer that must clearly articulate water sourcing and consumption upfront is more likely to evaluate alternative cooling systems, explore recycled water options, and consider site selection more carefully. Disclosure is not just about communication. It is about discipline.

The same is true for replenishment claims.

Commitments to become water positive or to offset usage through restoration projects can play a role, but they do not replace the need to manage direct consumption at the site level. A project that stresses a local aquifer cannot justify that impact solely through off-site mitigation.

Communities understand this intuitively. They are not asking for perfection. They are asking for clarity and alignment with local conditions.

Right now, there is no consistent framework for presenting water impact at the project level. Assumptions vary, metrics differ, and key details are often incomplete or difficult to access.

That inconsistency fuels skepticism. It also creates risk for developers and capital providers.

Projects that cannot clearly explain their water profile are more likely to face delays, legal challenges, and political resistance. In a market where timing is critical, that uncertainty has real consequences.

The industry has the ability to address this. It has already optimized energy use, cooling efficiency and operational performance at scale. Applying the same rigor to water disclosure is not a technical challenge. It is a governance decision.

The next phase of data center development will require that shift.

The industry does not need new talking points. It needs a consistent way to present water use that communities can understand and evaluate. This is not about arguing that data centers use less water than critics claim. It is about making their water use visible, comparable, and accountable.

Because in this debate, the projects that move forward will not be the ones that promise the least.

They will be the ones that explain the most.

And if you cannot explain the water, you cannot build the data center.

Suhail Y. Tayeb is clinical assistant professor at New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate and director of the Center for Sustainable Built Environment.