Tracking data center water consumption in Virginia & Ohio via public regulatory data.
State, federal, and local action on data center water (and energy) disclosure — bills, signed laws, agency rulemakings, and major zoning ordinances. Enacted laws are the next mandatory data sources to come online.
What this wave of legislation actually asks for, ranked by how many tracked bills carry each idea. ✓ marks an enacted example.
Status. Enacted = signed into law (these become mandatory data sources for this project — e.g. VA HB 496's monthly water-delivery reports). Introduced = filed and somewhere between first reading and a floor vote; most die quietly in committee. Failed / Vetoed = formally dead this session, but failed bills are leading indicators — the same text routinely returns a session later with a new number.
Levels. Federal bills set national floors (EPA/EIA reporting, FERC queue rules); state bills carry most of the real activity (disclosure mandates, rate classes, permit gates); local entries are zoning actions with outsized practical effect in data-center alley (e.g. Loudoun's ZOAM).
Scope. Water and energy tags mark which resource a bill regulates; many cover both because cooling water and grid load are two faces of the same buildout.
Principles. Each bill is tagged with the general ideas it embodies (transparency, cost allocation, NDA prohibition, …) — the summary panel above ranks those ideas across the whole record, and you can filter the cards by principle.
Verification. Entries flagged verified were checked against the legislature's own bill-status page on the last_verified date; unverified entries are secondary-sourced — confirm the bill number before citing.
Bars utilities from passing large-scale data-center electricity and infrastructure costs onto residential/small-business ratepayers and requires 50+ MW users to pay their full cost of service; requires data centers using at least 100,000 gallons/day to use reclaimed water for cooling when environmentally, economically, and technically feasible; requires public discussion of water/utility impacts before approval and preserves local governments' zoning/denial authority; tightens aquifer withdrawal permitting.
Broad bipartisan support (37-0 Senate, 92-16 House) framed around protecting ratepayers from subsidizing Big Tech infrastructure; environmental and open-government advocates flagged during committee that the 'feasible' reclaimed-water standard leaves an implementation gap, since utilities and operators determine feasibility with limited independent review.
Requires data centers built after July 1, 2026 to design cooling systems for non-consumptive water use or to draw from a municipal/water-district system, and requires the Department of Water Resources director to issue findings when evaluating new water appropriations or transfers for data centers. Aimed at preserving groundwater for agriculture in Idaho's high desert.
Broad bipartisan support driven by agricultural water users worried about aquifer depletion; passed both chambers by lopsided margins (58-10 House, 32-1 Senate) with little organized industry opposition since municipal-supplied data centers remain permitted.
Pauses acceptance and processing of new zoning permits and site development plans for data centers in the City and County of Denver for one year while the city drafts rules on water consumption, energy use, noise, and siting — adopted amid Denver Water's call for a 20% drought reduction and a proposed CoreSite facility estimated at ~235,000 gallons/day.
Neighborhood groups and water-conservation advocates strongly supported it, galvanized by the CoreSite facility's projected 86 million gallons/year during Stage 1 drought; data center developers and some business groups warned it pushes investment to neighboring jurisdictions.
Comprehensive zoning ordinance amendment removing by-right (administrative) approval pathway for data centers in Loudoun County. Now requires Special Exception (SPEX) approval with stringent legislative review and public hearings before Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Phase 2 (expected late 2026) will further tighten compatibility, water, and noise standards.
Driven by grassroots opposition led by Piedmont Environmental Council, Coalition to Protect Prince William County, Loudoun Sierra Club, and residents of Aldie, Bluemont, and rural-western Loudoun. The Data Center Coalition vigorously opposed; the bipartisan Board nonetheless voted unanimously after extensive public comment. State enabling authority is robust under Virginia's general zoning powers; a hard moratorium would require legislative authorization.
Commissions a state study of the environmental, energy, and economic impacts of data center development: the Dept. of the Environment assesses effects on air and water quality and Chesapeake Bay restoration, the Maryland Energy Administration assesses energy demand and infrastructure, and the University of Maryland School of Business covers economic impacts. The report is due to the Governor and General Assembly by Sept. 1, 2026.
Environmental groups (including Nature Forward) and legislative leadership backed the study and supplied the supermajority to override Gov. Wes Moore's veto; Moore (D) had argued it was duplicative and burdensome. The data-center industry was wary of a state impact study that could inform future siting and permitting rules, while advocates framed it as a prerequisite to responsible data-center growth in Maryland.
Water-appropriation permit process and DNR preapplication review for data centers expected to use >100M gal/yr; evaluates water source and conservation.
DFL-aligned environmental groups (Sierra Club North Star Chapter, Clean Water Action, Clean River Partners) opposed the package, arguing tax breaks for hyperscalers outweighed the environmental guardrails and that closed-loop cooling should have been mandated. Sponsor Rep. Greg Davids (R-Preston) and industry framed it as a 'jobs bill' protecting Minnesota's competitive position. Some DFL members like Rep. Acomb supported it as necessary guardrails; Rep. Hollins opposed it as 'tax breaks for billionaires.' Bipartisan deal-making in a divided legislature produced an uneasy compromise that no advocacy coalition celebrated.
One-year pause on DEC discretionary permits for data centers at or above 50 MW. Orders the Department of Public Service to report on data-center impacts including water use and water quality, and directs DEC to assess within 12 months whether the state's water-withdrawal program needs new rules for very large users.
Advocates who pushed S10642 read the 50 MW threshold and one-year clock as a dilution of the bill they passed; industry treats the executive route as the more workable outcome because it expires without further action.
Creates a new utility customer classification for data centers, cryptocurrency operations, and other large industrial energy users (>20 MW). Requires them to pay their full share of electricity costs and transmission upgrades and to sign 10-year minimum-commitment contracts.
Oregon CUB, Oregon Environmental Council, Climate Solutions, and the AFL-CIO building trades championed the bill. Pacific Power, PGE, and the Data Center Coalition initially opposed but negotiated softened language. The Dalles, Hillsboro, and Prineville residents — home to Google and Meta DCs — were active grassroots supporters.
A two-year pause on hyperscale data-center development — the longest in Maryland — adopted with unanswered questions about the facilities' effect on county water among the stated reasons.
Organized resident opposition preceded the vote, with protests at the council as it considered the measure.
An 18-month pause adopted unanimously, extended from the 12 months originally proposed, with the regulatory threshold lowered from 100 MW to 1 MW — by far the lowest trigger of any tracked moratorium.
Arid-region water scarcity and acequia water rights shape the debate here in a way they do not in the eastern moratoria.
Data centers with peak electrical demand of 10 MW or greater must cover the electrical-infrastructure costs they cause (including stranded costs if they leave) and must coordinate with water service providers so their water use stays within locally approved supply; the state may not preempt local ordinances regulating data centers.
Sponsored by South Dakota's top legislative leaders (Senate President Pro Tempore Chris Karr and House Speaker Jon Hansen) and framed as ratepayer/water protection, it passed with wide margins after the Legislature rejected both a data-center moratorium and tax incentives. Tribal advocates (reported by Buffalo's Fire) raised concerns about the law's broader data-center framework, while industry resisted the cost-causation and local-control provisions.
Imposes new planning, interconnection, and cost-recovery rules on large electric loads (≥75 MW) in ERCOT, including data centers. Requires backup-generation disclosure capable of meeting a share of site demand, mandates remote-disconnect capability for emergency load shedding, and forces disclosure of duplicative interconnection requests across utilities.
Backed by Texas grid-reliability advocates, the PUCT, and a bipartisan supermajority citing Winter Storm Uri and AI-load growth. The Data Center Coalition and major hyperscalers lobbied to weaken the curtailment trigger and duplicate-request disclosure. Sierra Club Texas supported but called for parallel water rules. Texas Republican Party passed a 2026 resolution calling for further DC restrictions.
Directs the Army Corps to identify or develop a data-center-specific nationwide permit under CWA §404 and Rivers and Harbors Act §10, establishes NEPA categorical exclusions for data-center infrastructure, provides for programmatic ESA §7 consultation covering multi-year construction windows, and expands FAST-41 coverage to qualifying data centers. Sets the >100 MW 'Data Center Project' and $500M / national-security 'Qualifying Project' thresholds the implementing actions key off.
Sharply split. Industry and permitting-reform advocates treat it as removing a genuine bottleneck; water and conservation groups read the §404 nationwide-permit route as replacing individual wetland review with a checkbox precisely as data-center footprints grow.
The policy blueprint EO 14318 implements. Calls for a data-center-tailored Clean Water Act §404 nationwide permit, new NEPA categorical exclusions, FAST-41 expansion, and streamlining or reduction of Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and CERCLA requirements for AI infrastructure.
Received as the administration's clearest statement that AI-infrastructure buildout outranks incremental environmental review.
Large data centers (redefined as 10,000+ sq ft, down from 50,000) must notify water providers of their projected water demand and report their actual water consumption to the state. A committee substitute made the water data more publicly transparent after criticism that the original version would have shielded individual facilities' use from public records.
Great Salt Lake Waterkeeper (Zach Frankel) hailed the final bill as a transparency victory after public pushback forced sponsor Rep. Jill Koford to substitute a version that makes water-use data more public rather than exempt from disclosure. The data-center industry called the reporting 'burdensome' and warned it could deter investment, but the bill passed and Gov. Cox signed it; weeks later Cox issued an executive order setting higher water standards for new data-center development.
Directs all state agencies to weigh water use (specifically Great Salt Lake impacts), air quality, wildlife, utility ratepayer costs, and public transparency alongside economic growth when reviewing data center projects. Creates formal Data Center Framework for state agency review.
Strong local community support around Great Salt Lake protection. Business community cautiously supportive.
Water utilities must report the monthly volume of water delivered to data centers, including reclaimed water.
Strongly supported by the Virginia Data Center Reform Coalition (Piedmont Environmental Council, Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association), Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and Loudoun/Prince William/Botetourt residents worried about Google and other hyperscale projects. The Data Center Coalition lobbied against the original Guzman bill and successfully softened language during conference. The political center of gravity shifted enough that Gov. Spanberger (D) ultimately signed both, with bipartisan votes in both chambers.
Requires waterworks operators to report monthly water sales categorized as data-center-with-air-permit, domestic, industrial-commercial, or other, each split potable vs non-potable. Individual facility figures remain trade-secret protected; the published data is aggregate.
Transparency advocates call the aggregate-only publication the compromise that keeps the data too coarse to hold any single campus accountable.
The first data center ever granted FAST-41 coverage, putting its federal environmental review on a published, coordinated schedule with the Army Corps as lead agency. Covers two additional buildings at an existing four-building Henrico County campus.
Local attention has focused on the campus's scale in Henrico County rather than on the federal designation itself.
A one-year pause on data-center development in western Maryland, with farm wells and drought conditions among the stated rationales.
Rural and agricultural water users have been the most visible constituency, a different coalition from the suburban ratepayer opposition elsewhere in Maryland.
Authorizes a Dept. of Commerce legislative rule setting the certification process for 'high impact' data centers and microgrid districts (implementing 2025's HB 2014) and keeps key project details confidential. A Senate amendment added only soft language directing that potential water use be 'studied' and water sources given 'mindful protections'; floor amendments to require pre-operation water-impact assessments and to limit groundwater use were rejected.
WV Rivers Coalition, Conservation West Virginia, and legislators including Del. Laura Kimble criticized HB 4983 for stripping local control and rejecting binding water-use transparency and groundwater limits, leaving only a non-binding 'study' directive; advocates noted large data centers can use 3-5 million gallons/day. The Morrisey administration and Dept. of Commerce backed it as implementing the 2025 high-impact-data-center/microgrid program, and it passed both chambers comfortably.
A nine-month pause in unincorporated York County directing staff to examine groundwater, noise, utility rates, energy infrastructure, waste heat and impacts on neighbouring properties, and to recommend whether independent experts should be retained.
Scrutiny intensified around the existing QTS construction, which the moratorium deliberately does not stop — a limit opponents have noted.
Directs the Alabama Public Service Commission to review utility contracts with large-scale data centers (≥150 MW) to ensure they provide for full recovery of incremental service costs and demonstrate 'positive benefits' for ratepayers statewide. Requires PSC findings before contracts take effect.
Sen. Bell (R) leveraged anti-corporate-welfare framing to bring together rural Republicans and Black Caucus Democrats representing Bessemer/Jefferson County. Opposition from Alabama Power and Business Council of Alabama. Environmental groups (Alabama Rivers Alliance, GASP) supported but pushed unsuccessfully for water provisions.
Requires data-center owners to report location, size, PUE, WUE, total water consumption, and on-site fuel use to the California Energy Commission; CEC publishes annual aggregated/anonymized data and adds a data-center electrical-load assessment to the 2029 IEPR.
Sponsor Bauer-Kahan frames AB 1577 as consumer protection ('powering data centers can't come at the cost of powering homes'), echoing The Utility Reform Network and ratepayer advocates. Big Tech and the Data Center Coalition successfully gutted her prior AB 222 and Sen. Padilla's water bill in 2025, and similar opposition is expected. Governor Newsom's 2025 veto of AB 93 (water reporting) is a warning sign even if the legislature passes AB 1577. The 11-4 and 9-4 committee splits suggest party-line dynamics.
Requires data center operators to disclose projected water use, source, and volumes to their water supplier before obtaining a business license; upon renewal, requires reporting of actual annual water consumption. Directs DWR and CEC to develop water efficiency best practices by Jan 1, 2029. Successor to vetoed CA AB 93 (2025).
Environmental groups, water agencies, and local governments supportive. Tech industry opposing mandatory disclosure provisions; similar objections led to Newsom's 2025 AB 93 veto.
Prohibits categorical CEQA exemptions for data center projects; creates expedited judicial review pathway for data centers meeting clean energy and water efficiency standards under the Environmental Leadership Development Project program. Companion to AB 2619.
Environmental coalition strongly supportive. Tech industry opposes CEQA de-exemption; developers argue ELDP pathway offsets the change.
Directs EPA and EIA to collect and publish data on data centers' electricity consumption and air- and water-quality impacts, with EIA reporting every six months.
Endorsed by the National Consumers League and aligned with broader environmental advocacy (Sierra Club, NRDC, GreenLatinos active on companion state bills like Illinois's POWER Act). The Data Center Coalition has publicly characterized prescriptive disclosure mandates as 'impractical' in parallel state fights, signaling industry resistance. Coverage is partisan-skewed — Democrats frame it as ratepayer/environmental protection, while Republican leadership in House Energy and Commerce has shown no movement to advance it.
Directs the Comptroller General to conduct a technology assessment of liquid-cooling systems for AI compute clusters and HPC facilities and to develop federal best-practice guidance for agencies; does NOT impose mandatory rules on private data centers.
Broadly favorable and uncontested. Endorsed by industry coalition including Schneider Electric, Vertiv, American Chemistry Council (Chris Jahn: 'smart, science-based decisions to keep the U.S. at the forefront'), AI Supply Chain Alliance, SEMI Americas, Chemours, and University of Delaware. No environmental or ratepayer group opposition documented; the bill is bipartisan (5 R / 6 D cosponsors) and framed as competitiveness-positive rather than regulatory. No Data Center Coalition or NetChoice opposition reported.
Would require data-center operators to report actual energy and water consumption (plus five-year pre-construction estimates) to their states; states would aggregate/anonymize data for EPA, DOE, and USDA, who would issue joint regional reports and could fine non-compliance.
Coverage aligns the bill with positions taken by Sierra Club Illinois, the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition, and environmental advocates pushing parallel state-level transparency (Illinois POWER Act). The Data Center Coalition has opposed similar prescriptive transparency provisions in state legislation. Unlike the initial framing, S. 4213 drew bipartisan cosponsors, with reporting naming Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Tom Cotton (R-AR).
Imposes a federal moratorium on construction of new AI data centers until safeguards are enacted ensuring the facilities do not increase utility bills, exacerbate climate impacts, deny community veto authority, or undermine labor standards. Also bans export of US AI computing infrastructure to countries without environmental, labor, and safety safeguards.
Endorsed by AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, Sunrise Movement, Public Citizen, and the AI Now Institute. Sharply opposed by the Trump White House, Data Center Coalition, US Chamber of Commerce, and bipartisan critics who consider it an AI race-against-China risk. Symbolic value high; legislative path unlikely in the Republican Senate.
Directs FERC to require grid operators to establish 'data center load queues' allowing utilities to prioritize or delay DC interconnections based on grid reliability and affordability. Encourages every state with at least one DC to establish DC-specific rate classes ensuring DC owners bear the full cost of generation, transmission, and distribution upgrades they trigger.
Supported by AARP, NRDC, Sierra Club, LIUNA, and consumer rate advocates including the Energy and Policy Institute. Skeptical: PJM Interconnection, the Electric Power Supply Association, and the Data Center Coalition. Cosponsorship spans Northeast and Midwest senators whose states bear early DC cost pressure.
Updates federal utility cost-allocation policy under PURPA so that large electricity users like data centers bear the costs of grid infrastructure they require, while incentivizing zero-emission electricity sourcing. Aims to prevent cost-shifting onto residential and small commercial ratepayers.
Supported by NRDC, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and California consumer advocacy groups. The Data Center Coalition and US Chamber of Commerce oppose. Levin's district covers North County San Diego where Microsoft and Apple have facilities; Castor's covers Tampa with significant data-center build-out.
Requires AI data center developers to publicly disclose proposed sites at least 180 days before any definitive development step. Mandates community engagement, multilingual outreach, and disclosure of projected electricity use, water consumption, cooling demands, and environmental impacts. Restricts NDAs and treats violations as unfair or deceptive practices under the FTC Act.
Backed by NAACP, LULAC, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and the National Association of Counties. Industry opposition from Data Center Coalition, NetChoice, and TechNet. McIver represents Newark, NJ where industrial-zone DC proposals are advancing; Foushee covers the North Carolina Triangle region with major Microsoft/Google build-outs.
Requires data centers to pay for their own energy infrastructure and invest in renewable generation, disclose annual water consumption (intake + discharge) to the Illinois DNR beginning Jan. 1, 2027, identify and monitor likely pollutants in discharges to WWTPs, ban NDAs between local governments and DC operators, and mandate transparent community-benefit agreements.
Coalition includes Illinois Environmental Council, Sierra Club Illinois, Alliance for the Great Lakes, Citizens Utility Board, and IBEW Local 134. Strong opposition from Data Center Coalition, Illinois Manufacturers' Association, and the Greater Chicago Cluster of municipalities currently bound by NDAs (Elk Grove Village, Itasca, Mt. Prospect). State Senator Villivalam represents the Lincolnwood data center cluster.
Requires data centers to file quarterly water-use reports with the Iowa DNR (volume, source, and efficiency) and quarterly energy reports with the Iowa Utilities Commission, with the reported information posted publicly online within 30 days; also requires a separate electric tariff so data-center costs are not shifted onto other ratepayers.
Backed by Sierra Club Iowa, consumer advocates, and ratepayer groups who point to a Google Council Bluffs facility's ~1 billion gallons of water in 2024 and warn of cost-shifting onto residential customers; data-center developers and economic-development boosters resist mandatory public disclosure and a separate tariff class as a competitiveness risk.
Requires the Michigan Public Service Commission to publish annual public reports of each data center's water usage (by service area) and electricity consumption (in GWh) beginning in 2027.
Strong grassroots support among Michigan residents worried about farmland loss, fresh water, and energy demand, validated by lopsided public testimony in the April 2026 House Oversight hearing. Senate Democrats (Shink, Bayer, Geiss) lead with bipartisan cosponsorship from Sen. Jon Bumstead (R). Consumers Energy pushed back, asserting data centers won't raise residential bills and could fund infrastructure, while industry has not yet mobilized visible opposition specifically against the transparency-only SB 762.
Bipartisan package that would halt data center development until April 1, 2027, pending development of comprehensive water, energy, and environmental standards.
Bipartisan resident, farmer, and environmental organization support. Data center industry and economic development groups strongly opposing.
SB 1046 would require a permit for water users at or above 550,000 gallons per day, cap consumptive use at 2 MGD, mandate at least three pre-application public hearings, require annual reporting from 2027 and allow permit revocation for reporting failures. SB 1049 would bar non-disclosure agreements where tax incentives were received. SB 1050 would require community benefit agreements covering water.
Michigan's Great Lakes context makes consumptive-use caps unusually salient; the NDA provision responds directly to secrecy complaints around recent siting fights.
Requires data center owners/operators to submit semi-annual water and energy usage reports to the NJ Board of Public Utilities for three years. Reports must cover total kWh, IT-equipment energy, water input (cubic meters), and source. State-incentivized facilities must also report PUE, WUE, and renewable energy factor. BPU publishes facility data within 30 days; performance metrics released only in anonymized aggregated form (n≥5).
Strongly supported by Sierra Club NJ, NJ League of Conservation Voters, Food & Water Watch, and South Jersey residents in Vineland, East Greenwich, and West Deptford fighting proposed DC projects. The Data Center Coalition and NJ Chamber of Commerce opposed, citing trade-secret concerns. Sen. Ruiz is the lead Latina state Senate champion. The Governor's office initially asked for revisions and as of late May 2026 is pushing for stronger construction limits before signing.
Requires data centers ≥5 MW to file pre-construction disclosure reports with the PSC covering location, labor, projected energy/water usage, waste heat, and water pollution. Mandates annual sustainability updates. Sets a renewable-energy schedule: 33% by 2030, 67% by 2035, 100% by 2040. Prohibits utility fossil-fuel PPA incentives and directs PSC to create a DC surcharge funding low- and moderate-income energy assistance in host communities.
Backed by NRDC, NYLCV, NY Renews Coalition, and CLCPA implementation advocates. The Empire AI public research initiative would be exempt, securing university-system support. Major opposition from Data Center Coalition, NYISO market participants, and downstate utilities arguing the renewable mandate is technically unachievable. Sen. Gonzalez is a freshman DSA-aligned senator from Queens with industrial-district constituents.
Imposes a moratorium of at least three years and ninety days on the issuance of permits for new private data centers ≥20 MW. Directs DEC to publish a generic environmental impact statement and PSC to issue orders minimizing rate impacts. Public-sector projects like the state's Empire AI research initiative are exempt.
Endorsed by NY Renews, Public Power NY, Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, and consumer-rate advocates. The Taxpayers Protection Alliance named it 'Bill of Shame' for May 2026, and Data Center Coalition, NYC Partnership, and Greater NY Chamber are organized opponents. The Empire AI exemption is a deliberate carve-out from Sen. Krueger to preserve SUNY research while pausing private buildout.
Imposes a one-year statewide moratorium on permits for hyperscale data centers (peak load over 20 MW), requires environmental impact reporting on water consumption, discharge, and local water-system impacts, mandates separate water and electricity rate classes for large data centers, and pushes measures such as closed-loop cooling to prevent wastewater-infrastructure strain.
Strong support from environmental groups (Earthjustice, Food & Water Watch), labor, and consumer advocates; opposed by tech and business groups warning it will push AI investment to other states. Gov. Hochul's position is uncertain given her economic-development agenda.
The proceeding EO 62 orders: a DPS report on data-center impacts with water use and water quality expressly in scope, running alongside DEC's assessment of whether the water-withdrawal permitting program needs large-user rules.
Watched as the test of whether the moratorium produces enforceable water standards or expires with a report on a shelf.
Mandates that data centers publicly report electricity consumption, peak demand, water consumption, cooling systems, and emissions-free generation. Facilities using over 1 billion liters of water per year or peak demand >40 MW must source at least 25% of power from non-emitting generation. Repeals state sales/use tax exemption for DC construction and server replacement.
Supported by NC Conservation Network, Southern Environmental Law Center, NC Justice Center, and AARP NC (rate concerns). Opposed by NC Chamber, NC TECH Association, and Duke Energy citing the renewable threshold as overly aggressive. The 25% clean-power floor is among the most aggressive renewable mandates in any current Southern-state data center bill.
Makes data centers responsible for the water/sewer infrastructure costs they cause, requires a Division of Water Resources permit to consume water, and caps consumptive use at 5 MGD averaged over 30 days.
Support is concentrated among Ohio Senate Democrats (Blackshear, Weinstein, Smith, plus Minority Leader Antonio calling for bipartisan accountability) and grassroots groups like Save Ohio Parks active in opposing data center wastewater permits. Industry opposition has not yet been publicly voiced on SB 378 specifically, but the Data Center Coalition and major hyperscalers have historically resisted such caps. With Republicans controlling the Senate, the bill's path through the Public Utilities Committee is uncertain.
Enacts ORC 9.484 / 1521.301: requires data centers withdrawing waters of the state to file monthly and annual water-consumption reports with the Division of Water Resources and bars data-center water info from NDAs with political subdivisions.
Sponsored by two Columbus-area House Democrats (Cockley, Lett) framing it as a transparency measure rather than a restriction. The NDA prohibition aligns with watchdog and ratepayer concerns raised by groups like Save Ohio Parks and Central Ohio residents fighting opaque data center deals. No industry opposition has been publicly logged yet, but Data Center Coalition and operators historically resist mandatory granular reporting. As a House minority bill, prospects in the Republican-controlled chamber are uncertain.
Codifies the PUCO-approved AEP Ohio data center tariff statewide. Requires new DC customers ≥25 MW to commit to paying for a minimum of 85% of subscribed electricity usage for up to 12 years, regardless of actual consumption. Bars utilities from recovering DC-driven costs by shifting them to other classes of customers.
Backed by Ohio Consumers' Counsel, AARP Ohio, and the Citizens Utility Board of Ohio. The Ohio Manufacturers' Association supports the cost-allocation principle. Data Center Coalition opposes, calling the 85% minimum 'punitive.' Tristan Rader (D-Lakewood) brings progressive environmental constituency; David Thomas (R-Jefferson) brings rural ratepayer concerns. Connects to the broader Save Ohio Parks petition to ban DCs.
First-of-its-kind NPDES general permit covering data center wastewater and stormwater discharges to waters of the state. Eligible facilities could obtain coverage for non-contact cooling water, cooling tower blowdown, boiler blowdown, air compressor condensate, and industrial stormwater via Notice of Intent (NOI) rather than individual NPDES permits. Sets monitoring parameters: temperature, pH, TSS, oil and grease, phosphorus, residual chlorine/oxidants.
Industry (Data Center Coalition, Ohio Chamber, Columbus Partnership) strongly supports the general permit as streamlining build-out. Environmental opposition (Alliance for the Great Lakes, Sierra Club Ohio, Ohio Environmental Council, Save Ohio Parks) argues general permitting circumvents site-specific cumulative-impact analysis required under the Clean Water Act. Ohio EPA is under pressure from both the Trump White House permit-acceleration order and Save Ohio Parks ballot initiative gathering signatures by July 1, 2026.
Requires data centers planning to use more than 100,000 gallons of water per day over any 30-day period to notify the PA Department of Environmental Protection before commencing construction. Authorizes DEP review of proposed withdrawals against watershed capacity.
Supported by Conservation Voters of PA, PennEnvironment, Susquehanna Riverkeeper, and Delaware Riverkeeper Network. Industrial opposition from the Data Center Coalition and PA Chamber of Business. Local activists in Cumberland County (Middlesex Township) and Lancaster County, where Amazon and other proposals are advancing, formed the regional base for the bill.
Establishes annual energy and water reporting requirements for data centers in PA. Requires PA DEP and PUC to jointly issue annual reports on the cumulative impacts of data center energy and water use across the Commonwealth.
Broad transparency-focused coalition: PennEnvironment, PennFuture, Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, and the PA AFL-CIO supported. PA Chamber of Business and Data Center Coalition opposed citing competitive harm but lost on the floor. Lackawanna County (Mullins' district) has multiple data center proposals advancing.
Would require data centers to use closed-loop water/liquid cooling with zero net withdrawal and zero wastewater discharge, mandate annual third-party-verified certifications, and impose strict liability for environmental damage.
Sponsored by a bipartisan but ideologically heterodox group led by Republican Rep. April Cromer (R-Anderson), with eight co-sponsors. SC Policy Council backs strong reform and has criticized the Senate for diluting it. Municipal utilities (PMPA's Joel Ledbetter) and Westminster city officials publicly dismiss the bill as unworkable, and the Senate has signaled preference for S. 867's softer Tier-based permitting. The bill is widely viewed even by reform allies as a marker rather than a vehicle expected to pass.
Requires data centers to use closed-loop cooling systems resulting in zero net water withdrawal and net zero wastewater discharge; prohibits groundwater extraction or municipal water use for cooling.
Strong environmental advocate support, particularly coastal plain communities. Data center industry strongly opposed as technically infeasible for most existing cooling designs.
A survey directed by the Legislature in the 2025 budget, collecting electricity and water use from data centers and virtual-currency mining facilities. The only water-specific utility-commission action found nationally — the marquee data-center rate dockets elsewhere (PUCO 24-508-EL-ATA, the Georgia PSC large-load tariff, Dominion's SCC proceedings) are energy-only and carry no water provisions.
Cited on both sides of the mandatory-reporting debate: as proof that voluntary disclosure does not work, and by industry as evidence the questions are burdensome.
Conditions eligibility for Cloud Computing Cluster Infrastructure Grant Fund awards on the data center using treated (reclaimed) wastewater rather than potable water in its cooling systems — an incentive-based approach rather than a cooling-technology mandate.
Conservation groups view it as a modest but workable carrot; industry prefers it to mandates like SC H 4583 or KS SB 400 since Amazon and others are already expanding recycled-water cooling. Skeptics note it only binds grant recipients, not all operators.
Would have required data centers to disclose projected water use to their water supplier at business-license application and certify actual annual water use at license renewal.
Backed by environmental and water-resource advocates and Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) as a transparency-first compromise after stricter proposals failed. The Data Center Coalition publicly opposed the bill, and tech industry groups warned the reporting regime would chill California investment relative to Texas, Virginia, and Arizona. Newsom sided with industry; Papan and water-policy advocates expressed frustration that even a modest disclosure framework couldn't survive, signaling broader CA reluctance to constrain AI infrastructure growth.
Would have required operators of new large-load data centers to comply with operational water management requirements and to report annual electricity and water consumption to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (first reports due June 30, 2028). Killed in committee at the sponsor's request.
Environmental and ratepayer groups backed the disclosure mandates; 238 lobbyists for 221 clients registered on the two bills, with data center and utility interests arguing the mandates were too restrictive for 24/7 facilities and would deter investment. Its death triggered local-government backlash and municipal moratoriums.
Would have repealed Connecticut's data-center tax incentives (PA 21-1) and conditioned data centers on meeting the state's clean-electricity standard (100% clean by 2040), paying prevailing wage, and meeting a sustainable-design / green-building standard; framed by the committee around data centers' water and energy use.
AARP Connecticut supported eliminating state data-center tax incentives, and environmental groups (Environment America's CT chapter, river advocates) pushed paired water and energy efficiency standards; the Connecticut Business and Industry Association opposed repeal, arguing large capital projects need years of incentive certainty. Lawmakers ultimately let it lapse as high in-state electricity prices were already cooling developer interest.
Would have barred Georgia local governments, authorities, and political subdivisions from entering NDAs concealing a data center's water or electricity usage.
Bipartisan sponsorship — Sen. RaShaun Kemp (D-Atlanta) joined by Sen. Drew Echols (R-49) — signaled rare cross-aisle alignment, with support from environmental and community groups (Science for Georgia, local residents fighting hyperscale projects in DeKalb and metro Atlanta). However, the bill never received a hearing, suggesting quiet opposition from Georgia Power, the Data Center Coalition, and Republican leadership that controls the Senate calendar. Democrats, per WRDW reporting, see the legislature's inaction as a 2026 electoral opportunity.
Would have required data centers to source renewable energy, submit quarterly water use reports, and submit water management plans to the IL Water Survey. Included community benefits agreements and ratepayer protection provisions.
Strong support from environmental advocates, labor, and community groups. Opposed by data center industry and utility companies citing compliance burden.
Would have created an Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission working group to forecast data-center electricity demand (report by Oct. 31, 2026), required operators to file quarterly electricity-use reports the IURC publishes online, and required local governments to obtain projected power and water-use disclosures plus a site assessment before issuing data-center permits.
The Citizens Action Coalition and consumer/environmental advocates backed SB 79 for ratepayer protection and transparency, but it never received a Senate Utilities Committee hearing in a session where Indiana lawmakers largely deferred to utilities and a watered-down tax-incentive deal. Its bipartisan sponsorship (Sens. J.D. Ford and Spencer Deery) underscored cross-party interest in disclosure even as the bill died.
Would have required data centers to file quarterly water-use reports (volume, source, efficiency) with Iowa DNR and quarterly energy reports with the Iowa Utilities Commission, with public posting within 30 days, and directed IUC to create a data-center-specific rate class.
Bipartisan reform interest paired with growing rural unease about aquifers and rate-shifting. Supporters include Sierra Club Iowa (Pam Mackey-Taylor) and Iowa State Association of Counties (Jamie Cashman); the bill was carried by a Republican (Rep. Cindy Golding) citing 'horror stories' from other states. Utilities and MidAmerican Energy were cautious or non-committal, and Microsoft declined to comment. The successor HF 2690 ultimately died at the second funnel, suggesting industry-friendly resistance prevailed.
Would have required data centers in Kansas to use closed-loop cooling systems and authorized municipalities, county/district attorneys, and the AG to seek injunctions against non-compliant facilities.
Public sentiment in Kansas has turned sharply against data centers at the local level, fueling withdrawals like Gardner and a Senate Majority Leader Chase Blasi (R) request for a three-year Sedgwick County moratorium. But at the Capitol, SB 400 had no organized advocacy coalition; it was a committee-introduced bill requested by Sen. Mike Thompson (R) that died quietly, suggesting industry lobby influence after SB 98's 2025 hyperscale tax break outweighed grassroots water concerns.
Would have imposed a moratorium on municipal and state permitting of data centers with loads of 20 MW or more until November 1, 2027 while a new Data Center Coordination Council studied impacts including water and energy infrastructure demands. Vetoed by Gov. Mills, who said she would have signed it with an exemption for the Androscoggin Mill project in Jay that reuses existing water infrastructure.
Environmental and community groups strongly supported the pause; the governor and rural development interests opposed it as written, specifically to protect the Androscoggin Mill data center project. The House override attempt failed on Veto Day.
Would have required data center operators to file a sustainability report disclosing server-cooling technology and water/energy use and emissions, directed utilities to adopt a data-center cost-recovery tariff by 2027 so other ratepayers do not subsidize them, and required large loads to curtail electricity use during grid stress.
Sponsor Rep. Beth Doglio, environmental groups, and ratepayer advocates backed HB 2515 over grid-reliability and water-strain concerns. Tech companies gained ground against it (per the Daily Chronicle) and a Republican-backed amendment stripped the operator fee and loosened clean-energy requirements before the bill stalled at the cutoff; advocates argued Washington 'can't afford to wait' on data-center rules.
Would have designated data centers high-volume water users, required them to submit water quantity and quality impact analyses to DEP, mandated public notice and hearings before approval, and authorized DEP to prohibit or limit withdrawals where adverse impacts to a state water resource would occur.
Conservation groups treat the session as the clearest example of a state choosing data-center recruitment over water safeguards explicitly on the record.
Would have required data centers to recycle the water used to cool computer equipment, report water usage to the Wisconsin DNR, and meet utility-rate requirements ensuring facilities, not residential ratepayers, pay for their energy and water infrastructure demands.
Republican authors framed it as protecting ratepayers and water resources; Democrats wanted stronger renewable-energy and labor provisions and mostly voted no, while conservation groups like River Alliance of Wisconsin pushed for tougher water safeguards. Industry was wary of the recycling mandate.
Dataset last updated 2026-07-27. Verification status for each entry is tracked in the underlying JSON; treat any not flagged verified=true there as secondary-sourced.
Key events shaping data center water transparency — the data landscape is changing rapidly.
Three views on federal water law and data centers: the statutory toolkit (every EPA / Army Corps water authority — CWA, SDWA, TSCA, RCRA, Rivers & Harbors Act — and how each could reach a data center), the historical record built under those authorities (penalties, settlements, court rulings), and the named sites where water conflicts are live. The mappings overlap by design — one fact pattern can trigger several readings.
Forward-looking analysis — no data-center CWA enforcement case exists yet. Scored on public-interest merit only: Impact (community/environmental harm averted), Viability (legal strength post-Sackett/Maui), Tractability (can this tracker source the evidence via ECHO DMR/SNC, public permits, FOIA). 5 = strongest; sorted by priority.
| # | Theory (CWA hook) | I | V | T | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Citizen suit against the receiving POTW CWA §505 (33 U.S.C. §1365) | 5 | 5 | 5 | Turns the tracker's existing ECHO SNC/DMR pull into the predicate for a citizen suit against the plant that actually carries data-center cooling blowdown — not the DC's near-empty stormwater permit. Analog: Port of Morrow, OR (WWTP receiving DC wastewater) |
| 2 | Pretreatment / Industrial-User loading CWA §307 + §403 | 5 | 5 | 4 | Where DC blowdown actually goes; loading can force POTW pass-through (putting the plant in violation) and raise every other ratepayer's costs. Industrial-user permits and local limits are FOIA-able. Analog: Port of Morrow, OR; industrial pretreatment consent decrees |
| 3 | Construction stormwater CWA §402 (Construction General Permit) | 4 | 5 | 4 | The single most-enforced real CWA violation against large construction; acute turbidity and habitat impact during the multi-hundred-acre build-out. NOIs and NOVs are ECHO-visible. Analog: Arch Coal mining-site analog |
| 4 | Cooling-tower blowdown direct to surface water CWA §402 (NPDES numeric limits) | 4 | 5 | 4 | The classic numeric-limit-exceedance pattern (thermal, chlorine, biocides, conductivity); directly overlaps the flow metrics the tracker already scrapes. Permit + DMR via ECHO. Analog: West Penn Power (boron exceedance) |
| 5 | On-site package WWTP / greywater-recycle plant effluent CWA §402 (NPDES) | 4 | 4 | 4 | Large campuses building their own treatment/reuse plant give it its OWN NPDES permit + DMR — a clean, trackable point source distinct from the data-center building. Analog: xAI Colossus greywater plant, Memphis |
| 6 | Wetlands dredge-and-fill + state certification CWA §404 + §401 | 5 | 3 | 4 | Permanent habitat / flood-storage loss; the live enforcement edge. Sackett narrowed FEDERAL reach, but §401 and retained VA/OH state programs remain. Permit applications are public. Analog: New Carlisle IN; Project Raspberry/Loch VA; Port of Little Rock AR |
| 7 | Thermal discharge + cooling-water intake CWA §316(a)/(b) | 4 | 4 | 3 | Heat is a regulated pollutant; intake impingement/entrainment. Bites hardest where a DC pairs with on-site gas turbines (full power-plant profile). Analog: Greenidge Generation, NY (§316 thermal/intake) |
| 8 | Antidegradation / Tier 2 review of a new outfall CWA §303 / state water-quality standards | 4 | 4 | 3 | A procedural lever that forces an alternatives analysis (e.g., dry or closed-loop cooling) before a new or expanded discharge into high-quality waters is permitted — high leverage at the siting stage. |
| 9 | County of Maui “functional equivalent” discharge CWA §402 (Maui, 2020) | 4 | 3 | 2 | The most novel theory: a cooling discharge, injection well, or land application that reaches surface water VIA groundwater can still need a permit. Closes a common DC discharge loophole; fact-intensive. Analog: County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund |
| 10 | PFAS in discharge CWA §402 (NPDES) | 4 | 3 | 2 | AFFF fire-suppression systems + cooling-chemistry additives, as NPDES PFAS limits tighten. Strong regulatory tailwind; sourceable once effluent PFAS monitoring is permit-required. Analog: Industrial PFAS cases |
| 11 | Oil spill / SPCC from backup-diesel fuel farms CWA §311 (33 U.S.C. §1321) | 3 | 5 | 3 | A release reaching a water of the U.S. is legally identical to the pipeline-spill cases (incl. negligence-criminal exposure and the duty-to-report trap); event-driven, so a lower base rate but settled law. Analog: BP / Enbridge / Summit Midstream §311 line |
| 12 | Industrial stormwater CWA §402 (Multi-Sector General Permit) | 3 | 4 | 3 | Exposed equipment yards and chemical/fuel storage areas; lower per-event impact but routine. MSGP benchmark monitoring is public. |
Most tracked conflicts are about getting water, which the Clean Water Act barely addresses. Same merit-only scoring, applied to the non-CWA families in the Part 1 toolkit.
Forward-looking analysis — no data-center CWA enforcement case exists yet. Scored on public-interest merit only: Impact (community/environmental harm averted), Viability (legal strength post-Sackett/Maui), Tractability (can this tracker source the evidence via ECHO DMR/SNC, public permits, FOIA). 5 = strongest; sorted by priority.
| # | Theory (CWA hook) | I | V | T | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State environmental review — long-term supply not demonstrated State review statutes (CEQA-style); see sepa-supply-adequacy | 5 | 5 | 5 | Needs no hydrologic proof — only that the approval document analysed phase one and deferred build-out, which campus approvals routinely do. The record is public by definition, and the remedy is the one opponents actually want: approval vacated before construction, not damages after. Analog: Vineyard v. Rancho Cordova (Cal. 2007); MCEA v. Pine Island (Minn. 2026) |
| 2 | High-capacity well permit — agency failed to weigh off-site impact State withdrawal permitting; see well-cumulative-impact | 5 | 4 | 4 | Operates before the water is pumped rather than after the harm. The catch is the trigger: the duty attaches only once concrete hydrologic evidence is put in front of the agency, so it rewards exactly the monitoring data this tracker collects. Analog: Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR (Wis. 2011) |
| 3 | Public trust — groundwater pumping depleting a connected stream State public trust doctrine; see ptd-groundwater-nexus | 5 | 4 | 3 | Reaches ordinary campus-well hydrology, which is otherwise regulated as groundwater and never as the surface diversion it functionally is. Puts the duty on the county issuing the permit — the level these fights are already being fought at. Needs a demonstrated aquifer-stream connection. Analog: ELF v. SWRCB (Cal. App. 2018); Nat'l Audubon (Cal. 1983) |
| 4 | Consumer protection — published water claims are misleading State deceptive-trade-practices law; see sl-greenwashing-udap | 4 | 4 | 5 | The most tractable theory in either table: the evidence is FOIA'd utility billing records, not expert hydrology. Gets more available every time a disclosure law adds reporting. Impact is reputational and corrective rather than a limit on withdrawal. Analog: Wangusi v. AWS (Va. Cir. Ct. 2026) |
| 5 | Utility declines to serve a large new load Municipal service & shortage law; see util-shortage-moratorium | 4 | 5 | 4 | The only entry here that runs FOR the defending institution. A utility facing genuine supply constraint may refuse, reviewable only for fraud or caprice — and a capacity admission already on the record is the rational basis. Depends entirely on the utility choosing to say no. Analog: Swanson v. Marin MWD (Cal. App. 1976); Bessemer AL (2025-26) |
| 6 | Common-law negligence — subsidence or well interference State common law; see cl-negligent-subsidence | 4 | 3 | 3 | The opening in rule-of-capture states: liability attaches to the manner of withdrawal, not the fact of it. Strongest where drawdown produces measurable subsidence. Needs an injured neighbour as plaintiff — a coalition will hit the standing bar. Analog: Friendswood Dev. v. Smith-Southwest (Tex. 1978) |
| 7 | Interstate apportionment of a shared aquifer SCOTUS original jurisdiction; see eqap-interstate-aquifer | 5 | 3 | 2 | Highest ceiling, hardest to reach. Settled law since 2021 and directly on point for the Memphis Sand, but it needs a state willing to sue and clear-and-convincing proof of injury — which is why utility-level reporting laws are the precondition rather than a side issue. Analog: Mississippi v. Tennessee (2021) |
| 8 | Inter-basin transfer junior-priority challenge Area-of-origin statutes; see xfer-area-of-origin | 3 | 4 | 4 | Underused and statutory rather than litigated: water piped out of basin is junior to every right granted there first, so it is cut first in drought. Applies only where supply actually crosses a basin line. Analog: Tex. Water Code §11.085 |
Full write-up with primary-source citations: docs/cwa-enforcement-and-data-centers.md
The Clean Water Act is the common name for the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1389. Its stated objective, in the words of the statute itself:
"The objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." — 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)
EPA's own plain-language summary describes the law this way: "The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters." — EPA, Summary of the Clean Water Act
Two operative sections do most of the work in the cases tracked here:
When a permittee violates those limits, Section 309 / 33 U.S.C. § 1319 gives EPA escalating enforcement authority — administrative orders, civil judicial action, and criminal referral. The statute's civil-penalty cap was originally set at:
"…shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation." — 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d)
That figure is adjusted annually for inflation under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act; the 2024-adjusted maximum is approximately $66,712 per day per violation, which is the per-day exposure referenced in EPA Region 5 cases such as Republic Steel in this dataset.
EPA can also commence civil litigation directly: "The Administrator is authorized to commence a civil action for appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, for any violation…" — 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b)
Beyond agency action, Section 505 / 33 U.S.C. § 1365 lets private parties sue dischargers directly when EPA and the state do not act:
"…any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf — (1) against any person…who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this chapter…" — 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)
Several entries in this dataset (e.g., the Atlanta R.M. Clayton consent decree and the QTS Fayetteville matter) originated as Section 505 citizen-suit notices from groups like Chattahoochee Riverkeeper and Flint Riverkeeper.
EPA frames day-to-day water enforcement as: "EPA's day-to-day enforcement actions aim at returning facilities to compliance with existing laws…" The agency organizes its work into six focus areas, each of which appears in the cases we track:
Data centers themselves rarely hold direct NPDES discharge permits — they typically buy potable water from a utility and discharge cooling-water blowdown to a municipal POTW. That structure puts most of their CWA exposure into the pretreatment program (the receiving POTW enforces locally-issued industrial-user permits) and into the construction-stormwater program (general contractor liability during build-out). The "datacenter" category here captures the rare direct cases; the "industrial" category is the closest practical analog for what post-build enforcement looks like; "precedent" captures the Supreme Court and federal appellate rulings (Sackett, Maui, Loper Bright, SF v. EPA) that set how aggressively any of this can be enforced against a data center going forward.
Primary sources: 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (Cornell LII) · 33 U.S.C. § 1319 (Cornell LII) · 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (Cornell LII) · 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (Cornell LII) · EPA — Summary of the Clean Water Act · EPA — Water Enforcement
39 statutory readings across the CWA, SDWA, TSCA, RCRA, and the Rivers & Harbors Act — each card explains what the authority historically covered, how it could apply to a data-center fact pattern, and which cases below show it in use. Case and site cards link back here via their statute applicability rows.
The core CWA machine: §301 makes any point-source discharge of a pollutant to a water of the United States unlawful unless authorized by a §402 NPDES permit with numeric effluent limits, monitoring (DMRs), and reporting. Most enforcement in this record — from Smithfield's $12.6M judgment to routine state NOVs — is §402/§301 enforcement.
Applies whenever a data center discharges cooling-tower blowdown, on-site treatment effluent, or process water directly to surface water rather than to a sewer. The AWS Lake Anna VPDES draft permit is the first direct cooling-discharge NPDES action at a hyperscaler campus; the Homer City PA draft permit covers cooling outfalls at a DC power plant. Once a campus holds its own NPDES permit, every exceedance is ECHO-visible and enforceable — including by citizen suit.
Land disturbance over one acre requires coverage under a construction general permit with a SWPPP, erosion/sediment BMPs, and inspection records. This is the single most-enforced CWA program against large construction projects.
The primary CWA touchpoint for data centers today: multi-hundred-acre campus build-outs generate sediment-laden runoff, and every documented DC stormwater enforcement (Google Stillwater OK, Microsoft Boydton VA, QTS Fayetteville GA, Johns Hopkins DSAI) arose here. Enforcement usually names the general contractor — the permittee — not the operator.
Operating industrial facilities with materials or equipment exposed to rain need MSGP coverage with benchmark monitoring for pollutants in site runoff.
Post-construction exposure for campuses with exposed fuel farms, chemical storage, switchyards, and equipment yards. Most operating data centers hold only this near-empty stormwater permit — which is why the operational record is thin — but benchmark exceedances are public and enforceable.
Placing fill in jurisdictional wetlands or streams requires a Corps permit — an individual permit for larger impacts or a nationwide permit (NWP) for smaller ones. Sackett (2023) narrowed which wetlands are jurisdictional; unpermitted fill draws cease-work orders and restoration liability.
Site-grading at greenfield campuses regularly crosses wetlands and headwater streams: Google's three pending §404 individual permit applications (Project Raspberry and Loch in VA, Port of Little Rock AR at 16.8 acres), the SDC ATLA Douglas County GA application with ~1 mile of stream impacts, and the Amazon New Carlisle IN cease-work order all sit here. The 2026 NWP 39 reissuance expressly enumerates data centers.
Any federal permit that may result in a discharge (a §404 fill permit, a FERC license) needs the state to certify the project meets state water-quality standards. States can condition or deny certification — an independent veto point — and courts have vacated deficient certifications.
Every data-center §404 permit needs a companion §401 certification, so state agencies (and commenters in the state proceeding) get leverage even where federal jurisdiction survives Sackett only barely. The SDC ATLA GA matter pairs §404 with a contested §401; the 4th Circuit's WV vacatur shows certifications are litigable.
Industrial users discharging to a municipal sewer must meet national prohibitions (no pass-through or interference) and locally issued industrial-user permits with local limits. The POTW enforces; EPA enforces against POTWs whose pretreatment programs fail.
The regime that most directly governs operating data centers: cooling-tower blowdown (concentrated dissolved solids, biocides, corrosion inhibitors) goes to the sewer under an industrial-user permit. High-volume DC loading can cause POTW pass-through — putting the plant in violation of its own NPDES permit, as at Port of Morrow OR. IU permits and local limits are FOIA-able.
Heat is a regulated pollutant: §316(a) governs thermal discharge variances and §316(b) requires cooling-water intake structures to reflect the best technology available for minimizing fish impingement and entrainment. Historically applied to power plants (Brayton Point's forced closed-cycle retrofit; Greenidge's bitcoin-era findings).
Bites hardest where a campus takes surface water for once-through or evaporative cooling, or pairs with on-site generation — the full power-plant profile. The AWS Lake Anna draft permit and the Homer City DC power plant put §316 review squarely into data-center permitting for the first time.
Prohibits harmful-quantity discharges of oil or listed hazardous substances to waters of the U.S., requires Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plans for facilities storing oil above thresholds, and carries per-barrel civil (and negligence-based criminal) penalties — the Plains Pipeline and East Palestine lines.
Data centers keep multi-million-gallon diesel fuel farms for backup generators — squarely SPCC-regulated. A tank or transfer release reaching a stream is legally identical to the pipeline cases, including the duty-to-report trap. The Johns Hopkins DSAI matter already pairs construction stormwater with a §311 diesel element.
States set designated uses and criteria for each water; new or expanded discharges into high-quality (Tier 2) waters trigger an antidegradation alternatives analysis, and impaired waters get TMDL load caps that flow into permit limits.
A procedural lever at the siting stage: a proposed new DC outfall into high-quality water must survive an alternatives analysis (e.g., closed-loop or dry cooling), and a discharge into a TMDL-capped watershed inherits tighter limits. Raised by commenters in the Lake Anna proceeding.
County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund held that a discharge that travels through groundwater but is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge to surface water still needs an NPDES permit — injection wells, leach fields, and land application can't launder a point source.
Closes the loophole for campuses that dispose of blowdown or treated effluent via injection wells, drywells, rapid-infiltration basins, or land application near streams: if it reaches surface water, Maui says permit it. Fact-intensive (distance, travel time), but the most potent novel theory for inland campuses over shallow aquifers.
Any citizen may sue a discharger for ongoing permit violations (or EPA for non-discretionary failures) after 60-day notice, with civil penalties payable to the Treasury and fee-shifting. Riverkeeper groups built much of the modern enforcement record this way; Port of Tacoma and CERF v. Naples set current scope/mootness limits.
The enforcement backstop when agencies stand down: DMR exceedances at a DC's own NPDES permit, at its contractor's CGP coverage, or at the receiving POTW are all citizen-suit predicates — and this tracker's ECHO SNC/DMR pull is exactly the evidence base a §505 notice letter needs. QTS Fayetteville and TransGas Adams Fork began as riverkeeper notices.
When a contaminant present in or likely to enter a public water system or underground source of drinking water may present an imminent and substantial endangerment, EPA can issue immediate administrative orders or sue — without waiting for state action or a permit violation. Used against DuPont for PFOA in Ohio Valley drinking water and in Flint (2016).
The fastest federal hook if a data-center-linked contaminant (fuel release, cooling-chemistry constituents, construction-driven nitrate or sediment) shows up in wells or a public system's source water. The Amazon Boardman nitrate fact pattern — contaminated domestic wells near DC-hosting farmland — is exactly the §1431 profile, and EPA has pledged investigation of the Meta Newton County GA well complaints.
Any subsurface fluid emplacement is an 'injection well.' Class V covers shallow, non-hazardous injection — stormwater drywells, aquifer recharge, cooling-water return-flow wells, large septic systems. Wells that may endanger an underground source of drinking water can be closed or permitted with conditions; EPA banned entire well subclasses (motor-vehicle waste wells, 1999) where the endangerment was categorical.
Directly regulates common campus infrastructure: stormwater drywells and infiltration galleries, geothermal/aquifer-thermal cooling return wells, and any on-site disposal of treated effluent to the subsurface are Class V wells requiring inventory, rule authorization, or permits — an underused federal hook over inland campuses that never touch surface water.
Where EPA has designated an aquifer as the sole or principal drinking-water source for an area (Edwards Aquifer, 1975, was the first), no federal financial assistance may go to a project that EPA determines may contaminate the aquifer. A review trigger, not a general permit program.
Reaches data-center projects only through a federal-funding hook — federally backed loans, grants, or infrastructure assistance for a campus or its supporting utilities over a designated aquifer trigger EPA review. Relevant to Texas Hill Country and San Antonio-area siting over the Edwards, and to any federally financed AI-infrastructure build-out.
Systems serving 25+ people or 15+ connections are public water systems bound by maximum contaminant levels, monitoring, and reporting; chronic violators face escalating enforcement up to court-appointed receivership (Alisal Water).
Two directions: (1) a large campus with its own wells serving hundreds of workers can itself become a regulated PWS; (2) the small municipal systems that serve mega-campuses take on PWS compliance risk when DC demand strains capacity or forces new sources — the Richland Parish LA and Bessemer AL supply fights are about systems absorbing that risk.
Every state maintains EPA-approved source-water assessments delineating the recharge and intake zones that feed public systems; many states and localities layer land-use restrictions (wellhead protection ordinances, recharge-zone rules) on top. Largely non-regulatory federally, but the assessments are the evidentiary backbone for local fights.
The mapping layer for siting fights: a campus, fuel farm, or drainfield inside a delineated source-water protection area gives residents and utilities a concrete, government-authored basis to object — the posture of the Occoquan Reservoir objections to the PW Digital Gateway and the aquifer-recharge zoning fights in Texas and Georgia.
Anyone who manufactures, processes, or distributes a chemical and obtains information reasonably supporting a conclusion of substantial risk to health or the environment must tell EPA immediately. DuPont's failure to report PFOA blood and drinking-water data drew what was then the largest civil administrative penalty in EPA history ($10.25M + $6.25M SEPs, 2005); 3M settled similar PFAS non-reporting in 2006.
Reaches the chemical suppliers behind data-center water chemistry — cooling-tower biocides, corrosion inhibitors, film-forming additives, and legacy AFFF fire suppressants. If a supplier or large processor learns its formulation is contaminating water near campuses and sits on it, that is the DuPont fact pattern.
The 2023 rule requires anyone who manufactured or imported PFAS (including in articles) since 2011 to report uses, volumes, byproducts, exposure, and disposal — no de minimis exemption. The resulting dataset maps who put which PFAS where.
Indirect but growing: imported electrical equipment, coolants (some immersion-cooling fluids are PFAS), and fire-suppression stocks can pull vendors into reporting, and the public dataset gives water advocates a way to trace PFAS found near a campus back to a supply chain as NPDES PFAS limits tighten (see the Chemours Washington Works effluent-limits consent agreement).
Where the handling or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste may present an imminent and substantial endangerment, EPA or any citizen can obtain injunctive cleanup orders — no permit violation needed and no CWA jurisdictional water required. Interfaith v. Honeywell forced a ~$400M chromium cleanup on this theory.
The gap-filler where Sackett cuts off CWA jurisdiction: contamination migrating through soil and groundwater from fuel releases, construction fill, sludge, or spent cooling-treatment chemicals at a campus can support a §7002(a)(1)(B) citizen suit even with no surface-water connection at all — the same post-Sackett role Maui plays for connected waters.
Building any structure in, or affecting the course/capacity of, traditionally navigable waters requires a Corps §10 permit — intakes, outfall structures, piers, pipeline crossings. Republic Steel (1960) read the Act to reach industrial deposits that reduce channel depth. Unlike CWA §404, §10 jurisdiction was untouched by Sackett.
Any data-center or DC-power-plant cooling intake or outfall structure placed in a navigable river or lake needs §10 authorization on top of NPDES/§404 — a second, Sackett-proof Corps permit gate (relevant to Lake Anna-style surface-water cooling and river-supplied campuses).
Disputes between states over a shared water resource. Historically applied to rivers; in 2021 the Supreme Court held for the first time that groundwater in an interstate aquifer is equally subject to equitable apportionment — no state owns the water beneath it outright, and a state claiming injury must sue for an apportionment rather than for conversion.
A data center pumping heavily from an aquifer that crosses a state line creates precisely the fact pattern this doctrine governs, and the injured party is the neighbouring *state*, not the neighbouring landowner. The practical barrier is evidentiary: an apportionment claim needs clear-and-convincing proof of real injury, which means utility-level aggregate withdrawal data — the class of data the HB 496-style reporting laws tracked in this dataset are starting to generate.
Limits on a state's power to restrict the export of water across its borders. Groundwater is an article of commerce, so a state law blocking or conditioning its transfer out of state faces Commerce Clause scrutiny and must be genuinely tailored to conservation rather than to hoarding.
Runs in the opposite direction from most doctrines here: it is the constraint on a *state* that tries to keep its water away from out-of-state data-center demand. A statute written to stop water leaving for a neighbouring state's campus is more vulnerable than one that limits large withdrawals regardless of where the user sits — which is why the durable instruments in this dataset regulate by volume and use, not by destination.
The state holds navigable waters in trust and retains a continuing duty of supervision. A previously granted water right is not settled forever: it remains subject to reconsideration and adjustment where the diversion harms trust interests and a feasible alternative exists.
The doctrine that makes an already-issued water allocation reviewable. A data center supplied under a long-standing municipal or appropriative right is not insulated by that right if the resulting draw damages a trust resource — which matters because most data-center supply arrives through existing utility entitlements rather than new permits, and those are exactly what this doctrine reopens.
Groundwater pumping that measurably reduces flow in a navigable waterway falls within the public trust, and a comprehensive statutory groundwater regime does not displace that duty. The permitting authority — often a county — must consider trust resources when issuing well permits.
Closes the gap a data center's hydrology usually falls into. Campus wells are rarely regulated as a surface-water diversion, but where drawdown depletes a connected stream the trust duty attaches to the well permit itself. It also means a state groundwater-management statute is a floor, not a ceiling: complying with the statute does not answer the trust claim.
The trust establishes a presumption in favour of its purposes. The burden sits on the party seeking water for private gain to justify the use and its impacts, not on the public to prove harm; and where the science is unresolved, that uncertainty counts in favour of protection rather than against it.
Directly inverts the usual posture of a data-center water fight. The recurring complaint in this dataset is that opponents cannot prove harm because consumption figures are confidential — under this reading the applicant carries the burden, and unresolved hydrology argues for the resource. Its force is jurisdiction-specific: Hawai'i's constitutional water provisions are unusually strong, so this is the ceiling of the doctrine rather than its typical reach.
In states following ownership-in-place, a landowner holds a constitutionally protected interest in the groundwater beneath the surface before it is pumped. Regulation that restricts pumping can therefore support a takings claim requiring compensation.
Cuts both ways, which is why it belongs in the registry. It is the doctrine a data center would invoke against a withdrawal cap imposed after it acquired the land — and equally the one a neighbouring landowner invokes when a regulator permits the campus to draw down the property interest under their own acreage. It also explains why states in this family regulate through districts and permits rather than by prohibition: outright restriction carries a compensation risk.
Whether an agency issuing a high-capacity well permit must look beyond the applicant's own parcel. Where the state holds navigable waters in trust and the permitting statute protects waters of the state generally, the agency has both authority and a general duty to consider whether the proposed well may harm those waters — but the duty is triggered by concrete scientific evidence of potential harm, not by objection alone.
The most practically usable doctrine in the registry for an opponent, because it operates at the permit stage rather than after the damage. It also sets the price of admission: objections to a data-center well must arrive as hydrologic evidence, since generalized concern does not trigger the agency's duty. That is precisely the bind sites in this dataset describe — the evidence needs consumption data the operator holds.
Inside an Active Management Area, groundwater is governed by statute rather than by common-law pumping rights: withdrawals are permitted and metered, and new development must demonstrate an assured supply — water physically and legally available for a century — before it can proceed.
This, and not the common-law reasonable-use rule, is what an Arizona data center actually answers to, which is why Arizona fights look different from Georgia or Texas ones: the question is decided in a statutory supply-designation process rather than in a nuisance suit. It cuts both ways — the regime is a real constraint on new demand, and it also gives a project that clears it a defensible answer to critics.
Requires local agencies in high- and medium-priority basins to adopt plans achieving sustainable yield and avoiding undesirable results including chronic lowering of groundwater levels. Critically, the statute is a floor rather than a ceiling: enacting it did not occupy the field or extinguish the public-trust duty that runs alongside it.
Sets the numeric constraint a large new California groundwater user has to fit inside, and answers the compliance defence in advance. An operator pointing to its sustainability-plan allocation has not thereby answered a public-trust objection, because the two obligations coexist.
No one may divert state water from one river basin to another without a water right or permit amendment authorizing the transfer, and any right transferred out of basin becomes junior in priority to every right granted in the basin of origin before the transfer application was filed. In a shortage the transferred water is cut first.
The sharpest and least-used tool against a campus supplied by out-of-basin piping. Opposition to these projects is usually political — hearings, petitions, county votes — when the statute already imposes a structural penalty: the transferred supply sits at the back of the priority queue exactly when drought makes it matter. Worth checking wherever a project's water arrives from a reservoir in another basin.
Whether a state agency's issuance of upstream withdrawal permits can be the proximate cause of downstream harm to a listed species. The Fifth Circuit held it cannot on the record before it: with multiple natural, independent and unpredictable forces acting on the habitat, the causal chain from permit to death of the animals was not reasonably foreseeable, and the injunction against further permitting was an abuse of discretion.
Included as a *negative* reading, because knowing where a theory fails is worth as much as knowing where it works. ESA is the intuitive federal hook for a data center drying a river reach, and in the Fifth Circuit this is binding law that the hook will usually miss when the defendant is the state permitting authority. A §9 claim would need to run at the withdrawer directly, with a much shorter causal chain than 'permit issued, species died'.
Setting land aside for a federal purpose impliedly reserves enough water to serve that purpose. The priority date is the date the reservation was created, not the date use began — so reserved rights are typically senior to nearly every state-law right in the basin, and are unaffected by a state's later admission to the Union or its own allocation scheme.
Matters wherever a campus draws from a basin that also serves a reservation, which describes much of the arid Southwest. The exposure is not that a tribe sues the data center — it is that quantifying a senior reserved right shrinks the pool the state had been allocating, and junior users get cut in order. A supply contract resting on a junior state-law right is worth less than it appears in such a basin.
The Winters doctrine draws no line between surface water and groundwater. Where the United States reserved land in an arid region, it impliedly reserved the appurtenant water sources including groundwater; the tribe's not having historically pumped does not forfeit the right, and state water law is preempted where the two conflict.
Closes the escape route. A project can be told a basin's surface water is fully claimed and turn to wells instead — this says the senior federal right follows it underground. In arid basins with a reservation overlying or adjoining the aquifer, groundwater is not the unencumbered alternative it is usually treated as.
An environmental impact document approving a large project must identify and analyse the water supply for the project's full life, not merely its first phase. Deferring the analysis to a future regional planning document, or relying on a mitigation measure that would curtail development if the water never materializes, is procedurally inadequate — as is leaving unexplained discrepancies between claimed supply and regional estimates.
The most transferable procedural attack on a data-center approval, because it does not require proving hydrologic harm — only that the paperwork assumed water it could not demonstrate. Campus approvals routinely analyse phase one and defer the rest, which is the precise defect this reading names. It is also the doctrine that most often produces the outcome opponents actually want: the approval is vacated and redone, rather than damages awarded years later.
Where a challenger shows a state environmental review failed to disclose a project's water impacts adequately, courts have treated proceeding on that record as irreparable harm and granted interim relief rather than leaving the challenge to be resolved after construction.
The timing half of the supply-adequacy reading, and the reason state environmental review outranks most federal theories in practice for these projects: it can halt work while the dispute is live. Data-center construction moves faster than litigation, so a remedy that only arrives after the campus is built is not much of a remedy.
In rule-of-capture states a landowner may generally pump without liability for draining a neighbour. That immunity is not total: where the *manner* of withdrawal is negligent, willfully wasteful or malicious and proximately causes damage to another's land — the classic case being subsidence from closely spaced high-volume wells — the pumper is liable.
The opening in an otherwise closed door. A neighbour in a capture state cannot complain that a data center took the water, but can complain about how: well spacing, siting near a boundary, and pumping rates chosen despite engineering forecasts of subsidence. Coastal and alluvial settings are where this bites, because that is where measurable subsidence follows drawdown.
How far a statutory 'any person may sue' provision actually reaches. A citizens' group may sue over a withdrawal that injures its members' own recreational, aesthetic, economic or property interests, but not over harm to the environment at large — the injury must be concrete and particularized to identifiable members.
Explains a pattern visible across this dataset: why data-center opposition succeeds through zoning votes, moratoriums and records requests far more often than through lawsuits. A group organized around a watershed rather than around injured members can be dismissed before the merits. It also says which plaintiff wins — the household whose well failed, not the coalition, which is why the Newton County fact pattern is legally stronger than a general-harm campaign.
A prospective new water user holds no absolute right to service and need not be treated like established customers. Where a utility faces a genuine imbalance between supply and demand it has a rational basis for a moratorium on new connections, and a court will disturb that decision only for fraud, arbitrariness or caprice.
Runs the opposite way from how these fights are usually argued. The tracked conflicts assume the utility is under pressure to say yes; this reading says a utility facing real supply constraint is on strong legal ground saying no, and the data center has no entitlement to be served. Where a utility has already conceded on the record that it cannot serve the load without major upgrades — Bessemer being the clearest instance here — that admission is the rational basis a refusal would rest on.
Statements a company makes to the public about its environmental performance, where those statements are alleged to be materially misleading. The subject of the claim is the company's own published figures rather than any discharge, withdrawal or permit, and the remedy sought is typically corrective disclosure and an accounting.
The one reading in this registry that does not require a permit, a discharge or an aquifer. It reaches the water-positive pledges and efficiency percentages that operators publish — which is significant because those figures are the industry's main public answer on water, and until 2026 nothing in the tracker connected a claim to a legal consequence. Its evidentiary base is utility billing records obtained by FOIA, so it is unusually available to outsiders compared with the hydrologic proof most other readings demand.
94 cases — enforcement actions, penalties, settlements, landmark court rulings, and standing rulemakings that have actually occurred, under the CWA and the other federal water authorities above. Industrial cases are legal analogs — the enforcement pattern for operations similar to data centers, but against other industries, not data centers. Precedent rulings define the legal scope for future enforcement.
QTS Fayetteville is the clearest example of an environmental NGO using CWA construction-stormwater standards to pressure a hyperscale colocation operator. Even without a filed lawsuit, citizen documentation forced site changes — a template likely to spread, especially in Georgia where data center sprawl is concentrated in sensitive Flint and Chattahoochee basins.
Flint Riverkeeper documented repeated discharge of heavily sediment-laden water — including flocculant-treated runoff — onto neighboring private property and into Sandy Creek during rain events from summer 2023 through spring 2024, with monitoring data showing sediment 'many, many times allowable limits.' Riverkeeper escalated to the City of Fayetteville in March 2024 and to Georgia EPD that spring after city/developer remediation lagged. This is a Riverkeeper-driven CWA enforcement-style action, not a filed lawsuit.
PENDING / partially resolved — A stop-work order plus developer-installed erosion-control upgrades resulted in at least one >2-inch rain event with 'no detectable pollution' by mid-2024. No formal NOV, consent order, or civil penalty against QTS has been publicly confirmed; monitoring is ongoing. Separately, in May 2025 QTS paid ~$147,000 in retroactive water bills for ~29M gallons of unbilled construction water (a billing dispute, not CWA enforcement). The dispute escalated on May 28, 2026, when counsel for Flint Riverkeeper and adjacent landowners sent a formal CWA §505(b) 60-day notice of intent to sue to QTS and its contractors (Clayco, HITT Contracting, Brasfield & Gorrie) and subcontractors, documenting turbidity exceedances above the permit's 50 NTU outfall limit on at least 51 separate rain-event dates from February 2024 through May 2026 (including a 259 NTU reading in March 2026) plus three dry-day discharges from pond pumping, and alleging unpermitted §404 fill from redeposited excavated material into the stream and adjacent wetlands. Plaintiffs' counsel stated intent to file a federal citizen suit on or about July 27, 2026 if the dispute isn't resolved within the notice period — open as of this writing.
First and largest direct-hyperscaler water-pollution settlement in U.S. history and the only documented case where a major data center operator paid eight figures over groundwater contamination from cooling/process-water disposal. Critical precedent: hyperscalers can be held liable not just for their own discharge but for the cumulative groundwater impacts of industrial-park co-disposal arrangements — even when the actual permittee is the port authority. Dramatically expands the data-center water-liability frontier from stormwater into nitrate/nutrient land application.
In February 2024, residents Michael Pearson, Michael & Virginia Brandt, and James & Silvia Suter filed a class-action lawsuit (Pearson v. Port of Morrow, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Pendleton Division) against Amazon Data Services and 16 other defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that wastewater from Amazon's Boardman-area data centers — pooled with effluent from Lamb Weston, Threemile Canyon Farms, and other industrial users at the Port of Morrow — was land-applied across area farm fields and leached nitrate into the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area (LUBGWMA), a 562-square-mile area where at least 634 domestic wells already exceed the 10 mg/L federal nitrate MCL, some at nearly 100 mg/L (10x the federal limit), affecting approximately 45,000 residents.
On March 31, 2026, Amazon Data Services agreed to pay $20.5 million to settle out, while denying any liability. Motion for preliminary approval filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Settlement funds will support private well replacement and public infrastructure projects. Sixteen co-defendants (Port of Morrow, Lamb Weston, Madison Ranches, Threemile Canyon Farms, Portland General Electric, Columbia River Processing, etc.) remain in active litigation; class certification has not yet been granted.
Hyperscalers are beginning to seek their own direct NPDES/VPDES discharge permits rather than routing all cooling water through municipal WWTPs — moving the operational CWA exposure from the receiving POTW's permit onto the data center itself. The PFAS-testing gap and thermal limits in this draft are likely to template (and be litigated in) future data-center discharge permits.
Not an enforcement action — a permit application in active state review. AWS is seeking a VPDES individual permit to discharge up to 280,000 gallons/day of treated cooling-tower water from its Lake Anna Tech Campus data centers into Sedges Creek, a tributary of Lake Anna. The draft permit caps discharge temperature at 89.6°F and sets zinc/copper limits but does not mandate PFAS testing (DEQ retained authority to add it later). AWS says discharge would occur only during the hottest ~4% of the year. A contentious DEQ public hearing was held June 9, 2026 at Louisa County Middle School, where residents objected to thermal and contaminant impacts on the lake.
Pending as of June 10, 2026 — DEQ has published responses to public comments and says it will make a final permit decision; no timeline announced. This is one of the first direct-to-surface-water cooling discharge permits sought by a hyperscaler in Virginia.
Even 'zero-water cooling' campuses carry front-end wetland-permit exposure at the construction stage, processed through state programs that blend §404/§401 review with state-law jurisdiction. Transparency litigation by Waterkeeper-affiliated groups is becoming the soft-enforcement lever where no discharge violation yet exists.
Not an enforcement action — wetland permitting for a hyperscale build-out. Microsoft obtained Wisconsin DNR approval in July 2024 to fill wetlands for its first Mount Pleasant data center building, and filed a separate wetland individual permit application (MKE 09-14) for campus expansion that went to a contested public informational hearing in fall 2024. The campus — announced at $3.3B and expanded to a $4B+ AI datacenter with a further $13.3B two-campus expansion proposed in January 2026 — sits on the former Foxconn site near Lake Michigan tributaries. NB: the final disposition of MKE 09-14 was not confirmed in available reporting; re-verify against WI DNR permit records.
Initial wetland-fill approval granted (July 2024); expansion wetland permitting proceeded through DNR's individual-permit process with public hearings. Related water controversy continues: Midwest Environmental Advocates sued the City of Racine in September 2025 to force disclosure of the campus's projected water use (tracked separately), and Microsoft has since committed to closed-loop, near-zero-water cooling for most of the campus.
The Corps has formally routed most data center wetland fills onto the fastest §404 track — small-footprint campus impacts now avoid individual-permit scrutiny, but projects exceeding NWP thresholds (like Google's and SDC's individual applications) remain the high-visibility exception, and streamlined approvals are an emerging target for NGO litigation.
Not an enforcement action — a permitting-framework change. On June 18, 2025 the Army Corps proposed reissuing and modifying its §404 nationwide permits, and on January 8, 2026 published the final reissuance in the Federal Register. The 2026 version of Nationwide Permit 39 expressly clarifies that 'data centers, artificial intelligence and machine learning facilities' qualify as commercial developments eligible for general (streamlined) §404 permitting for wetland and stream fills, rather than requiring individual permits. Legal commentators flag the change as lowering the federal wetlands-permitting bar for data center construction while litigation risk around such approvals rises.
Final nationwide permits issued January 2026 and in effect; data center projects with qualifying wetland/stream impacts (generally ≤1/2 acre) can now proceed under NWP 39 with preconstruction notification instead of individual §404 review.
One of the larger stream-impact footprints in any active data center §404 matter (~5,300 linear feet across three stream classes), showing that as campuses move onto unfragmented greenfield sites, stream channels — not just wetland acreage — are becoming the binding CWA constraint and the trigger for individual rather than nationwide permits.
Not an enforcement action — permitting for a 1.3M sq ft, nine-building data center campus with two substations on a 215.61-acre site in Winston, Douglas County, GA. The project requires a USACE §404 permit for filling 0.583 acres of wetland plus 128 linear feet of ephemeral, 2,586 LF of intermittent, and 2,573 LF of perennial stream — roughly a mile of jurisdictional stream impacts. GA EPD public-noticed and issued the §401 water quality certification (file 401-SAS-2025-00336, with a corrected certification letter posted by EPD), while Winston residents voiced opposition to a second large data center in the area.
Georgia §401 certification issued (2025); §404 permitting with the Corps proceeding as of mid-2026; local opposition continues but no litigation identified.
The first data-center contamination of a municipal reclaimed-water system in this record, and it inverts the usual framing. Reclaimed water is the industry's headline answer to consumption criticism and appears throughout this tracker's Solutions dataset — here the reuse system itself was the casualty, and the harm came from commissioning rather than operation, a phase almost nothing regulates specifically. It also confirms where the operational hook actually sits: not on the data center's own permit, but on the receiving utility's pretreatment authority, which is exactly the framing the CWA insights panel has argued. Note the defendant is the build entity, not Meta itself — corporate structure matters for who is on the hook.
In February 2026 Cheyenne's Board of Public Utilities detected the rare metal-resistant bacterium Cupriavidus gilardii in the city's reclaimed-water system and traced it to wastewater from construction and commissioning of Meta's 715,000 sq ft data center — a closed-loop cooling 'fill-and-flush' discharge by Goat Systems LLC, the entity Meta uses to build the campus. The discharge interfered with two water reclamation plants; BOPU's published timeline puts 801,475 gallons of affected wastewater into the system.
BOPU classified the discharge as significant noncompliance with federal pretreatment regulations, suspended the reclaimed-water irrigation program, permanently terminated the discharge privileges, and adopted a policy barring wastewater discharges from data centers using closed-loop cooling and fill-and-flush systems. Follow-up testing found no remaining Cupriavidus gilardii and the reclaimed system is back in operation under continued routine sampling.
One of the very few documented stormwater enforcement actions tied to a hyperscale data center construction site. Notably, the regulatory action targeted the contractor under the construction general permit, not Google as operator — illustrating how data center operators are typically insulated from direct CWA liability by the contractor-permittee structure. Resident damages are being pursued in state court, not via federal CWA citizen suit.
On May 8, 2025, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality inspectors found that sediment-control BMPs at the Google Stillwater data center construction site had failed, allowing sediment-laden runoff to discharge off-site into a nearby creek and into a Park View Estates neighborhood pond. DEQ also found the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was missing required corrective-action reports. DEQ issued a Notice of Violation to Manhattan Construction Company.
DEQ closed the NOV after the contractor submitted corrective actions on July 1, 2025 (weekly and post-storm stormwater inspections, restored erosion controls, completed SWPPP corrective-action documentation). No monetary penalty was publicly reported. Separately, Park View Estates HOA filed a state-court nuisance/property-damage lawsuit on August 22, 2025 in Payne County District Court against Google, Manhattan Construction Group, Olsson Inc. (engineer), and Emery Sapp & Sons (mass grading) — that is a civil suit, NOT a CWA citizen suit.
Shows water-related compliance exposure for data centers extends beyond NPDES stormwater into groundwater withdrawal permitting — a regulatory blind spot that is being discovered ad hoc by local health departments rather than systematically tracked. As construction dewatering scales with hyperscale sites, this category of action is likely to grow.
Linn County Public Health discovered ~40 unpermitted dewatering wells drilled May 20–June 11, 2025 by Northern Dewatering at the QTS Cedar Rapids construction site, with pumping commencing June 9 without required permits, fees, or 24-hour notice. Wells were used to depress the water table for foundation construction. Iowa DNR is separately assessing long-term aquifer impacts. This is a local groundwater-permitting case, not federal CWA enforcement.
PENDING — Notice of violation issued July 28, 2025; Linn County formally referred a $20,000 civil penalty request to the County Attorney on Aug 5, 2025. As of latest reporting no settlement or assessed penalty has been finalized. QTS itself was not named; the action targets the dewatering subcontractor.
Demonstrates that 'research-campus' AI compute facilities can replicate the same construction-stormwater compliance failures as commercial hyperscale builds and that aging campus utility systems (fuel storage for emergency power) create CWA Section 311 oil-discharge risk parallel to data-center diesel generator infrastructure. Confirms a pattern where contractor-level NOVs precede operator-level permitting decisions.
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) inspectors documented sediment discharge violations from the Hopkins Agora/DSAI construction site to Wyman Park Drive, Remington Avenue, and Stony Run between February 2025 and August 2025. Neighbors photographed sediment-laden runoff cascading from the site during rain events. MDE found Hopkins 'could be subject to significant penalties' and offered a no-liability settlement of $8,648. Separately, on June 4, 2025, nearly 2,000 gallons (initially reported as 5,000 gallons) of diesel fuel overflowed from emergency-generator storage tanks at the adjacent Johns Hopkins Hospital campus, entered the stormwater system, and discharged into the Inner Harbor / Patapsco River — a CWA Section 311 oil-spill event.
For the sediment violations, MDE offered a $8,648 administrative settlement. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation petitioned Baltimore in April 2026 to deny Hopkins' requested stormwater-permit waiver for the DSAI project on grounds of demonstrated noncompliance. Baltimore City Council and Department of Public Works approved the project in December 2025 despite the objections. The diesel spill triggered separate MDE safety-requirement directives to Hopkins.
A rare §404/§401 wetlands enforcement action that named the hyperscaler directly alongside its contractor — a 'permittee shield in reverse,' since Amazon held the §401 application and self-reported even though Walbridge did the physical fill. Reinforces that the construction phase (wetland fill and stormwater), not operational cooling discharge, is where data-center CWA exposure is materializing, and pairs with the Microsoft/Walbridge Boydton entry as a same-contractor read-across.
Walbridge, the general contractor building Amazon's New Carlisle campus, impacted just under one acre of emergent wetland north of the project area without authorization in late summer 2024; Amazon self-reported to IDEM in late May 2025. On August 13, 2025 IDEM instructed Amazon and Walbridge to 'cease all construction activities in waters of the state until they obtain the necessary authorization.' Amazon's pending Section 401 application (dated January 15, 2025) had proposed impacts to more than nine acres of wetlands.
Amazon withdrew its original Section 401 application on August 13, 2025; IDEM and the Army Corps gave it roughly 30 days to resubmit with additional mitigation accounting for the unauthorized impact, or risk denial. Wetland work was halted while other site work continued. No monetary penalty was reported in the coverage.
The Port of Morrow enforcement demonstrates that when a data center's industrial effluent is commingled at a POTW or industrial WWTP, the *receiving facility* bears the primary NPDES enforcement exposure — not the data center directly. The $727K fine is the largest state penalty at any facility explicitly identified as receiving data center wastewater. This is the state-enforcement counterpart to the Amazon Boardman private settlement already in this dataset.
Oregon DEQ issued two separate penalty actions against the Port of Morrow WWTP, which explicitly processes wastewater from 'local food processors, manufacturers and data centers,' including Amazon Boardman data centers. (1) April 2024: $727,000 civil penalty for 880 permit violations (November 2023–February 2024) — prohibited non-growing-season land application of nitrate-laden wastewater to farm fields when soils are saturated and runoff carries nitrate to groundwater. (2) September 2025: $11,700 fine for six additional violations (May 2024–January 2025) including off-season land application, pipeline leaks, and irrigation runoff. Since 2011 DEQ has issued over 2,000 violations and $3M+ in cumulative fines at this facility. Separately, Governor Kotek signed an emergency order in January 2026 temporarily allowing the Port to exceed land-application limits due to full lagoon storage capacity — underscoring the structural capacity shortfall.
Fines paid. Port committed to no more non-growing-season land application and is completing two new storage lagoons (1.5 billion gallon combined capacity) by November 2025. The Port simultaneously operates under a separate $2.4M state settlement for the broader Boardman-area nitrate groundwater crisis. Amazon's parallel $20.5M private class-action settlement (already in this dataset as Amazon-Boardman-OR-nitrate-2026) is a distinct legal track from this DEQ state enforcement action against the receiving WWTP.
Post-Sackett, hyperscaler wetland exposure increasingly runs through state isolated-wetland programs rather than federal §404 — and states like Indiana are approving fills with bank-credit mitigation and minimal process (no hearing). Power-delivery infrastructure (utility transmission) generates its own parallel wetland permits, widening the project's water-permit footprint beyond the data center parcel.
On September 16, 2025, IDEM granted a permit authorizing Google's $2B Project Zodiac data center (on ~1,400 acres containing ~33 acres of wetlands) to fill 2.44 acres of state-regulated wetlands, after a 30-day comment period that drew dozens of opposition comments; no public hearing was held, which the Hoosier Environmental Council criticized in formal comments (Oct 2025). In October–December 2025, IDEM separately approved AEP's request to temporarily fill wetlands to build power infrastructure for the campus.
Permit issued with compensatory mitigation: Google must purchase ~4 acres of wetland mitigation credits via the state mitigation bank / IDNR in-lieu-fee program (Maumee Service Area). Opposition continued at later IDEM hearings (e.g., a packed November 2025 hearing on the campus's generator permit). Construction is proceeding as of mid-2026.
Data-center enabling infrastructure (fiber conduits, water lines) can generate the project's biggest CWA exposure before any building rises — HDD frac-outs into streams and wetlands are treated as unpermitted discharges under state-delegated programs. Escalation from a modest administrative settlement to attorney-general enforcement shows regulators harden their posture when violations continue, and developer-of-record status can be lost over environmental compliance failures.
During construction of the QLoop fiber-conduit ring and water line serving the 2,100-acre Quantum Frederick data center campus, MDE documented violations across 25 inspections (Aug 2022–Oct 2023), including four horizontal-directional-drilling 'frac-outs' that released bore mud and drilling additives into a Monocacy River tributary and wetlands, plus unauthorized discharge of hundreds of thousands of gallons of possibly contaminated groundwater into Tuscarora Creek (Potomac watershed). Montgomery County segments of the fiber project accumulated over 80 state violations between Aug 2022 and Feb 2024. A county stop-work order halted drilling in April 2024.
MDE proposed a $130,000 settlement in November 2023, then rescinded it on June 18, 2024 after new violations, referring the matter to the Maryland Office of the Attorney General for formal enforcement (referral reported September 2024; still an active enforcement matter). Separately, investor TPG removed Quantum Loophole as manager/developer of the campus and QLoop in 2024 following Delaware litigation.
Demonstrates that hyperscale data center construction sites are already drawing routine state-level CWA stormwater enforcement, though penalties are landed on contractors (not the hyperscaler) and fines are modest. Microsoft itself was not named on the order — a pattern likely to repeat across the industry.
Formal state CWA enforcement. Following VA DEQ inspections on Jan 11, 2023 and a Feb 7, 2023 warning letter, the general contractor for Microsoft's Mecklenburg County data center was cited for failing to install or properly maintain erosion and sediment controls and stabilize denuded areas at the construction site. Sediment-laden runoff threatened Allen Creek tributaries in the Roanoke River basin. This is direct stormwater-permit enforcement, not a civil suit.
Consent Order signed May 25, 2023 by Walbridge Aldinger. Civil charge of $13,891.50 (reduced from $19,845 max with a $5,953.50 credit for cooperation). Required corrective BMP installation within 7 days, documentation within 21 days. Public comment June 19–July 20, 2023.
Data centers are now a bargaining chip in municipal water-rights fights even before any project is announced — the mere prospect of one can stall a half-million-person city's emergency drought supply. Aquifer allocation contests under Texas groundwater law are a growing exposure channel entirely outside federal water statutes.
Drought-stricken Corpus Christi applied for permits to drill 22 emergency wells into the Evangeline Aquifer near Sinton (San Patricio County), targeting up to 24 MGD by 2027. The dispute formalized in February 2026 when Sinton challenged the permits; Corpus Christi officials publicly allege Sinton is blocking the wells to reserve groundwater for one or two planned data centers, citing an April 21, 2026 rezoning of ~1,000 acres from agricultural to industrial, AEP's purchase of adjacent substation land, and drilling permits inside the rezoned tract. On May 16, 2026, Judge Alicia York ruled the litigation may proceed.
Litigation active as of June 2026 and could run for years; Corpus Christi has begun pipeline construction at its own risk while Sinton neither confirms nor denies the data-center plans.
In no-zoning states like Texas, aquifer-recharge and watershed objections have no local legal vehicle at all — counties literally cannot say no. Developer exposure is therefore deferred to groundwater districts, state legislatures, and eventual nuisance litigation rather than resolved at siting.
Eight data-center projects are planned in Hood County, TX (third-densest in the state per square mile), led by Sailfish Development's ~2,600-acre, up-to-5 GW Comanche Circle campus near Tolar. Residents organized as Protect the Paluxy Valley, arguing the site sits over an Upper Trinity Aquifer recharge zone and in the Paluxy River watershed feeding Dinosaur Valley State Park. Two county moratorium attempts failed — including a 3-2 vote on February 10, 2026 after a state senator warned commissioners they lacked authority — though commissioners unanimously tightened development regulations for large industrial projects in March 2026.
As of June 2026 the projects proceed; Texas counties have no zoning power over unincorporated land, leaving residents with only groundwater-district permitting and state legislation as levers.
Drought conditions convert ordinary capacity planning into political flashpoints: a unanimous big-city moratorium passed within weeks of public hearings. Grandfathering means the largest water loads escape the new rules — concentrating future scrutiny (and potential discharge/pretreatment fights) on incumbent projects.
With Charlotte under water-use restrictions during its worst drought in roughly 20 years, residents at a May 27, 2026 public hearing demanded a pause on data-center development, citing water and electricity demand. On June 8, 2026, Charlotte City Council unanimously approved a 150-day moratorium on new data centers (through November 5, 2026) while staff draft new regulations. The moratorium does not reach already-approved projects, including Digital Realty's 400 MW campus near Charlotte Douglas Airport and PowerHouse's 300 MW University City facility — which would be the largest data centers in North Carolina.
Moratorium in effect as of June 2026; new zoning/regulatory standards expected by November 2026, while the two grandfathered mega-projects continue and a state data-center bill advances in the NC legislature.
Behind-the-meter power plants built for data centers carry the classic steam-electric CWA exposure (cooling-water outfalls, thermal limits, §316) that the data center buildings themselves avoid — and NGOs are using each individual permit, including water permits, as a sequential chokepoint against the integrated campus.
The shuttered Homer City coal plant is being converted into the country's largest gas-fired data center campus (seven turbines, 4.4 GW, target 2027). PA DEP's permitting docket shows an NPDES renewal application filed May 1, 2026, an amendment for Outfall 027 modification filed Feb 20, 2026, and a draft NPDES permit (PAD320011) publicly noticed May 12, 2026; a separate pending permit would impact several acres of wetlands and hundreds of feet of stream. In January 2026, Clean Air Council, PennFuture, and Sierra Club appealed the plant's air plan approval to the Environmental Hearing Board, arguing DEP must review the entire project comprehensively, including its water use.
Draft NPDES permit out for comment as of May 2026; wetland/stream encroachment permit and roughly a dozen other approvals still pending; environmental groups' EHB appeal of the air permit is active and signals likely challenges to the water permits.
The largest permitted water envelope of any US data center (23 MGD) sits in a state with effectively no groundwater-withdrawal regulator — a regulatory-gap pattern (like post-Sackett wetlands gaps) where the CWA's discharge-focused architecture leaves consumptive use governed only by voluntary corporate replenishment pledges.
Meta's $27B+, 2,250-acre Hyperion campus (announced Dec 2024, operational target 2028) is authorized under Louisiana records to use up to 23 million gallons per day (~8.4B gal/yr), though Meta says steady-state use will be 500-600M gal/yr (~1.5 MGD). LSU and Tulane water researchers publicized in 2025-2026 that no Louisiana regulatory body is tasked with monitoring Meta's actual withdrawals or tracking aquifer condition over time. Meta has responded with voluntary watershed-restoration commitments (RES, Ducks Unlimited) pledging to 'restore' 100% of consumption to the Boeuf, Tensas, and Lower Mississippi watersheds.
No enforcement action or permit denial as of June 2026 — the dispute is over the absence of any binding water-use oversight; Sierra Club and academic researchers continue pressing for monitoring requirements while construction proceeds.
Shows the now-standard pre-CWA pressure points — utility capacity letters and newly described endangered species — being used to contest a campus before any discharge exists, and flags the receiving creeks where construction-stormwater and WWTP NPDES exposure will concentrate once ground breaks.
A proposed ~$14.5B hyperscale campus in Bessemer, AL would demand about 2 million gallons of water per day — roughly the usage of 6,700 households, two-thirds of the city's population. In July 2025 the Warrior River Water Authority stated it cannot supply the requested 2 MGD without 'significant upgrades to the existing water system.' Black Warrior Riverkeeper warned the project would be 'a massive water user… and a massive wastewater user' affecting Little Blue, Five Mile, and Blue Creeks downstream, and in November 2025 the newly documented Birmingham darter fish was found just downstream of the site. The Bessemer City Council nonetheless approved the rezoning 5-2 on November 18-19, 2025.
Rezoning approved Nov 2025 over public objection; water-supply upgrades, wastewater arrangements, and any §404/NPDES construction permitting unresolved as of June 2026; Riverkeeper monitoring continues and the darter creates potential ESA leverage.
Construction-phase dewatering and ground disturbance can damage neighboring private wells with zero permit trigger, because private well impacts fall outside NPDES and most state groundwater programs. Reputational and legislative exposure arrives years before any regulator does.
Residents living adjacent to Meta's $750M+ Stanton Springs data center campus in Newton County, GA (bordering Morgan County) reported private wells failing and water turning to sediment-laden sludge after construction began in 2018, with one couple ~1,000 feet from the site spending ~$5,000 on damaged plumbing and appliances. By 2025 reporting, the facility was drawing roughly 500,000 gallons/day — about 10% of Newton County's daily water use — in a county projected to face a total water deficit by 2030, and residents faced a ~33% water rate increase. Meta commissioned a consultant study concluding its operations did not harm local groundwater; no regulatory enforcement followed.
No enforcement or litigation as of June 2026; affected residents bore repair costs themselves. The dispute fed into the May 2026 congressional scrutiny of the same campus (the Morgan County turbid-water EPA inquiry, tracked separately) and into Georgia legislative debates on data-center water reporting.
Water-use figures shielded as trade secrets are increasingly indefensible once litigation is filed — operators should assume projected consumption becomes public. Transparency suits are emerging as the cheapest pressure point for opponents because they require no environmental violation at all.
In February 2025 Milwaukee Riverkeeper requested the City of Racine's records on projected Lake Michigan water deliveries to Microsoft's $3.3B Mount Pleasant data center (on the former Foxconn site). After ~210 days without a response, Midwest Environmental Advocates filed suit on September 15, 2025 in Racine County Circuit Court to compel disclosure. Two days after filing, the city released the figures — Microsoft had asked that the data be treated as trade secrets, then waived the request — showing roughly 2.8 million gallons for Area 3B and up to ~8.4 million gallons if expanded.
Records released September 17, 2025, mooting the core demand; the episode became a leading exhibit in Wisconsin's data-center transparency debate (and contrasts with Microsoft's later Caledonia site withdrawal in November 2025 after community pushback).
A hyperscaler abandoned a sited project purely on local sentiment — no permit denial, no litigation — showing water-and-transparency concerns now carry veto-like force at the rezoning stage in the Great Lakes region. Withdrawal-and-relocate also just moves the same water questions to the next county.
Microsoft sought to rezone 244 acres of farmland in Caledonia, WI for a data center near Lake Michigan. At a September 2025 Plan Commission meeting, roughly 40 residents spoke against the project over more than two hours, raising water and Lake Michigan impacts alongside noise, air quality, utility-bill, and jobs concerns — pushback amplified by the contemporaneous Racine records fight over the nearby Mount Pleasant campus's undisclosed water use. In November 2025, Microsoft announced it would not proceed at the Caledonia site, citing community feedback, and would seek an alternative location (reportedly in Ozaukee County).
Project withdrawn as of November 2025; Microsoft is scouting alternate Wisconsin sites, and neighboring Port Washington faces parallel opposition to a separate data-center campus.
The coming PFAS map for water advocates: imported electrical equipment, some immersion-cooling fluids, and legacy AFFF fire-suppression stocks can pull data-center vendors into reporting, and the public dataset gives communities a way to trace PFAS found near a campus back to a supply chain just as NPDES PFAS limits tighten.
Not an enforcement action: the October 2023 final rule requires anyone who manufactured or imported PFAS — including PFAS contained in imported articles — in any year from 2011 through 2022 to file a one-time retrospective report of chemical identity, uses, volumes, byproducts, exposure information, and disposal, with essentially no article, R&D, impurity, or small-manufacturer exemptions.
Submission deadlines have slipped repeatedly (most recently an April 2026 rule pushing the start of the reporting window to no later than January 31, 2027, with an amendment rulemaking pending), but once filed the dataset will map who put which PFAS where across the U.S. economy.
Establishes Oregon DEQ's willingness to capture economic-benefit components in industrial NPDES penalties — a methodology that scales penalties to the cost of delayed compliance. Highly relevant to The Dalles Google and Hillsboro Intel/data-center context: any operator that defers required water-quality infrastructure to save capex faces commensurately large 'avoided cost' penalty exposure, not just nominal per-day fines.
Across three Oregon coastal processing facilities, Pacific Seafood discharged fish parts, oil, grease, ammonia, E. coli, and chlorine into the Pacific Ocean (Charleston/Coos Bay), the Columbia River (Warrenton, via BioOregon Protein subsidiary), and the Chetco River (Brookings). The Charleston facility missed an April 2023 NPDES-mandated deadline to install a wastewater treatment system and continued discharging fish processing waste; the Warrenton facility exceeded chlorine permit limits and failed to submit monitoring reports; Brookings exceeded E. coli, ammonia, and chlorine limits.
On April 23, 2026, Oregon DEQ levied a combined $3.2 million civil penalty across the three facilities — $2.9 million against Charleston (of which $2.4 million reflects estimated economic benefit gained by not installing the treatment system), $104,800 against Warrenton, and $114,000 against Brookings. Second-largest civil penalty in Oregon DEQ history.
Demonstrates that Section 505 citizen-suit liability for POTW operators continues at full force even after City of San Francisco v. EPA (March 2025) curtailed end-result NPDES limits — because the violations here were direct numeric effluent-limit exceedances, not narrative or downstream-condition limits. For data-center operators discharging cooling/process water indirectly through a POTW, this is the worst-case enforcement scenario: the receiving POTW gets sued, its capital costs rise, and pretreatment requirements on industrial users tighten.
In March 2024, Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (CRK) detected E. coli levels averaging 340 times the EPA-recommended safe-recreation threshold at the R.M. Clayton outfall. CRK documented at least 79 NPDES permit limit violations at R.M. Clayton between July 2023 and July 2024. CRK and the Southern Environmental Law Center filed a CWA citizen suit in September 2024 — Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-03989-SDG, N.D. Ga.
On February 4, 2026, CRK and the City of Atlanta executed a consent decree. Atlanta committed to a 60-month capital-improvement program at R.M. Clayton estimated at $55 million. For three years following entry, Atlanta must copy CRK on every spill notice or violation report sent to state regulators. CRK monitoring detected no further E. coli exceedances at the outfall after September 2024.
Shows how a receiving municipal sewer system bears decades-long, federal-court-supervised CWA liability for overflows — exactly the public sewer infrastructure that data-center cooling and process water is discharged into, making the host POTW's NPDES/SSO exposure the operator's indirect exposure.
The United States and Arkansas sued Fort Smith on January 2, 2015 over illegal SSO discharges in violation of CWA §301(a); the resulting consent decree required a multi-decade, multi-hundred-million-dollar rehabilitation of the sewer system. On May 19, 2026 DOJ lodged a proposed modification (Federal Register notice 2026-10252, published May 22, 2026) extending the decree term by 11.5 years to a total of 23.5 years (to 2038) and revising interim milestones, while requiring the city to ensure adequate funding for the work.
Long-running federal-state sewer consent decree, actively being modified in 2026 with a 30-day public-comment period; the rehabilitation obligation and funding requirements remain in force.
Shows a chemical manufacturer facing simultaneous CWA, TSCA, and RCRA liability for the same PFAS releases — the same fluorochemical/PFAS-in-cooling-and-industrial-fluid supply chain data centers increasingly draw on — and the TSCA reporting-failure theory (undisclosed manufacturing data, evading enclosed-process rules) is directly transferable to any data-center-adjacent chemical supplier.
EPA, DOJ, and West Virginia allege Chemours released PFAS (including GenX/HFPO-DA) into the Cape Fear River (NC), Delaware River (NJ), and Ohio River (WV) in violation of NPDES permits, and separately violated TSCA by omitting required information from a premanufacture notice, violating TSCA §5(e) order recordkeeping provisions, and unlawfully manufacturing/processing PFAS outside an enclosed process — proposed consent decree filed June 24, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, subject to a 30-day public comment period.
Proposed consent decree: $22.5M civil penalty (paid over three annual installments, 2026-2028), over $337M in injunctive relief (~$280M for alternative drinking water, ~$60M for WV facility compliance), and a 15-year, $90M government-supervised PFAS mitigation program requiring 99% GenX release-control efficiency at each facility; pending court approval.
Demonstrates that 600 individual permit exceedances — even small, chronic numerical ones — generate >$1M federal penalties when they accumulate over a decade. Data centers with on-site cooling-blowdown discharge permits (or pretreatment permits to a POTW) face the same death-by-a-thousand-cuts risk if conductivity, biocide, or nutrient limits drift over time.
From 2016 through 2025, Hanover Foods exceeded its state-issued NPDES permit limits on more than 600 occasions at its on-site industrial wastewater treatment facility, with violations including total suspended solids, ammonia nitrogen, phosphorus, and temperature. Treated industrial wastewater discharges to Oil Creek, which flows to the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay.
Proposed consent decree lodged November 18, 2025: $1.15 million civil penalty (split $575,000 to DOJ / $575,000 to PADEP). Required injunctive measures include installation of a permanent boiler to maintain treatment temperature, a spare-parts program to reduce equipment downtime, additional monitoring and tracking, expanded operations and maintenance program, and root-cause investigations after each violation.
Sewer system consent decrees are critical context for data centers because nearly all data center cooling blowdown and process discharges go to municipal POTWs — and POTWs under federal consent decrees have strong incentives (and legal obligation) to tighten industrial pretreatment enforcement on any new high-volume industrial user.
JCMUA failed to properly operate and maintain its combined sewer system, causing repeated combined sewer overflows (CSOs) discharging untreated sewage and stormwater pollutants into the Hackensack River, Hudson River, Newark Bay, and Penhorn Creek without permit authorization. The 2025 consent decree modification was based on continued violations following a 2011 consent decree.
Modified consent decree (announced 2025, modifying the 2011 decree): $375,000 civil penalty, with JCMUA committing more than $52 million in immediate infrastructure repairs and upgrades and approximately $1.099 billion in total work over 10 years. Improvements will reduce CSO discharges by 370 million gallons per year and prevent over 1 million pounds of pollutants annually. Includes replacement of over 12,000 lead drinking-water service lines as a supplemental project.
Captures how Iowa DNR + Iowa AG handle large industrial users that overload small-town POTWs — including the indirect harm of forcing a municipal WWTP offline. Directly relevant to the West Des Moines / Altoona Microsoft data center cluster: pretreatment-violation enforcement against a single large industrial customer of a city WWTP sets the template for how Iowa would respond if a data center's chemical-treatment effluent disrupted a host municipality's treatment plant.
Agri Star kosher meatpacking facility exceeded its NPDES permit limits approximately 60 times across multiple years, including a September 2024 discharge of 1,149 lb/day of ammonia-nitrogen (vs. 97 lb/day limit, ~12x over) and 19,165 lb/day total suspended solids (vs. 293 lb/day daily maximum, ~65x over). In March 2024 the facility discharged over 250,000 gallons of untreated food-processing waste into Postville's municipal wastewater system, shutting down the city's WWTP for two days. Persistent violations of chloride limits, monitoring and reporting requirements; downstream impacts to Hecker Creek and the Yellow River (longest cold-water trout stream in Iowa).
Settlement reached July 30, 2025 by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird on behalf of Iowa DNR: $50,000 penalty plus consent decree requiring Agri Star to come into full NPDES compliance by Dec. 31, 2026. Settlement criticized by environmental groups as a 'sweetheart deal' relative to the scale of violations and as having short-circuited a separate citizen suit filed by Driftless Water Defenders.
Older Midwestern combined-sewer cities cannot meet original CSO long-term control schedules without modification — and Section 301 liability continues to attach during the renegotiation. For data centers locating in older industrial cities (e.g., Youngstown, Hartford, Columbus' equivalents), the POTW operator is already under federal supervision, which means new industrial users face accelerated pretreatment scrutiny and likely capital surcharges.
The original 2002 federal consent decree resolved CWA violations tied to ongoing releases of raw sewage and stormwater from Youngstown's combined sewer system into the Mahoning River. Despite a 2015 Long-Term Control Plan, the city was unable to fund the planned 'Wet Weather Facility Project' at the originally negotiated cost (estimated to balloon to ~$240 million). On June 6, 2025, DOJ lodged a proposed Consent Decree Amendment with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; Judge Christopher Boyko signed the order. The amendment replaces the Wet Weather Facility Project with a CSO 6057 Control Measure Project — a proposed 80 MGD high-rate treatment facility using cloth-disk filter media — and a West-Division Interceptor Sewer Replacement.
Court-approved $43 million revised compliance plan (downsized from $240M). Modified schedule for completion of CSO 6057 Control Measure Project. Case remains under federal court supervision.
Reinforces a now-well-established federal-court pattern in older Northeastern cities: CSO consent decrees stretch >25 years and require multi-billion-dollar capital outlays. Any large new industrial user (including data centers) discharging to such a system adds cost pressure on an already-strained system, making POTW pretreatment programs tighter.
The original 2006 federal consent decree, U.S. v. Metropolitan District (D. Conn.), required MDC to eliminate all SSO outfalls by date certain and implement inflow/infiltration controls under 'The Clean Water Project' — a >$2 billion infrastructure program. MDC had closed five of eight SSO outfalls but the remaining three (discharging to the South Branch Park River and the Connecticut River) required additional storage tunnel construction. On January 16, 2025, DOJ lodged a proposed First Material Modification to the 2006 Consent Decree with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
First material modification (lodged January 16, 2025) extends compliance milestones for the South Hartford storage tunnel project. The Clean Water Project as a whole remains a multi-billion-dollar federally supervised obligation.
Demonstrates that operating any industrial facility without an NPDES permit when discharges occur is independently actionable under Section 301(a), regardless of pollutant concentrations — a small-penalty but precedent-establishing CAFO case. The parallel for data centers: cooling tower blowdown to surface water or land application without an active NPDES permit (or coverage under a general permit like Ohio's draft OHD000001) is the same per-day violation.
In March 2021, EPA inspectors observed process wastewater from Wynja's beef CAFO (capacity 999 head in open lots + 999 head in deep-pit confinement barn) discharging through an unpermitted drainage pipe into a tributary of the Floyd River. Effluent sampling showed elevated ammonia, bacteria, chlorides, and organic matter. Wynja operated without an NPDES permit.
On November 17, 2025, DOJ and EPA lodged a proposed consent decree in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Wynja pays a $20,000 civil penalty (mitigated by documented limited ability to pay). Under the consent decree, Wynja must apply for an NPDES permit, construct a lined containment basin sized for a 25-year, 24-hour storm, and conduct ongoing sampling for ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, chlorides, and bacteria. EPA estimates the consent decree prevents 4.5 million gallons of unpermitted wastewater per year from entering the Floyd River and tributaries.
Lands a landmark long-tail public-nuisance precedent on land-applied industrial waste that escapes NPDES coverage via the agricultural-stormwater exemption — directly relevant to data centers whose cooling-tower blowdown is land-applied through municipal reuse programs (e.g., Loudoun Water reclaimed water deliveries). State common-law nuisance can fill the federal CWA gap when EPA enforcement is unavailable.
Oklahoma AG sued the major poultry integrators in 2005, alleging that land application of poultry litter on phosphorus-saturated soils in the Illinois River Watershed (IRW) — straddling Oklahoma and Arkansas — caused eutrophication of Lake Tenkiller and degraded recreational and aesthetic uses of the river. On December 18, 2025, after a six-day evidentiary hearing, Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma entered judgment finding the integrators liable for public nuisance and trespass. He imposed a 30-year remediation plan including an injunction prohibiting application of poultry waste on land with Soil Test Phosphorus ≥ 120 lbs/acre and capping application at 2 tons/acre. On April 8, 2026, Judge Frizzell rejected proposed settlements (negotiated by AG Drummond) as providing insufficient funding for watershed remediation.
30-year remediation plan with special-master oversight imposed by federal court December 2025. Settlement rejected April 2026 — case continues with court-supervised remedy. Liability findings stand.
PFAS dischargers face product-liability exposure that dwarfs typical CWA civil penalties — particularly relevant if data center cooling-water additives or fire-suppression systems (many use AFFF or AFFF-substitute foams) become tied to PFAS contamination findings. Data centers using PFAS-containing fluorochemical fire suppression face latent decades-long mass-tort exposure on the Tyco/BASF model.
Plaintiffs (a class of every active public water system in the U.S. with PFAS detections in at least one water source as of May 15, 2024) alleged that Tyco/Chemguard manufactured AFFF foam products containing PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS that contaminated drinking-water sources at thousands of training, military, and airport sites. Tyco settled on June 13, 2024, for $750 million. BASF settled on May 20, 2024, for $316.5 million ($312.5M to resolve claims + $4M for administration). U.S. District Court (D.S.C.) granted preliminary approval to both settlements in summer 2024; final fairness hearing November 1, 2024.
Tyco/BASF settlements approved late 2024; payments scheduled 2025. Combined with prior 3M ($10.3B) and DuPont/Chemours/Corteva ($1.185B) settlements, total publicly known PFAS public-water-system mass-tort settlements exceed $12.5 billion.
The only documented case where a digital-infrastructure operator (bitcoin mining / high-density compute) faces formal §316(a) thermal-discharge exceedance findings and unresolved §316(b) intake noncompliance. The 139 MGD intake volume is comparable to a large industrial cooling system. Data centers using once-through or open-loop cooling on surface-water intakes face the same §316(b) best-technology-available and §316(a) thermal-variance obligations — Greenidge illustrates what enforcement looks like when those obligations are not met.
New York DEC documented that Greenidge's once-through cooling water discharges exceeded state temperature limits in all 8 temperature monitoring surveys conducted between June 2021 and April 2022, reaching 86°F — approximately 10°F above ambient Seneca Lake temperature and 7°F above the state water-quality limit. The facility withdraws up to 139 million gallons per day from Seneca Lake, returning it at elevated temperatures. SPDES permit NY-0001325 expired September 30, 2022; renewal remains unresolved as of 2025. Greenidge has not installed required §316(b) closed-cycle wet surface aerisol cooling system (CWWS) intake screens. DEC denied air permit renewal three times (2022, 2023, 2024); a New York Supreme Court overturned the third denial in November 2024.
PARTIAL resolution: A November 2025 settlement between Greenidge and DEC addressed greenhouse-gas emissions only (44% cut by 2030), leaving the SPDES water permit renewal and §316(b) intake compliance fully unresolved. No formal CWA consent order or monetary water penalty has been publicly reported. The thermal exceedances documented 2021–2022 remain the factual predicate for ongoing permit conditions.
Establishes the statutory ceiling of $15M as the EPA/DOJ benchmark for a single catastrophic CWA spill event, while showing that the real bite comes from response-cost recovery and long-tail monitoring obligations. For data centers, the parallel risk is a single transformer-oil or PFAS-firefighting-foam release that triggers CERCLA + CWA liability layered together.
On February 3, 2023, 38 Norfolk Southern rail cars derailed in East Palestine, OH, including cars carrying vinyl chloride and other hazardous chemicals. The derailment and the subsequent controlled vent-and-burn released hazardous substances and oil into Sulphur Run, Leslie Run, Bull Creek, North Fork Little Beaver Creek, and the Ohio River watershed, contaminating surface waters and groundwater.
Consent decree lodged May 23, 2024 in the Northern District of Ohio: $15 million Clean Water Act civil penalty (the maximum allowed under the statute for these violations), plus approximately $235 million in past and future cleanup costs, $30 million for long-term water-quality monitoring, $25 million for a 20-year community health program, $6 million for a waterways remediation plan, and ~$57 million in EPA response-cost reimbursement. Total federal settlement valued at over $310 million.
Reinforces that even small/distressed POTWs can be forced into $30M+ federal compliance regimes — meaning any data center siting in an environmental-justice sewer service area should expect heavily scrutinized pretreatment terms. Also shows EPA's willingness to litigate against under-resourced systems, which raises pretreatment-permit issuance risk for new industrial users.
On at least 300 occasions since November 2019, Cahokia Heights discharged sanitary sewage from cleanouts and other unauthorized points in its sewer system into local waterways without any NPDES permit. The discharges affected predominantly Black and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, raising environmental-justice concerns.
Consent decree lodged December 10, 2024: $30,000 civil penalty (reduced due to limited ability to pay) plus an estimated $30 million in compliance measures, including 80+ near-term capital improvement projects, system-wide repairs, sewer condition assessment reports, a sewer condition rehabilitation plan due by December 2035, real-time monitoring at known overflow points, digital sewer mapping, and emergency response planning. Co-plaintiffs included the State of Illinois.
Especially relevant because the decree explicitly requires the POTW to tighten its industrial pretreatment program — the exact lever that municipal sewer authorities will pull when faced with high-volume new users like data centers. Demonstrates a pattern where federal sewer-system decrees translate directly into tougher pretreatment terms for industrial customers.
At least 237 sanitary sewer overflows occurred from GWA's collection system since 2018, releasing untreated sewage to waters of the United States. GWA also exceeded NPDES effluent limits at its wastewater treatment plants and failed to properly operate and maintain its collection system and treatment facilities.
Partial consent decree lodged January 30, 2024: approximately $400 million in required sewer system improvements over 25 years, including pretreatment program enhancements, fats/oils/grease control, climate-resilient pump station upgrades, and a feasibility study for secondary treatment upgrades at the Hagatna WWTP. The decree explicitly requires 'new requirements for pretreatment of wastewater' from industrial users.
First-of-its-kind judicial precedent that EPA will litigate over biosolids/sludge management — which matters because many large data-center POTWs ultimately dispose of treatment-plant biosolids contaminated with PFAS and other industrial inputs. Data center pretreatment violations that send PFAS or metals into POTW sludge can trigger downstream Section 405 exposure for the receiving POTW.
Since at least 2016, Denali repeatedly land-applied sewage sludge to farm fields in Arizona and southern California at rates exceeding crops' nitrogen needs and routinely failed to obtain the soil/agronomic information required to calculate proper application rates. Excess nitrogen risks leaching to groundwater and runoff to surface waters.
Consent decree announced November 12, 2024 — the first judicial settlement involving Section 405 biosolids violations exclusively: $610,000 civil penalty and a binding Soil Sampling and Agronomic Rate Calculation Protocol if operations resume in AZ or CA within five years. EPA estimates the settlement will eliminate excess application of 5.8 million pounds of sewage sludge annually.
Squarely on-point: the decree centers on a POTW's failure to enforce its pretreatment program against industrial users — the exact regulatory mechanism that controls data-center cooling-water and process-water discharge. POTWs operating under such decrees are required to tighten industrial-user oversight, which translates into stricter pretreatment permits, monitoring, and enforcement against high-volume industrial customers like data centers.
Reading's Fritz Island WWTP repeatedly violated effluent limits in its NPDES permit by discharging pollutants to the Schuylkill River, and the City failed to enforce the requirements of its federally required pretreatment program for industrial users discharging to the POTW. The City also failed to properly operate and maintain the treatment plant.
Fourth Amendment of Consent Decree lodged January 24, 2024 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, extending capital-improvement deadlines because of design, bidding, contracting, and construction delays. The underlying remedial framework requires completion of plant upgrades and ongoing enforcement of the pretreatment program against industrial users.
Demonstrates that long-running industrial NPDES exceedances on small Ohio receiving streams (Nimishillen Creek) draw multi-year federal-state enforcement scrutiny. Relevant to Licking County / central Ohio data center buildout where cooling-water and stormwater discharges feed into similarly modest creeks; per-day penalty exposure ($67K/day sought) sets a Region 5 precedent that would apply to any data center NPDES non-compliance.
Between 2017 and 2023, Republic Steel's Canton facility self-reported 89 exceedances of its NPDES permit limits for industrial wastewater, while its idled Lorain plant reported 115 exceedances. The company also had unpermitted pollutant discharges from both facilities into the east branch of Nimishillen Creek (Canton) and the Black River (Lorain).
$700,000 federal civil penalty under proposed settlement filed January 29, 2024 with U.S. DOJ and EPA (Ohio EPA was statutory co-plaintiff). EPA had originally sought up to ~$67,000/day per violation. Both facilities to remain permanently closed/idle. Ohio AG separately secured $360,000 in 2023 for related air violations at Canton.
Sets a direct VADEQ enforcement precedent for large-footprint Virginia construction projects with VAR10 stormwater general permits — exactly the regulatory regime under which Loudoun and Prince William data center campuses are built. Three consecutive years of escalating fines signal VADEQ will use repeat-violator escalation on developers who treat E&S controls as a paperwork exercise.
Across seven utility-scale solar construction sites in Buckingham, Henry, Sussex, and Wythe counties, Virginia DEQ documented around 40 violations of construction-stormwater requirements: improper erosion, sediment and stormwater controls, unauthorized stream crossings (Axton), improperly installed sediment basins (Wytheville), inadequate vegetative maintenance and silt fencing (Buckingham). Violations occurred at VPDES permits including VAR10R609, VAR10M363, VAR10M588, VAR10O685, VAR10K745, and VAR10M345.
Initial $68,250 civil charge in March 2023 consent order; superseded by a May 2024 VADEQ consent order requiring Energix US to pay $158,000 ($120,150 to Virginia Stormwater Management Fund and $28,850 to Virginia Environmental Emergency Response Fund). Energix has now been fined three consecutive years (2022, 2023, 2024) totaling roughly $345,000.
Illustrates how NC DEQ uses repeated Civil Penalty Assessments and toxicity-based exceedances to enforce against a major industrial NPDES discharger on a small mountain receiving stream. Relevant to North Carolina data center proposals (e.g., Lenoir, Maiden corridor) where cooling discharges to similar small receiving waters would face the same per-day NOV/CPA framework.
Over a series of NC DEQ Notices of Violation issued through 2023-2024, Pactiv Evergreen exceeded permit discharge limitations into the Pigeon River, including a September 2022 effluent exceedance, a March 2023 toxicity test result exceeding permit limits, and alleged improper dumping of unused process chemicals into the mill's wastewater treatment plant during the mill's shutdown. Additional NOVs were issued September 19, October 26, December 22 (2023), and February 2 and February 6 (2024).
By summer 2023 the company had received 14-15 NOVs from NC DEQ since May 2021 and had paid roughly $41,819 in penalties; July 2023 NOV exposed the company to civil penalty assessment of up to $25,000/day per violation for three alleged water-quality law violations related to chemical dumping. The Canton mill formally closed in June 2023.
Underscores that industrial cooling/process-water discharges — even from non-traditional sources like rocket deluge systems — fall squarely under TPDES jurisdiction in Texas. Highly relevant to San Antonio and Austin-area hyperscale data centers using evaporative cooling: any unpermitted blowdown or stormwater conveyance carrying industrial water can trigger TCEQ Agreed Orders without prior NOV.
SpaceX operated a launch-pad water deluge system that sprayed >100,000 gallons of water per Starship test fire, discharging the resulting industrial wastewater into saltwater wetlands adjacent to Boca Chica Beach on March 14, April 5, May 8, and July 26, 2024 — all without a required TPDES permit. After 14 complaints to TCEQ's Harlingen office, a state inspector documented the violations on July 25, 2024.
TCEQ Agreed Order signed August 13, 2024 (Docket 2024-1282-IWD-E) assessing a $3,750 state civil penalty (portion deferred pending permit issuance) and requiring future discharge sampling with effluent limitations. Separately, EPA reached a $148,378 federal civil penalty under Docket CWA-06-2024-1768. Environmental groups subsequently sued TCEQ in December 2024 over a 300-day temporary authorization issued to SpaceX.
Direct Region 5 + Ohio EPA precedent for industrial NPDES exceedances on small Ohio tributaries — the receiving-water profile that matches Licking County / New Albany data center stormwater outfalls and any future Ohio data center cooling-water discharges under the in-development OHD000001 general permit. Shows that even relatively modest, time-bounded exceedances at a non-data-center industrial facility draw six-figure CAFO penalties.
Hyponex, a Scotts Miracle-Gro subsidiary operating a soil/peat processing facility in Shreve (Wayne County), discharged E. coli, total suspended solids, chlorine, and ammonia-nitrogen above NPDES permit limits into the Kiser Ditch tributary, which flows to the Lower Muddy Fork Mohican River. In May 2022 EPA (operating with Ohio EPA in Region 5) issued an administrative order requiring submission of a compliance plan; the company returned to compliance in September 2022.
$100,000 civil penalty under proposed Consent Agreement and Final Order (Docket CWA-05-2024-0013), complaint filed July 25, 2024, settlement closed September 13, 2024.
Demonstrates how long-deferred SDWA filtration/treatment obligations at a public water system escalate into nine-figure capital consent-decree liability — directly relevant where data-center-driven demand growth strains a regional water utility's aging treatment infrastructure and delays compliance investment, the same supply-capacity fact pattern already tracked at Bessemer, AL and Richland Parish, LA.
WJWW's Rye Lake surface-water source supplied drinking water exceeding the legal limit for haloacetic acids (HAA5) in 2019, and WJWW then violated an EPA administrative order (and a related state court order) requiring construction of a filtration plant by set deadlines; the U.S., New York, EPA, and DOJ sued WJWW and the three municipalities in the Southern District of New York.
June 24, 2024 consent decree: $600,000 civil penalty; WJWW must design, build, and operate a filtration plant (~$138M cost) for the Rye Lake source by July 1, 2029, plus interim public-notice/monitoring measures and a ~$900,000 supplemental environmental project modifying a detention basin and managing invasive species in the Kensico Reservoir watershed.
A small, thinly-capitalized private water-system operator is exactly the ownership profile increasingly asked to absorb new industrial and data-center-adjacent hookup demand in fast-growing exurban Georgia — this order shows how quickly a routine disinfection-residual lapse becomes a federal emergency action.
EPA issued an emergency administrative order in August 2024 against CJT Group LLC for six Georgia community water systems (serving roughly 500 residents) after finding chronic inadequacy of chlorine disinfectant residuals in the distributed drinking water — an acute health-based SDWA violation.
Order required CJT Group to issue customer public notice, fix maintenance deficiencies, perform daily disinfectant-residual monitoring, and provide alternative water to customers any time residual disinfectant or system pressure drops below required levels.
First federal precedent that PFAS discharges in effluent and stormwater are directly actionable under Clean Water Act NPDES authority — not just CERCLA. Data centers use PFAS-containing immersion cooling fluids and aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) firefighting agents; once EPA's promised PFAS NPDES application rule is in place, any data-center stormwater outfall that tests positive becomes a potential enforcement target on this template.
From September 2018 through March 2023, the Washington Works facility exceeded its NPDES permit numeric effluent limits for PFOA and HFPO Dimer Acid (GenX) on multiple occasions in process wastewater and stormwater discharged to the Ohio River and its tributaries. Fourteen of the documented permit exceedances were 1,000% or more above the limit. EPA also alleged Chemours failed to properly operate and maintain pollution control systems required for permit compliance.
Administrative Compliance Order on Consent (AOC) issued April 26, 2023 — EPA's first-ever Clean Water Act enforcement action targeting PFAS discharges. The AOC required Chemours to implement an EPA-approved sampling plan for PFAS in stormwater and effluent, characterize the extent of PFAS contamination, submit and implement a treatment plan to come back into compliance with numeric PFOA and HFPO-DA effluent limits, and revise its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. No civil penalty was attached to the AOC itself.
Direct precedent for TCEQ penalty methodology when an industrial facility releases process water beyond permit authorization. Penalties scale with discharge volume; relevant to Texas data center sites where heat-exchanger blowdown or chemical-treatment volumes could similarly exceed permitted volumes. Shows TCEQ's expedited settlement mechanism gives modest dollar penalties for one-off bulk discharges relative to ongoing exceedances.
Hailiang's copper-tubing manufacturing facility on Interstate 10 West in Sealy made an unauthorized discharge of approximately 288,000 gallons of industrial wastewater between Feb 2 and March 13, 2023, in violation of its TPDES permit conditions. TCEQ investigation documented the unauthorized discharge.
TCEQ Agreed Order in Docket 2023-0715-IWD-E assessed a $28,750 administrative penalty ($5,750 deferred for expedited settlement; $23,000 paid to Texas general revenue), plus compliance requirements.
Establishes a benchmark for million-dollar federal penalties when a cooling-loop/process-water system fails and an industrial facility is forced to discharge uncontrolled volumes through its NPDES outfalls. Data centers with closed-loop chilled-water systems face an analogous failure mode if cooling-tower blowdown or condensate exceeds POTW pretreatment or NPDES limits during an upset.
In August 2019, the Burns Harbor blast-furnace closed-loop air scrubber recycle system failed, forcing the facility to draw large volumes of Lake Michigan water and discharge it through outfalls into the East Branch of the Little Calumet River. The facility exceeded its NPDES permit limits for cyanide and ammonia nitrogen, triggering fish kills and closing Ogden Dunes Beach and Indiana Dunes National Park beaches for seven days. The complaint also documented chronic exceedances of ammonia, cyanide, toxicity, phenolics, and oil and grease.
Consent decree lodged February 14, 2022: $3 million civil penalty (split with Indiana), plus ~$47,675 in response cost reimbursement (EPA $10,025.37 + IDEM $37,650). Required installation of a new cyanide treatment system, pilot ammonia-N treatment system through completion of a permanent ammonia treatment system by May 2025, enhanced wastewater sampling and monitoring, monitoring of Lake Michigan during 2022-2023 summers, and donation of ~127 acres adjoining Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.
Most direct cooling-water analog in EPA's enforcement docket: a contact-cooling-water stream that picked up metals (zinc, cadmium) from process equipment and violated NPDES limits. Data centers using closed-loop systems with copper piping or biocide additives can produce blowdown with similar metal/pH profiles — and would face the same NPDES exceedance liability if discharged directly or under a pretreatment permit.
EPA cited the Palmerton plant for exceeding NPDES permit discharge limits for cadmium, zinc, and pH in contact cooling water discharged to Aquashicola Creek (a Lehigh River tributary); sampling and monitoring lapses; failure to keep stormwater segregated from process wastewater; and SPCC deficiencies. The cooling water that contacted zinc-bearing process equipment carried metals into surface water.
February 9, 2021 consent decree (U.S./Pennsylvania v. American Zinc Recycling Corp.): $3.3 million civil penalty (split 50/50 federal/state) plus approximately $4.3 million in injunctive relief — leak-detection installation, equipment monitoring upgrades, segregated stormwater controls, and dust-control improvements. Concurrent resolution of RCRA and Clean Air Act counts.
Sets a benchmark of ~$24M federal penalty for an industrial oil discharge to navigable waters and shows how natural-resource damages stack on top of CWA Section 311 civil penalties. For data centers, this matters because backup-generator and transformer-oil reservoirs are CWA-regulated 'oil' under SPCC and could trigger Section 311 liability on top of NPDES penalties if discharged to a waterway.
On May 19, 2015, Plains' Line 901 pipeline ruptured near Refugio State Beach, releasing approximately 2,934 barrels (~123,000 gallons) of heavy crude oil. The crude traveled through three culverts, reached the beach, and entered the Pacific Ocean about 722 feet from the discharge point, contaminating coastline and marine habitat.
Consent decree lodged March 2020 in the Central District of California: $24 million in total federal penalties, including a $9.45 million CWA penalty (EPA $5.925M, California Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board $2.5M, California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife $1.025M), plus $22.325 million in natural resource damages and >$44 million in total commitments including nationwide pipeline-safety injunctive relief.
Closest legal analog to a data-center cooling-water situation: an industrial user discharging to a municipal POTW under a local pretreatment permit. Persistent permit exceedances — even without direct surface-water discharge — generate eight-figure compliance costs. Data centers in Loudoun, Prince William, and Central Ohio that send cooling-tower blowdown to wholesale POTWs sit in the same regulatory posture.
Yuengling's two breweries committed at least 141 industrial-user permit violations between 2008 and 2015 when discharging high-strength wastewater to the Greater Pottsville Area Sewer Authority POTW. Pollutants included BOD, phosphorus, zinc, and out-of-range pH; the company also missed required samples and submitted incomplete monitoring reports.
June 23, 2016 federal consent decree (U.S. and Pennsylvania v. D.G. Yuengling): $2.8 million civil penalty plus approximately $7 million in mandatory injunctive relief — construction of a comprehensive biological pretreatment system at the Old Brewery, optimization of the New Brewery pretreatment, certified wastewater operators on staff, and a multi-facility environmental management system. EPA projected BOD-load cuts of >155,000 lb/yr.
Directly relevant model for data centers discharging cooling-tower blowdown to municipal sewers: pretreatment-program violations (interference / pass-through at the POTW) are independently enforceable under CWA 307, even when the data center itself holds no direct NPDES permit. Repeat offenders see escalating penalties.
Between 2006 and 2011 Swift's beef plant repeatedly exceeded its industrial-user pretreatment permit limits when sending high-strength wastewater (BOD, ammonia, oil and grease, suspended solids) to the Grand Island POTW. The slug loads caused 'pass-through' and 'interference' at the POTW, and a 2008 upset killed fish across a 16-mile stretch of the Wood River and a 7.5-mile stretch of the Platte River.
2011 federal consent decree (U.S. and Nebraska v. Swift Beef): $1.2 million federal/state civil penalty (split evenly), $100,000 state administrative-order penalty, $4,705 to Nebraska Game and Parks for fish restocking, plus more than $1 million in mandatory plant pretreatment upgrades. A second EPA enforcement followed in December 2023 ($275,000 for 50+ new exceedances 2018-2023).
The definitive multi-statute water case: when the CWA's permit machinery had nothing to say about an unregulated contaminant, EPA reached the same fact pattern through TSCA (concealed risk data) and SDWA Section 1431 (drinking-water endangerment). For data centers, this is the playbook if a cooling-chemistry constituent or fuel-farm release turns up in neighbors' wells — no NPDES violation is needed for EPA to order alternative water and treatment.
DuPont withheld for up to two decades information reasonably supporting a conclusion of substantial risk from PFOA — including human blood-sampling data and data showing PFOA in drinking-water supplies near Washington Works. EPA brought an eight-count administrative action: seven TSCA Section 8(e) failure-to-report counts and one RCRA Section 3007 count. In parallel, EPA used SDWA Section 1431 emergency orders (first in 2002, superseded 2006 and 2009) to force DuPont to survey and treat public water systems and private wells in six WV/OH water districts, with the site-specific PFOA action level tightened from 0.50 ppb (2006) to 0.40 ppb (2009).
December 14, 2005 settlement: $10.25M civil administrative penalty — then the largest civil administrative penalty in EPA history under any environmental statute — plus $6.25M in supplemental environmental projects. The Section 1431 orders required DuPont (obligations later assumed by spin-off Chemours) to offer treatment or alternative drinking water; they remain the template for using SDWA emergency powers against an industrial groundwater contaminator.
Most important precedent for evaporative-cooled data centers: 316(b) BTA can require retrofitting once-through cooling to closed-cycle (i.e., cooling towers), making intake design a regulated variable for any facility withdrawing more than ~2 MGD. Future large data centers drawing from surface water will face the same BTA analysis.
Brayton Point's once-through cooling system withdrew nearly 1 billion gallons/day from Mount Hope Bay and discharged 42 trillion BTUs/year of waste heat, entraining and impinging billions of fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles. Mt. Hope Bay finfish populations collapsed ~87% after 1985 — EPA cited this as evidence the intake was not Best Technology Available (BTA) under 316(b) and the thermal discharge failed 316(a).
October 2003 EPA Region 1 final NPDES permit required a 94% reduction in intake flow (to 56 MGD) and a 96% cut in thermal discharge (to 1.7 trillion BTU/yr). After litigation, December 17, 2007 settlement compelled Dominion to build two ~500-ft closed-cycle cooling towers (~$500M capital cost) — completed 2011. Plant ultimately retired in 2017.
Extends the DuPont lesson up the supply chain: chemical manufacturers whose products end up in industrial water systems (biocides, corrosion inhibitors, fluorochemical surfactants, AFFF) carry their own federal reporting duty. Water advocates near data-center campuses can leverage TSCA disclosures to trace contaminants found in wells or effluent back to a supplier.
3M voluntarily disclosed 244 TSCA reporting violations, a large share involving failures to promptly submit substantial-risk information about PFOS and related fluorochemicals — the family of compounds 3M had manufactured for decades and phased out of production between 2000 and 2002.
April 25, 2006 settlement: $1,521,481 penalty. 3M neither admitted nor denied the violations; EPA made substantive violation determinations in 10 instances. Together with the DuPont settlement it established that sitting on internal PFAS risk data is itself a federal violation, independent of any discharge.
Demonstrates that knowing discharge in violation of an NPDES permit (or knowingly falsified DMRs) can be charged as a felony under CWA 309(c), not just a civil matter. Cooling-water dischargers — including data centers — that under-report blowdown concentrations risk criminal exposure for individuals as well as the corporation.
Between 1996 and 2001 Tyson repeatedly discharged untreated or inadequately treated poultry-processing wastewater (high-BOD, high-nutrient loadings) from its Sedalia plant into a tributary of the Lamine River, exceeding NPDES limits for ammonia, BOD, fecal coliform, and total suspended solids. The company also falsified Discharge Monitoring Reports submitted to Missouri DNR.
Federal criminal plea on June 25, 2003 in U.S. District Court (W.D. Mo.): Tyson pleaded guilty to 20 felony counts and paid $7.5 million total — $5.5 million federal criminal penalty, $1 million Missouri penalty, and $1 million to the Missouri Natural Resources Protection Fund — plus court-ordered upgrades to plant pretreatment.
Directly regulates common data-center campus infrastructure that never touches the CWA: stormwater drywells and infiltration galleries (subclass 5D), cooling-water return-flow wells (5A) for geothermal or aquifer thermal cooling, and subsurface disposal of treated effluent are all Class V injection wells. An inland campus over a shallow aquifer answers to the UIC program even with zero surface-water discharge.
Finding that shallow industrial injection categorically endangered underground sources of drinking water, EPA's December 7, 1999 rule banned construction of new motor-vehicle waste disposal wells nationwide (effective April 5, 2000), required existing ones in ground-water protection areas to close or obtain waiver-based permits with quarterly waste-stream sampling, and banned large-capacity cesspools outright.
The leading federal regulatory action against shallow injection and drainage wells, establishing that whole Class V well subclasses can be closed by rule where the endangerment is categorical — and that every shallow well emplacing fluid underground needs UIC inventory and authorization.
Establishes that chronic NPDES-limit exceedances and inaccurate Discharge Monitoring Reports trigger per-day, per-parameter civil penalties that can reach into the eight figures. Data centers self-reporting cooling-tower-blowdown DMRs face the same per-violation penalty exposure under 33 U.S.C. 1319(d).
Smithfield's slaughterhouse and on-site wastewater plant repeatedly exceeded NPDES discharge limits for phosphorus, ammonia, cyanide, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen into the Pagan River (a Chesapeake Bay tributary). The court found nearly 7,000 separate Clean Water Act violations between 1991 and 1997, including chronic limit exceedances, falsified Discharge Monitoring Reports, and a 5-year delay in installing required pollution-control upgrades.
U.S. District Court (E.D. Va.) imposed a $12.6 million civil penalty in August 1997 — the largest CWA civil penalty in history at the time — affirmed by the Fourth Circuit in 1999. Required full upgrade of on-site wastewater treatment and tie-in to the Hampton Roads Sanitation District.
Data centers whose cooling-tower blowdown or stormwater discharges run through municipal POTWs or hold direct NPDES permits can no longer be hit with open-ended 'don't violate water-quality standards' language; EPA and delegated state agencies must instead set numeric or technology-based effluent limits, increasing permit predictability but shifting the regulatory burden back to permit writers.
San Francisco challenged its renewed combined-sewer NPDES permit for the Oceanside facility, which contained two 'end-result' provisions: a prohibition on any discharge that would 'contribute to a violation' of receiving-water quality standards and a prohibition on discharges creating 'pollution, contamination, or nuisance' under state law. The city argued EPA had to specify the exact effluent limits required for compliance rather than make the permittee bear the risk of receiving-water exceedances it does not control.
Decided March 4, 2025, by 5-4. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, holding that § 1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize EPA to impose generic 'end-result' provisions making permittees liable for downstream water-quality violations without telling them what specific effluent limits to meet. Justice Barrett dissented in relevant part, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, agreeing the broader narrative arguments failed but contending end-result conditions are lawful under the statute.
Confirms environmental groups can sue in federal court to enforce state NPDES permit terms stricter than federal law — directly raising citizen-suit exposure for the receiving WWTPs whose state-issued permits this pipeline already tracks, and for any facility operating under a state discharge permit.
The Ninth Circuit held that CWA citizen suits can enforce the entirety of a state-issued NPDES permit, including conditions exceeding federal minimums (here, Washington's Industrial Stormwater General Permit). The U.S. Solicitor General filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant review and reverse, arguing the ruling 'contravenes the CWA's text, structure, and context.'
The Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 30, 2025, leaving the Ninth Circuit ruling intact. The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits align with it; the Second Circuit disagrees, so the circuit split — and non-uniform citizen-suit exposure nationally — persists.
Narrows when CWA citizen suits can proceed: once a discharger obtains a permit or otherwise cures a violation, the Ninth Circuit treats penalty-only claims as moot — a permit-shield-style defense a data center or its receiving WWTP could invoke after coming into compliance, blunting citizen-suit deterrence.
A nonprofit sued over unpermitted Fourth-of-July fireworks discharges into Alamitos Bay (Long Beach, CA). After the defendant obtained an NPDES permit authorizing the discharge, the Ninth Circuit held the suit constitutionally moot — including the civil-penalty claim — because it was 'absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur,' so penalties lost their deterrent function (applying Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw).
Suit dismissed as moot. The Ninth Circuit aligned with the Eighth Circuit; the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits hold that civil-penalty claims survive mootness — deepening the circuit split.
The most prominent modern use of SDWA emergency powers, and the proof that EPA can act directly when a drinking-water system fails its users — including where the failure is driven by cost pressure on a stressed municipal system. Relevant to any community whose small water system takes on hyperscale demand: Section 1431 is the federal backstop if supply or treatment integrity slips.
After Flint switched to Flint River water in 2014 without corrosion-control treatment, lead leached from service lines into the public water system. On January 21, 2016 EPA found the contamination presented an imminent and substantial endangerment and that state and local responses were inadequate, and ordered corrosion control, sampling, public information, and reporting — over the head of the state primacy agency.
The order (amended November 2016) governed Flint's remediation for nine years; EPA lifted it on May 19, 2025 after the city completed all requirements, including replacement of over 97% of lead service lines. A compliance order, not a penalty action.
Direct relevance to data-center water tracking: every EPA interpretation of Section 402 (NPDES), Section 401 (state certification), Section 404 (dredge-and-fill), and the post-Sackett WOTUS rule is now reviewable de novo. EPA cannot rely on agency-deference to defend novel cooling-water effluent guidelines or technology-based limits for data centers — any future rulemaking targeting hyperscale cooling water (Ohio's draft OHD000001, Virginia's data-center reporting bills, EPA's MSGP 2026) faces a heightened judicial-review standard.
Atlantic herring fishermen challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service rule requiring them to pay for on-board federal monitors. The case was used as a vehicle to challenge the Chevron doctrine — the 40-year-old rule that courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The Supreme Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts reviewing agency action to exercise independent judgment on questions of law and that agency interpretations are entitled only to Skidmore-style respect (persuasive weight), not binding deference.
6-3 decision (Roberts for majority; Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson dissenting), June 28, 2024. Chevron deference overruled. The decision was applied within months by the Supreme Court in City and County of San Francisco v. EPA (March 2025) to strike down EPA's use of end-result NPDES limits, demonstrating its real-world bite on CWA implementation.
Sackett dramatically shrank federal CWA jurisdiction over wetlands, ephemeral streams, and isolated waters — the exact categories most likely to receive stormwater runoff or graywater seepage from a large data center campus. After Sackett, many data center sites that previously needed §402 NPDES or §404 permits for site drainage now fall to state-only regulation, shifting the compliance burden to state programs in Virginia and Ohio.
EPA ordered the Sacketts to stop backfilling their Idaho lot, classifying it as a federally regulated wetland with a 'significant nexus' to a nearby creek-and-lake system. The Sacketts sued, arguing the wetland lacked any continuous surface connection to navigable waters and therefore was not a 'water of the United States' subject to CWA jurisdiction.
Unanimous in judgment (9-0 reversing the Ninth Circuit) but 5-4 on the controlling test. Justice Alito's majority opinion rejected Justice Kennedy's Rapanos 'significant nexus' standard and held that the CWA reaches only (1) relatively permanent bodies of water 'connected to traditional interstate navigable waters' and (2) wetlands with a 'continuous surface connection' to those waters such that they are 'indistinguishable' from them.
For data-center developers whose campuses involve federally permitted stream or wetland crossings (e.g., long-haul fiber, water-supply pipelines, electrical transmission corridors), state § 401 certifications must rest on documented project-specific anti-degradation review and explicit stormwater conditions — a boilerplate 'reasonable assurance' memo is now legally vulnerable in the Fourth Circuit, which covers Virginia.
Sierra Club and other environmental groups petitioned for review of West Virginia DEP's Section 401 water-quality certification authorizing Mountain Valley Pipeline to make hundreds of stream crossings in the state. Petitioners argued the certification was arbitrary because the agency failed to account for MVP's history of erosion and sedimentation violations and did not impose stream-specific conditions or anti-degradation analysis.
On April 3, 2023, a unanimous Fourth Circuit panel (Judges Wynn, Thacker, and Heytens) vacated the WVDEP § 401 certification. The court held the agency's 'reasonable assurance' determination was arbitrary and capricious because it (1) failed to address MVP's violation history, (2) did not incorporate stormwater-permit and SWPPP conditions, (3) provided no reasoned basis for relying on EPA's upland construction general permit, and (4) skipped location-specific antidegradation review.
First federal appellate application of Sackett to a real-world Section 404 wetlands jurisdictional dispute. The Fifth Circuit's refusal to remand sets a precedent that lower courts can apply Sackett's continuous-surface-connection test directly without Corps deference — accelerating the practical contraction of CWA jurisdiction. For data center sites that were previously subject to Section 404 wetlands mitigation (a routine cost item for Northern Virginia and Loudoun County sites), Lewis confirms the post-Sackett framework where many isolated and headwater wetlands now fall outside CWA jurisdiction and outside developer mitigation obligations.
Louisiana timber-plantation owner Garry Lewis requested a jurisdictional determination from the Army Corps of Engineers in 2013 to develop property used as a pine timber plantation. The Corps concluded in 2016 that portions of the property contained wetlands subject to CWA jurisdiction under the post-Rapanos significant-nexus test. Lewis filed suit; the case took ten years through the district court and the Fifth Circuit.
On December 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit (panel of Judges Edith H. Jones, Stuart Kyle Duncan, and Jacques L. Wiener) unanimously applied the Supreme Court's May 2023 Sackett decision and held that the Lewis property was not within CWA jurisdiction. The court refused to remand to the Corps for further proceedings, instead directing the district court to enter judgment that the property does not contain WOTUS. In a striking footnote, Judges Jones and Duncan warned that further Corps attempts to assert jurisdiction over Lewis's property could be sanctioned under the Equal Access to Justice Act's bad-faith provision.
Data centers that inject cooling-tower blowdown into the subsurface, rely on percolation ponds, or send PFAS-laden effluent to land-application systems near surface water cannot assume groundwater conveyance immunizes them from NPDES requirements; short distances and traceable pollutants will trigger Maui's functional-equivalent test.
On remand from the Supreme Court's 2020 Maui ruling, the District of Hawai'i had to apply the new 'functional equivalent of a direct discharge' test to the County of Maui's Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility, which injected approximately 3-5 MGD of treated effluent into deep wells from which pollutants migrated through groundwater to the Pacific Ocean. A tracer-dye study showed transit times as short as 84 days with an average of 14-16 months over distances under 1.5 miles.
On July 26, 2021, the district court (Mollway, J.) held the injections were the functional equivalent of a direct discharge and that the County therefore required an NPDES permit. The court emphasized the short distance, modest transit time, and intact chemical character of pollutants on arrival as decisive Maui factors, rejecting the County's argument that groundwater attenuation rendered the discharge non-jurisdictional.
The single most directly applicable precedent to a US data-center water fight. The aquifer it governs is the same Memphis Sand that xAI's Colossus campus draws on, so the legal question of who may complain about heavy pumping there is already answered: the remedy is an interstate apportionment suit, brought by a state, not a damages claim for stolen water. The practical obstacle is evidentiary — an apportioning court needs clear and convincing proof of real injury, which requires exactly the aggregate withdrawal data that data-center water reporting laws produce.
Mississippi sued Tennessee directly in the Supreme Court, alleging that Memphis's municipal well field had forcibly drawn roughly 252 billion gallons of groundwater out from beneath Mississippi's sovereign territory by altering flow within the Middle Claiborne (Memphis Sand) Aquifer. Mississippi framed this as a taking of water it owned outright and sought damages, expressly declining to seek an equitable apportionment.
Unanimous. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court on a question of first impression, held that groundwater in an interstate aquifer is subject to equitable apportionment just as an interstate river is. Because Mississippi had sued on an ownership theory rather than seeking an apportionment, its complaint was dismissed — and the Court declined to grant leave to amend.
Directly relevant to data centers that send cooling tower blowdown, evaporative bleed, or treated process water to on-site leach fields, injection wells, or lined-but-permeable ponds rather than to a municipal sewer. If that water reaches a navigable water in a short distance/time, Maui says a federal §402 permit is required even with no pipe to the surface — a live issue for desert/inland Virginia and Ohio sites.
Maui County's Lahaina wastewater facility injected 3-5 million gallons per day of treated effluent into Class V underground wells. Tracer studies showed roughly 90% of that water migrated through groundwater to the Pacific Ocean within months. Environmental groups argued the county needed an NPDES permit; the county argued groundwater conveyance breaks the §402 'from a point source' chain.
6-3 decision (Breyer, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh). The Court held that an NPDES permit is required when a discharge through groundwater is 'the functional equivalent of a direct discharge' into navigable waters, with time and distance the most important of seven listed factors. Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissented.
The reading that reaches the ordinary data-center hydrology. Campus wells are usually regulated, if at all, as groundwater — not as a diversion from the stream they actually deplete. ELF closes that gap wherever drawdown is connected to surface flow, and it puts the duty on the *county* issuing the well permit, which is the level of government most data-center siting fights are already being fought at. It also establishes that satisfying a state groundwater statute is a floor, not a defence.
Siskiyou County issued well permits for groundwater extraction that reduced flows in the Scott River, a navigable waterway. The county and the state board argued the public trust had never applied to groundwater, and that in any event the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act had displaced it.
The Third District Court of Appeal rejected both arguments unanimously. The public trust doctrine applies to groundwater extraction that adversely affects navigable waterways, and SGMA did not occupy the field or abolish it. The county has a duty to consider the trust when permitting such wells, and the state board has authority and a duty to act.
Removes the assumption that groundwater is the unencumbered fallback. A project told a basin's surface water is spoken for will look to wells; in the Ninth Circuit, a senior federal reserved right follows it there. That matters directly for the Southwest data-center corridor, where the surface supply is over-allocated, groundwater is the growth path, and reservations overlie or adjoin many of the aquifers involved. The exposure runs through the supply contract rather than through any conduct by the operator.
The Agua Caliente Band sued two water districts in California's arid Coachella Valley, seeking a declaration that its reserved rights extend to the groundwater beneath the reservation. The districts argued the Winters doctrine covers surface water only, and that the tribe had never historically pumped.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed for the tribe. The Winters doctrine does not distinguish surface water from groundwater; the United States impliedly reserved appurtenant water sources including groundwater when it created the reservation in an arid region. Historical non-use does not defeat the right, and state water rights are preempted where they conflict. The Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Carried here as a *negative* precedent, because a registry that only collects theories that work will mislead. The Endangered Species Act is the intuitive federal hook when a data center's draw dries a river reach, and in the Fifth Circuit this is binding law that the hook will usually miss when the defendant is the permitting agency. A viable §9 claim has to target the withdrawer directly with a far shorter causal chain. It bears directly on the Texas Gulf-coast sites tracked here, which sit in the same hydrology and the same circuit.
After 23 endangered whooping cranes died in the winter of 2008-09, an environmental group sued the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, arguing that its administration of water-withdrawal permits on the Guadalupe and San Antonio rivers reduced freshwater inflows to the birds' estuary and caused an unlawful take. The district court agreed and enjoined TCEQ from issuing new withdrawal permits.
The Fifth Circuit reversed. The district court had misapplied proximate cause: a state agency's licensing of private upstream withdrawals was not a foreseeable cause of downstream crane deaths given the multiple natural, independent and interrelated forces acting on the habitat. The court added that even had proximate cause been shown, the injunction was an abuse of discretion.
The doctrine that constrains how far a state can regulate data-center pumping in ownership-in-place jurisdictions, and it points both ways. An operator that bought land can assert a property interest against a withdrawal cap imposed afterwards; a neighbour whose water is drawn out from under them holds the same kind of interest against a regulator that permitted the campus. It also explains an otherwise puzzling pattern in this dataset — why Texas fights run through conservation-district permits and local politics rather than through outright prohibition, since prohibition carries a compensation bill.
The Edwards Aquifer Authority capped Day's pumping permit far below his request, allocating on the basis of historical beneficial use. Day argued the restriction took a property interest he already owned in the groundwater beneath his land.
The Texas Supreme Court held unanimously that a landowner has a constitutionally protected interest in the groundwater in place beneath the surface — ownership does not wait for capture — and that a regulatory restriction on pumping can therefore support a takings claim requiring compensation.
The most directly usable doctrine here for anyone contesting a data-center well, because it operates before the water is pumped rather than after the harm. It also states the price of admission plainly: objections must arrive as hydrologic evidence, not as concern. That is the bind these conflicts keep hitting — the evidence needed to trigger the duty depends on consumption and drawdown data the operator and the utility hold. Wisconsin makes this concrete for the tracker, since Microsoft's Mount Pleasant campus sits in the same permitting system.
The DNR issued the Village of East Troy a high-capacity well permit near Lake Beulah. The lake district argued the agency had to evaluate the well's effect on the lake before permitting it, and that it had failed to do so — an eight-year dispute over how far the agency's review obligation runs.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the DNR has both the authority and a general duty, grounded in the public trust doctrine and the permitting statutes, to consider whether a proposed high-capacity well may harm waters of the state — but that the duty is triggered only when the agency is presented with sufficient concrete, scientific evidence of potential harm. On this record it had not been, so the permit stood.
Most data centers don't trigger §316(b) directly — it applies to intakes designed to withdraw more than 2 MGD from waters of the US for cooling, and the vast majority of data centers buy potable water from municipal utilities. But Entergy's broader cost-benefit doctrine carries over to EPA standard-setting under other CWA provisions, including any future effluent guidelines or §304(m) rules aimed at data center cooling discharges or PFAS-bearing immersion-cooling fluids.
EPA's 2004 Phase II rule governed cooling water intakes at ~500 existing power plants and allowed cost-benefit analysis when setting impingement/entrainment performance standards and site-specific variances. Riverkeeper and other environmental groups argued §316(b)'s 'best technology available' language forbids EPA from weighing dollar costs against ecological benefits.
5-4 decision (Scalia for the majority, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Stevens dissenting with Souter and Ginsburg; Breyer concurring in part). Held that '[i]t was well within the bounds of reasonable interpretation for the EPA to conclude that cost-benefit analysis is not categorically forbidden' under §316(b), reversing the Second Circuit and largely upholding the Phase II rule.
The procedural reason so much data-center opposition in this dataset runs through zoning votes, moratoriums and records requests rather than litigation: a watershed coalition can lose before the merits are reached. It also identifies the right plaintiff. A household whose own well failed has the particularized injury a coalition lacks, which is why the Newton County fact pattern is a stronger case than a general-harm campaign against a larger withdrawal. Michigan matters directly here — its 2026 data-center bills would create the withdrawal permits such a suit would contest.
A citizens' group challenged Nestlé's groundwater extraction at Sanctuary Springs in Mecosta County, arguing the pumping harmed the Dead Stream, Osprey Lake and surrounding wetlands, and relying on MEPA's provision allowing 'any person' to sue.
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' holding that the group had standing over Osprey Lake and three wetlands. It held the group could sue under MEPA only for concrete, particularized injuries in fact suffered by its own members — extraction affecting members' recreational, aesthetic, economic or property interests — and not for harm to the environment in general, notwithstanding the statute's 'any person' language.
The most transferable procedural attack on a data-center approval anywhere with a state environmental review statute, because it needs no proof of hydrologic harm — only that the document assumed water it could not demonstrate. Campus approvals routinely analyse the first phase and defer the rest to a future regional plan, which is exactly the defect named here. It also produces the remedy opponents usually want: the approval is vacated and redone before construction, rather than damages long afterward.
Residents challenged the environmental impact report for a 6,000-acre community plan and its first development phase, arguing it failed to identify and evaluate where the water for the full build-out would come from.
The California Supreme Court held the EIR's near-term supply analysis adequate but its long-term analysis both procedurally and factually deficient: it improperly purported to tier from a future regional planning document, leaned on a mitigation measure that would curtail development if water failed to materialize without analysing that curtailment's own impacts, and left unexplained discrepancies between its supply estimates and the regional water plan's. The approval was set aside. The decision drove CEQA Guidelines amendments requiring analysis of supply over a project's full life.
Rapanos is the doctrinal precursor to Sackett: lower courts and EPA generally applied Kennedy's broader 'significant nexus' test, which kept a wide universe of wetlands and intermittent streams within federal jurisdiction. For data centers, Rapanos meant that ditches, retention ponds, and intermittent streams crossing campus sites were often federally regulated — a regime now superseded by Sackett's narrower surface-connection rule.
John Rapanos filled roughly 22 acres of Michigan wetlands without a §404 permit to develop a shopping mall; the wetlands sat near man-made drains that eventually fed traditional navigable waters. The companion Carabell case involved wetlands separated from a tributary by a man-made berm. The question was whether such hydrologically connected but physically separate wetlands counted as 'waters of the United States.'
4-1-4 fractured ruling vacating and remanding. Justice Scalia's plurality (with Roberts, Thomas, Alito) required 'relatively permanent' waters plus a 'continuous surface connection' to navigable waters. Justice Kennedy's controlling concurrence required only a 'significant nexus' — that the wetland 'significantly affects the physical, biological, and chemical integrity' of downstream navigable waters. No single test commanded a majority, producing 17 years of regulatory whiplash.
Establishes the outer edge of SDWA enforcement: chronic drinking-water violators can lose the utility itself, not just pay penalties. If a private or investor-owned system serving a data-center corridor cuts corners while absorbing hyperscale demand, receivership and forced divestiture are on the table.
DOJ and EPA sued a family of privately owned California water utilities for 232 SDWA violations spanning years — bacteriological MCL exceedances, refusal to monitor for lead and copper, falsified monitoring reports, and failures of public notification — with a theoretical statutory maximum exposure in the tens of millions.
The district court imposed roughly $500,000 in gross penalties (about $200,000 cash) — in 2004 DOJ called it the largest penalty ever awarded against a public water system — and, the landmark part, placed systems into receivership and ordered the owners to divest all but the largest. The Ninth Circuit affirmed divestiture as an equitable SDWA remedy in 2005.
The gap-filler where Sackett cuts off CWA wetlands jurisdiction: contamination migrating through soil and groundwater from fill, fuel releases, sludge, or spent treatment chemicals at a campus supports a RCRA citizen suit with injunctive cleanup remedies — no permit violation, no jurisdictional water, and no agency gatekeeping required.
A community group sued over roughly 1.5 million tons of chromium ore processing residue (25-33% hexavalent chromium) left on the Hackensack River waterfront, contaminating soil, groundwater, and river sediments. After a bench trial the district court found an imminent and substantial endangerment and rejected containment in favor of full excavation.
Honeywell was ordered to excavate and remove the contamination — a cleanup estimated near $400 million — and the Third Circuit affirmed in 2005. The leading example of a privately prosecuted RCRA endangerment suit compelling a corporate groundwater and sediment cleanup, with no agency enforcement required.
The strongest formulation of the trust in American water law, and the direct answer to the evidentiary problem that recurs throughout this dataset. Data center opponents routinely cannot prove harm because consumption figures are confidential and hydrologic effects are contested. Under Waiāhole the applicant carries the burden and uncertainty favours the resource. The caveat is jurisdictional: this rests on Hawai'i's unusually explicit constitutional water provisions, so it marks the doctrine's ceiling rather than a standard other states would apply.
A contested-case proceeding over how to reallocate water from the Waiāhole Ditch after the plantation agriculture it was built for wound down, with competing claims from new commercial users and from windward stream restoration.
The Hawai'i Supreme Court set out the state's public trust framework: the trust establishes a presumption in favour of its purposes; the burden falls on those seeking or approving water for private gain to justify the use and account for its impacts; and the trust incorporates a precautionary principle under which unresolved science weighs toward protecting the resource rather than toward permitting the use.
The appellate validation that makes SDWA Section 1431 fast and usable: low causation threshold, no need to wait for completed harm. Land application of nitrate-laden water contaminating rural wells is precisely the Amazon Boardman fact pattern — Trinity American is the case that says EPA could have ordered alternative water there directly.
Trinity American sprayed industrial wastewater on fields, contaminating neighbors' private drinking-water wells with ammonia, nitrate, and related contaminants. EPA issued a Section 1431 emergency order requiring the company to provide alternative water supplies and to investigate and abate the contamination. Trinity challenged EPA's authority.
The Fourth Circuit upheld the order and set the governing doctrine: EPA need only show the respondent 'contributed to' the endangerment (not that it was the sole cause); the risk of harm must be imminent but the harm itself need not have occurred; and EPA may act without proof that anyone is currently drinking contaminated water.
The foundational reopener. Its relevance to data centers is structural: campuses are almost always supplied through an existing municipal or appropriative entitlement rather than a new permit, and the usual assumption is that a settled right is beyond challenge. Audubon says otherwise — the allocation stays reviewable if the resulting draw harms a trust resource, which makes the utility's existing right, not the campus's absent permit, the point of legal leverage.
Los Angeles held appropriative rights, granted decades earlier, to divert the streams feeding Mono Lake. The diversions dropped the lake's level severely and damaged its ecosystem. Audubon argued the state could not treat those rights as settled.
The California Supreme Court held that the public trust doctrine limits appropriative water rights: the state has a continuing duty of supervision over navigable waters, previously granted rights remain subject to reconsideration, and the state must consider trust uses and avoid or minimize harm to them where feasible.
The constitutional ceiling on state water protectionism, and a live constraint on how the bills in this dataset can be written. A state may limit large withdrawals; it may not condition water on the user or the water staying inside its borders. For data centers this matters because campuses cluster near state lines and draw on shared basins — legislation aimed at keeping water away from a neighbouring state's data center is far more vulnerable than a volume-based cap that applies to everyone.
Nebraska required a permit to move groundwater from a Nebraska well for use in an adjoining state, and would grant one only if that state offered reciprocal rights to Nebraska. Landowners with property straddling the Nebraska-Colorado line challenged the restriction.
The Court held that groundwater is an article of interstate commerce and struck down the reciprocity condition. The condition was an explicit barrier to interstate commerce and was not narrowly tailored to the conservation purpose Nebraska claimed for it, so it failed the strict scrutiny applied to facially discriminatory legislation.
The crack in the rule of capture, and the reason a neighbour's strongest claim against a data center in a capture state is about *how* it pumps rather than *that* it pumps. Well spacing, proximity to boundaries and rates chosen against engineering advice are all in scope. It matters most in coastal and alluvial settings where drawdown produces measurable subsidence — which is exactly the Gulf-coast hydrology of the Texas sites tracked here.
Friendswood drilled wells between 1964 and 1971 and pumped large volumes of groundwater for sale to industrial users, despite engineering reports predicting land subsidence. Neighbours alleged the wells were negligently spaced too closely and too near the property boundary, and that excessive production caused subsidence and flooding on their land.
The Texas Supreme Court held the ordinary duty not to use property so as to injure others does not apply to groundwater withdrawal, which remains an absolute right outside the reasonable-use rule — but announced a prospective exception: for wells drilled or produced after the decision, negligent, willfully wasteful or malicious withdrawal that proximately causes subsidence damage to another's land creates liability. The defendants, having relied on the prior rule, were not liable.
Read in reverse, this is the utility's shield in a data-center fight — and it inverts how these disputes are usually framed. The assumption running through the tracked conflicts is that a utility is under pressure to serve a large new load; Swanson says a utility facing real supply constraint may refuse, and that the would-be customer has no entitlement to be served. Bessemer is the sharp case: the authority conceded on the record that it could not serve 2 MGD without significant upgrades, which is precisely the rational basis a refusal would stand on.
The district adopted a moratorium on new water connections after finding projected consumption would exceed its safe yield. Swanson, who had approvals to build a home, was refused a pipeline extension and sued; the trial court found the moratorium unsupported by an immediate shortage and unauthorized by statute.
The Court of Appeal reversed. A prospective water user has no absolute right to service and is not constitutionally entitled to be treated the same as established users. Facing a genuine imbalance between supply and demand, the district had a rational basis for the moratorium and had not acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously.
The sleeping federal hook for aquifer-country siting: it reaches projects only through federal money, but any federally backed loan, grant, or infrastructure assistance touching a data-center build-out over a designated aquifer (the Edwards region overlaps the Texas data-center boom; the Avra Basin designation sits under Tucson's) opens an EPA contamination review with funding-denial teeth.
Not an enforcement action: in December 1975 EPA designated the Edwards Aquifer — the sole drinking-water source for San Antonio — as the nation's first sole-source aquifer. Designation triggers EPA review of any federally financially-assisted project over the aquifer's recharge zone; EPA can deny federal funds to projects that may contaminate the aquifer and create a significant public-health hazard.
The program became a standing federal review gate: in 1991 alone EPA reviewed 152 federal-assistance projects worth $571M over sole-source aquifers nationwide, requiring modification of 25. The Edwards designation also carries unique aquifer-specific federal regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 149 Subpart A).
Two lessons for the data-center era: courts will read old water statutes expansively against new industrial fact patterns, and Corps jurisdiction over structures and obstructions in navigable waters (Section 10) — untouched by Sackett — independently reaches cooling intakes, outfall structures, and river crossings that hyperscale campuses and their power plants are now proposing.
Three South Chicago steel mills discharged industrial waste solids through sewers into the Calumet River, where the suspended solids settled and shoaled the navigable channel. The United States sued to enjoin the discharges and compel dredging.
The Supreme Court held the deposits were an 'obstruction' under Section 10 and prohibited discharges under Section 13 — the 'liquid state' sewage exemption does not cover industrial solids in suspension — and authorized injunctive relief including dredging at the companies' expense. The decision revived the 1899 Refuse Act as a water-pollution enforcement tool a decade before the CWA existed.
The oldest doctrine in this registry and, in the arid West, often the most consequential — because it operates on priority rather than on conduct. A data center never has to do anything wrong for this to matter: quantifying a senior reserved right shrinks the pool the state had been allocating, and junior users are cut in order of seniority. A campus whose supply contract rests on a junior state-law right in a basin serving a reservation holds something worth less than its face value, and that is a due-diligence question rather than a litigation risk.
Settlers upstream of the Fort Belknap Reservation in Montana built dams, ditches and canals diverting the Milk River for irrigation, cutting off the flow reaching the reservation. The United States sued on the tribes' behalf to enjoin the diversions.
The Supreme Court held that the 1888 agreement establishing the reservation impliedly reserved enough Milk River water to serve its purposes, and that Montana's admission to the Union the following year did not disturb that reservation. The reserved right dates from the creation of the reservation, making it senior to the settlers' later state-law claims.
15 named data center sites where regulatory proceedings are active (pending permit applications, ongoing investigations, active citizen suits) or where the factual circumstances match the historical enforcement patterns above — but no formal CWA enforcement action has been issued yet. Use the theories panel above to trace which CWA hook applies to each site.
Highest-profile potential CWA enforcement matter against a hyperscaler currently active, but at this point it is a pledged federal investigation, not an enforcement action. Distinguishing this from a closed case matters: as of late May 2026, no hyperscaler has been formally cited under CWA in this matter. The case illustrates both the regulatory attention now focused on data centers and the lag between resident complaints and formal agency action.
Residents of Morgan County, Georgia adjacent to Meta's Stanton Springs data center report well water turning brown and turbid following blasting and clearing for data center construction; appliances failing; families reliant on bottled water. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presented jars of discolored water at a congressional hearing in May 2026. EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Jessica Kramer publicly committed at that hearing to review whether the construction project has affected drinking water quality.
PENDING — no formal CWA enforcement action, NOV, or consent order issued as of 2026-05-26. EPA review announced but not concluded. Meta commissioned its own independent groundwater study claiming no operational impact. No Georgia EPD enforcement action publicly documented.
The most recent and most visible 'construction stormwater fails catastrophically' incident in the data center sector. Even where the site was 'permit-compliant' the week before, AI-era buildout pace plus climate-intensified rainfall produced real-world property damage — exactly the failure mode that hardens citizen-suit pipelines and fuels stricter state CGP terms.
On May 23-24, 2026, severe flooding hit Meadowlands Estates after a silt-fence section in the construction stormwater retention area at the Monarch/Nscale data center site failed during a rain event delivering roughly a month's rainfall in 48 hours under a Flash Flood Warning. Nscale acknowledged the storm 'exceeded the design capacity' of the temporary erosion controls. Civil reimbursement, not federal enforcement, is the primary current track.
PENDING as of May 26, 2026 — No formal CWA NOV or consent order issued. Nscale committed to cover all cleanup/repair costs, hotel rooms, and meals for affected residents. West Virginia National Guard and state officials were on-site coordinating evaluation; WV DEP discussing corrective and prevention plans. No filed civil suit or class action yet reported.
Highlights the convergence of CWA-adjacent stormwater/dust control, municipal water-permit politics, and groundwater extraction permitting at a single hyperscale site. Tucson is the first major U.S. city to formally deny municipal water service to a data center on policy grounds — a precedent that may shift hyperscale projects toward private groundwater wells subject to state withdrawal permits rather than CWA-regulated discharges.
On May 8 and May 11, 2026, Pima County DEQ inspectors documented excess fugitive dust crossing property boundary lines from the Project Blue construction site, with no dust-control measures in use. Pima County issued a Notice of Violation to AMES Construction on or about May 13, 2026, with potential fines of up to $10,000 per day per violation under Arizona state law. Root cause: the City of Tucson's May 2026 revocation of AMES's water-meter hydrant permit (after the city declared Project Blue ineligible for any municipal resources, including water), forcing the contractor to halt dust-suppression water trucking before establishing an alternative non-potable source. Separately, ADWR approved well-drilling permits for Bobcat Tucson Water LLC (a Beale Infrastructure SPV) for two on-site wells authorized to withdraw up to 96.5 acre-feet (~31.4 million gallons) per year.
PENDING — AMES had until May 17, 2026 to respond to the NOV. Beale Infrastructure paused site work while the contractor formalized a non-potable water source. No penalty finalized as of late May 2026. City of Tucson has refused to provide any water service for the project; the project's permanent water supply will rely on on-site groundwater wells under ADWR permits.
One of the largest §404 individual permit applications for a single data center campus currently in the federal pipeline in Virginia. The FOIA fight over water-use projections (8 MGD/day at full buildout) is itself precedent-setting: Virginia courts confirmed that data center water-use records held by public utilities are public records, not proprietary business information — a significant transparency ruling for the tracker's data-collection strategy.
Not an enforcement action — a §404 individual permit application in active federal review. Google's Project Raspberry data center campus in Botetourt County would impact approximately 3.24 acres of non-tidal wetlands and 6,715 linear feet of stream channels in unnamed tributaries to Tinker Creek and Rulman Branch (Roanoke River basin). Public notice issued March 10, 2026; comment period closed April 9, 2026. Separately, Google litigated through December 2025 to suppress its projected water use under Virginia FOIA; a judge ordered disclosure on November 5, 2025 — the disclosed figure was 8 million gallons per day at full campus buildout.
PENDING — Army Corps environmental review ongoing as of June 2026. Virginia §401 WQC not yet issued. Google has offered to purchase wetland mitigation bank credits. The FOIA disclosure of 8 MGD projected water use drew public attention to the scale of data center water demand in the Roanoke Valley water shed.
Together with Project Raspberry (NAO-2025-01857) and the Little Rock AR application, Google's concurrent §404 permit applications in Virginia show that hyperscaler data center construction is generating a wave of individual §404 permits in the federal pipeline — each with multi-acre wetland and multi-thousand-foot stream impacts. The cumulative wetland/stream impact of Virginia's data center build-out is now large enough to warrant cumulative-impact analysis under NEPA.
Not an enforcement action — a §404 individual permit application filed in 2026. Google's Project Loch data center campus in Chesterfield County would impact approximately 4.8 acres of wetlands and 2,828 linear feet of stream channels. Part of Google's announced $9 billion Virginia data center expansion program. Public notice issued May 2026.
PENDING — Army Corps environmental review and public comment phase ongoing as of June 2026. Virginia §401 WQC not yet issued.
The largest single §404 wetland impact in any active data center permit application, illustrating that hyperscale campuses can generate wetland and stream impacts an order of magnitude larger than construction stormwater GPs alone address. The 16.8-acre/6,000-foot footprint is a credible trigger for individual permit review rather than nationwide permits, giving the Corps and state §401 certifying authority substantial leverage over project design.
Not an enforcement action — the largest §404 wetland-impact permit application for a data center currently in the federal pipeline (as of June 2026). Google's proposed Port of Little Rock campus would fill approximately 16.8 acres of wetlands and more than 6,000 feet of stream channels, the largest single-site wetland footprint of any data center application in the Army Corps public-notice database. Public demonstrations were held outside the Army Corps Little Rock District building. Google is proposing to purchase wetland mitigation bank credits.
PENDING — Corps accepting public comments; environmental review ongoing as of June 2026. No permit issued or denied.
A textbook post-Sackett individual §404 permit fight at a hyperscaler campus — paired federal/state wetland review, a 13+ acre permanent wetland loss, and a multi-million-gallon-per-day municipal water draw — that gives commenters and potential litigants two separate permitting choke points (Corps §404 and EGLE state wetland permit) before a shovel goes in the ground.
Panattoni applied for federal §404 and state wetland permits to permanently fill 13.55 acres of wetlands and install six culverts in regulated streams, filling and abandoning 573 linear feet of stream channel, for a 282-acre, 1-GW data center campus. The Army Corps' public notice put total impacts at nearly 17 acres of wetlands and over 6,000 linear feet of streams when counting temporary impacts. The project is projected to use 2-3.6 million gallons of water per day, sourced from Van Buren Township's Great Lakes Water Authority municipal connection. EGLE's public comment period closed June 26, 2026; the Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are conducting parallel federal review.
PENDING — EGLE and USACE permit applications under review; no decision issued as of July 2026. Developer proposes 20.6 acres of mitigation bank credits in the Huron River watershed plus 1,174 feet of new on-site stream channel as compensatory mitigation.
The first case in this record where an operator's own water claims, rather than any discharge or withdrawal, are the alleged violation — and it arrives by a route the tracker's federal-statute framing could not see. Two features make it a template rather than a one-off: the plaintiff is an insider who ran the program he is now contradicting, and the evidence is FOIA'd utility billing records, which any resident of a jurisdiction with public utility records can obtain. That is a far lower evidentiary bar than the hydrologic proof nearly every other reading in this registry requires, and it points at the disclosure laws this tracker follows: the more utilities are required to report data-center deliveries, the more checkable every published water claim becomes.
Dr. Nathan Wangusi, AWS's water sustainability program manager for nearly three years until September 2024, sued the company and the data-center industry group Virginia Connects, alleging its published Northern Virginia water claims were materially misleading. Using water billing and consumption records obtained by FOIA from local utilities for 2023-2026, the complaint targets AWS's statements that it had 'dropped water use by 42 percent year-over-year' and that its Northern Virginia data centers operate 'ninety-seven percent of the year by pulling outside air and not using any water' — the utility records, it alleges, show withdrawals in every month including winter. Virginia Connects is alleged to have run a public advertising campaign carrying the same claims on the day AWS published the 42 percent figure.
PENDING — filed mid-July 2026; no ruling. AWS denies wrongdoing and says its reported water data has been independently assured by a third party.
The most prominent AI-data-center water fight to date shows the binding regulatory levers are usually NOT a CWA discharge violation: xAI's promised wastewater-reuse plant — which would have cut aquifer draw by up to 13 MGD — was permitted and then shelved, and no CWA mechanism compels it to build. This mirrors the tracker's core thesis: when a data center's operational water sits behind aquifer withdrawals and municipal-sewer arrangements, CWA discharge enforcement has little grip, and the real pressure points are state withdrawal permits, voluntary commitments, and (as the parallel air-permit suit shows) the Clean Air Act.
xAI's Colossus campus draws cooling water from the Memphis Sand Aquifer, the city's drinking-water source. To offset that draw, xAI committed to an ~$80 million greywater recycling plant (permittee CTC Property LLC) that would treat effluent from the city's T.E. Maxson wastewater treatment plant for industrial cooling, preserving up to 13 million gallons per day of aquifer water. TDEC's Division of Water Resources accepted the application in February 2025 and held public hearings June 25–26, 2025; residents of the predominantly Black 38109 ZIP code raised environmental-justice objections about cumulative pollution burden. On April 9, 2026, xAI paused construction of the recycling plant, saying it was 'prioritizing other more immediate projects' (finishing the Colossus 2 supercomputer first) — leaving cooling demand on the aquifer in the interim.
No CWA enforcement action, NOV, or penalty over water as of mid-2026. The greywater plant is permitted but indefinitely paused (announced April 9, 2026); aquifer-protection group Protect Our Aquifer called the pause 'deeply concerning' and 'alarming,' noting the plant 'was not optional — it was a core commitment.' Memphis Mayor Paul Young said he would keep pressing xAI to build it. Separately, the federal Clean Air Act citizen suit over the gas turbines remains active.
A model 'adjacent' case where the only live legal lever over a data center's water risk is local zoning plus a state groundwater-recharge-area designation — the CWA offers no handle on siting a campus over a drinking-water aquifer, so residents must litigate the rezoning itself to reach the water question.
On May 7, 2026, seventeen residents filed suit asking a judge to void the county's rezoning and permanently block the campus, arguing the approval understated water and power needs, omitted wetlands, and ignored that the parcel sits atop a designated major groundwater-recharge area. A peer-reviewed study cited in the coverage projects a ~$118M decline in residential property values across ~1,215 parcels within 1.25 miles of the site.
Pending in Coweta County Superior Court (appeal filed May 7, 2026, within 30 days of the rezoning decision).
Shows data-center water accountability failing at the municipal-metering layer: millions of gallons can vanish from billing with no environmental statute, CWA permit, or penalty ever in play — a transparency gap distinct from pollution enforcement but central to the project's mission of tracking real data-center water use.
Roughly 13–15 million gallons of water used at the QTS site went unbilled over about six months while nearby Annelise Park residents reported low pressure during a Georgia drought. The county issued an ~$147,000 retroactive bill (a single six-month meter read accounting for ~$100,000) after discovering the meter was not being read electronically as assumed. County officials reported finding no evidence of widespread pressure problems after installing monitoring equipment.
Resolved on billing — QTS paid the retroactive charges; no fine and no environmental enforcement. The county now meets regularly with QTS to monitor projected demand through the multi-year build.
The first documented CWA §404 citizen suit targeting unpermitted stream/wetland disturbance at a data-center power-supply project. The framing — plaintiffs suing both the developer AND the Army Corps for regulatory inaction — is a template for future citizen enforcement where the Corps fails to require permits for data center construction in sensitive watersheds. The TRO denial does not preclude full merits review or injunctive relief after the administrative record is developed.
On December 3, 2025, ten Mingo County residents filed a federal citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, alleging TransGas has begun advancing ground-disturbing activities for the Adams Fork Energy Project — which would power two data center campuses — without obtaining required CWA §404 dredge-and-fill permits, ESA consultation, NEPA review, or FERC gas-pipeline approval. Plaintiffs named the Army Corps Huntington District, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and FERC as defendants for failing to initiate required regulatory reviews of a project affecting streams and wetlands in the Tug Fork watershed.
Judge denied plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Litigation continuing as of June 2026. No Army Corps enforcement action, NOV, or permit denial has been independently issued.
The clearest example yet of a state environmental-review statute (not the CWA) being used to force water-impact analysis before a data center campus breaks ground — plaintiffs specifically fault the environmental study for omitting groundwater/aquifer/private-well effects of a hyperscale campus's water demand, a fact pattern directly analogous to the CWA/SDWA gaps this tracker already watches in Georgia and Texas.
The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy sued the City of Pine Island and Ryan Companies in Goodhue County District Court (No. 25-CV-25-2298), arguing the city's Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the up-to-2,700-MW Project Skyway data center campus was legally inadequate because it failed to analyze how a water-use spike — developer filings put daily use at up to 152,000 gallons at buildout, while MCEA cites figures implying up to 55.7 million gallons annually (roughly 50% of the city's total current water use) — would affect groundwater, local aquifers, or nearby private wells, and used non-binding mitigation language instead of enforceable commitments. On May 22, 2026, the court granted a temporary restraining order blocking Ryan Companies from any construction or pre-construction activity, finding the City had not complied with the MGDPA in responding to MCEA's records requests.
PENDING — TRO in effect as of the order date; litigation on the merits of the environmental review continues. Construction, originally slated to start July 2026, is delayed with the developer's own worst-case estimate slipping to 2027.
Captures the Texas pattern where the Rule of Capture and a state aquifer authority — not the CWA — govern a data center's water, and mitigation takes the form of voluntary offsets rather than enforceable discharge or withdrawal limits, leaving the public little regulatory leverage over consumption.
A 440-acre data-center campus proposed to draw on the heavily stressed Edwards Aquifer during exceptional drought. Rather than a binding permit denial, the response has been negotiated and voluntary: a local water supplier demanded collaborative design and Rowan agreed to fund aquifer-conservation measures (helping shift farmers off flood irrigation), which the EAA framed as 'a reallocation of the existing water rights to these new purposes.' Multiple data centers are reportedly in development in the county.
No permit denial; voluntary conservation investment and water-supply negotiation ongoing as of late 2025.
A flagship example of a negotiated, voluntary-leaning groundwater commitment governed entirely by a state permit and a private settlement — no CWA discharge permit ever bounded the withdrawal — showing how data-center water limits in the Southeast rest on state allocation law and advocacy settlements rather than federal enforcement.
Google sought to roughly triple its permitted withdrawal to about 1.5 million gallons per day (~547 million gallons/year) from the Middendorf Aquifer to cool an expanded server farm, even as DHEC was separately asking the town of Mount Pleasant to cut its aquifer use. After public opposition, the December 16, 2019 settlement restricts Google to using groundwater only 'as a last resort when all other water supplies are exhausted,' requires it to develop alternative supplies (surface water from Charleston Water System), and mandates public quarterly use reporting instead of the annual reporting otherwise required by law.
Settlement in force since December 2019; Google was steered toward surface water and capped its routine groundwater draw. Subsequent withdrawal upticks have drawn renewed local scrutiny over aquifer depletion.
Dataset last updated 2026-07-26. Total: 109 entries (94 historical enforcement, 15 active/potential).
Every tracked data-center site with a documented water problem or community pushback, classified by the kind of problem it is and mapped to the legal readings that could reach it — shown alongside the operating company's own public water claims, so the promise and the record sit on the same card.
19 tracked sites across 12 kinds of water problem — most commonly municipal supply strain (9 sites).
Cells count the legal readings mapped to each site. – marks a doctrine explicitly recorded as not reaching that site. Family codes are the accordions in Part 1.
Google's water use nearly tripled in five years to over a quarter of everything the city supplies (later reporting puts it near 40%). When The Oregonian requested the numbers in 2021, the city — with Google paying its legal fees — sued the newspaper to keep them secret as a 'trade secret.'
The district attorney sided with the newspaper; the city settled in late 2022 and released ten years of data, and Google said it would stop claiming site-level water figures as trade secrets nationwide — the landmark transparency precedent for the industry.
Colossus draws roughly 3 MGD of cooling water while the Memphis Sand aquifer — the region's sole drinking-water source — is already being pumped faster than it recharges. xAI promised an $80M recycling plant treating up to ~13 MGD of municipal wastewater to offset withdrawals, then put it on indefinite pause in April 2026 to prioritize Colossus 2.
Protect Our Aquifer called the pause 'alarming'; the city council pressed for public meetings on water impacts, and Mayor Young says xAI committed to resume construction no later than Q1 2027.
After Meta broke ground on its $750M campus, nearby well-dependent households — the closest about 1,000 feet away — reported taps running dry, sediment, and pressure loss. The facility uses ~500,000 gal/day (~10% of county water use), and Mansfield's mayor cited 33% water-rate increases over two years. Meta's commissioned study called its impact 'unlikely.'
The July 2025 New York Times investigation made this the national reference case for data-center groundwater impacts; EPA has pledged investigation of the well complaints in adjoining Morgan County.
The first two sites would have needed ~2,000 acre-feet of water per year — making the campus Tucson Water's largest customer — negotiated under NDAs that kept the end user secret. The city council rejected annexation 7-0 on August 6, 2025 after intense community pressure.
AWS pulled out in late 2025; Beale is proceeding on county land outside city limits with a redesigned air-cooled plan while Tucson cut off water service and sought payback — the clearest municipal-veto precedent over data-center water demand.
Roughly 91 data centers operate in metro Phoenix amid a potential 77% cut to Arizona's Colorado River allocation. Meta's Mesa water agreement allows up to ~4 MGD at full build (with a pledge not to use Colorado River water and to transfer storage credits once demand exceeds 500,000 gal/day); Microsoft's Goodyear campus draws substantial potable water daily.
Sustained criticism that the build-out continues through shortage; the operators' answer is mitigation — water-rights offsets, ~64.9M gal/yr of N-Drip restoration credits, and Microsoft's pledge of zero-water closed-loop designs for new Arizona builds.
A 2,100+ acre, up-to-23M sq ft, 37-building rezoning was approved in December 2023 over objections from Fairfax Water and downstream supervisors: the corridor drains to the Occoquan Reservoir, which supplies roughly 40% of Northern Virginia's drinking water (800,000+ people), and the county declined to wait for a water-quality study.
Residents and the American Battlefield Trust sued; on March 31, 2026 the Virginia Court of Appeals unanimously voided the rezonings, and the county — having spent $1.72M defending them — withdrew from further appeals. The largest data-center project yet stopped primarily on process, with drinking-water protection at the center of the record.
A draft VPDES individual permit would let AWS discharge up to 280,000 gal/day of treated cooling water into Sedges Creek — the first direct-to-surface-water hyperscaler cooling-discharge permit in Virginia. Residents packed a March 2026 hearing, and a June 9, 2026 DEQ meeting turned contentious over chemical additives and the draft's lack of required PFAS testing (DEQ kept only a reopener condition).
100+ residents at hearings demanding additive disclosure, PFAS monitoring, and testing transparency before the lake's recreation and drinking-water uses absorb a new industrial outfall.
Nitrate-laden Port of Morrow wastewater is used for AWS server cooling; evaporation concentrates the nitrates before the water is land-applied to farm fields above an aquifer where the state has found 634+ domestic wells with unsafe nitrate levels. Residents sued 17 defendants in February 2024.
Amazon agreed in March 2026 to pay $20.5M (no admission of liability) — the first eight-figure direct-hyperscaler water settlement. Advocates continue pressing Amazon to treat the wastewater and slow expansion.
With reservoirs below 10% full, Corpus Christi's $650M+, 22-well emergency wellfield in the Evangeline Aquifer near Sinton was protested by the City of Sinton and St. Paul Water Supply Corp.; Corpus officials allege Sinton wants the groundwater to sell to incoming data centers. In May 2026 an administrative law judge let the contested case proceed — a potential multi-year delay.
A three-way municipal water war where data-center demand is the accelerant on both sides of a drought-stressed aquifer.
Residents living with the 24/7 roar of MARA's crypto-mine fans (an Earthjustice nuisance suit is ongoing; a 24-foot sound wall failed to help) also raised water-security concerns for the Paluxy watershed as new AI facilities were proposed.
A residents' attempt to incorporate a town to gain regulatory authority failed 76-50 in November 2025, and county commissioners rejected a one-year AI/crypto moratorium 3-2 in February 2026 — the clearest example of communities having no local vehicle at all.
Amid North Carolina's worst drought since 2007 and voluntary water restrictions, a proposed facility's peak summer demand equal to ~4,000 homes crystallized council concern; a May 2026 hearing drew 36 speakers demanding a pause.
City Council voted 11-0 on June 8, 2026 for a 150-day moratorium on new data centers (through November 5, 2026) while staff draft regulations; already-approved projects are exempt.
Microsoft withdrew its Caledonia rezoning in October 2025 after intense resident opposition, while its Mount Pleasant campus — inside the contested Foxconn-era Lake Michigan diversion area under the Great Lakes Compact — expanded through state wetland individual permitting and won approval for 15 more data centers in January 2026.
Riverkeeper groups sued for the campus's water records (released 2025); the Caledonia defeat showed rezoning as the community veto, while the Compact diversion keeps regional scrutiny on every gallon.
Two high-capacity water connections at the construction campus went unmetered and unbilled — one installed without the utility's knowledge — until the county discovered roughly 29-30 million gallons consumed during drought conditions and retroactively billed QTS $147,474 (the county attributes it to a missed meter reading during a smart-meter transition). Separately, Flint Riverkeeper documented orange flocculant and heavy sediment in headwater creeks below the site after rains.
Riverkeeper monitoring continues; the metering gap became the state's reference case for utilities losing track of hyperscale construction demand.
State records show Meta's ~$27B, 2+ GW campus is registered for up to 23 MGD of water supply (8.4B gal/yr) — far above Meta's stated expectation of 500-600M gal/yr — under a Louisiana registration regime with no meaningful state monitoring of actual withdrawals. LSU hydrologists warned sustained maximum pumping could harm the aquifer.
Earthjustice and Sierra Club flag NDA-driven secrecy and rushed approvals; an Earthjustice utility-cost complaint went to the PSC in February 2026.
Boring the 42-mile Q-LOOP fiber conduit under the Potomac and Monocacy produced at least four 'frac-outs' releasing bentonite drilling mud into Potomac-feeding waters. MDE referred the violations to the Maryland Attorney General in September 2023 and in June 2024 rescinded a $130,000 settlement offer, citing the 'ongoing nature and severity' of repeat violations.
Riverkeeper and county scrutiny drove the escalation; Quantum Loophole itself exited the project in December 2024 with TPG taking control.
The Azure campus that trained GPT-4 used 11.5 million gallons in July 2022 — about 6% of the entire district's water that month — making it one of the first sites where AI training's water intensity was quantified publicly (2023 AP reporting). Microsoft, R&R Realty, and Jordan Creek Town Center are the city's largest water users.
The reporting drove national scrutiny of AI water intensity; Microsoft announced in January 2026 that its next West Des Moines buildings will use zero-water closed-loop cooling.
The proposed 4.5M sq ft, 18-building campus requested 2 MGD from the Warrior River Water Authority — a third of the authority's ~6 MGD capacity — which said it cannot supply that without 'significant upgrades.' The source (Mulberry Fork of the Black Warrior) is shared with Birmingham-metro supplier Central Alabama Water.
NAACP and SELC opposed; residents packed hearings. The city council approved the 670-acre rezoning 5-2 in November 2025 anyway; hurdles remain, including Northern Beltline conflicts and endangered-species habitat.
Peculiar residents defeated a proposed data center in 2024 over water-rate, traffic, noise, and light concerns — a fight so acrimonious the city administrator and mayor resigned. St. Charles followed in 2025 as one of the first U.S. cities to pass a temporary data-center moratorium, driven partly by water-supply concerns; April 2026 municipal elections statewide showed data centers becoming an electoral liability.
With the legislature passing no data-center regulation in 2026, Missouri's fights are being decided city by city — moratoriums, rejections, and council turnover.
Commissioning discharges from Meta's 715,000 sq ft campus introduced the rare metal-resistant bacterium Cupriavidus gilardii into Cheyenne's reclaimed-water system in February 2026, interfering with two reclamation plants and affecting 801,475 gallons of wastewater. The city's utility board classified it as significant noncompliance with federal pretreatment regulations.
BOPU suspended the reclaimed-water irrigation program, permanently terminated the discharge privileges, and adopted a standing policy refusing wastewater from data centers using closed-loop cooling and fill-and-flush systems — a categorical restriction on an entire cooling practice rather than a penalty against one project. Follow-up testing found the bacterium cleared and the reuse system is operating again under continued sampling.
Site roster last updated 2026-07-26.
Listed because the claim is being tested in a forum, not because it has been found false.
Verbatim water-related commitments from data-center operators, mirrored from Data Center Community Benefits. Each quote links to its first-party source. Where independent assessment has been captured, a delivered-vs-promised badge appears beneath.
35 claims · 17 companies · 7 delivered-vs-promised assessments
“By 2030, we aim to replenish 120% of the freshwater we consume across our offices and data centers.”
“We are committed to restoring more water than we consume by 2030, focusing our efforts in regions of high and medium water stress.”
“By 2030, Microsoft will be water positive — replenishing more water than we consume across our global operations.”
“Our innovative standard data center design uses no water for cooling, saving billions of gallons of water per year.”
“xAI will commit to build a $80 million wastewater recycling facility ... ensure that up to 4.7 billion gallons of water remain in the aquifer yearly.”
“AWS is committed to being water positive by 2030, returning more water to communities than we use in our direct operations.”
“we worked with local water utility company Loudoun Water to become the first data center operator in the state approved to use recycled water.”
“We have a water-positive goal. In Clinton, we will actually use no water.”
“deploying water-efficient cooling technologies”
“It allows us to deliver unparalleled AI performance with the lowest possible environmental impact, setting a new global standard.”
“We are building this project with closed-loop, non-evaporative liquid cooling systems, which are designed to significantly reduce our water footprint.”
“Google collaborated with the Great Outdoors Foundation and the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship to contribute $1.3 million to support a 47-site grade stabilization project.”
“Google is announcing a $150,000 donation to help fund Salt River Project's (SRP) effort focused on watershed restoration and wildfire risk reduction.”
“We are committed to focusing our water stewardship efforts in water-scarce regions like Arizona.”
“Our goal is to restore more water to local watersheds in Oregon than we consume by supporting water restoration and conservation projects led by local community partners”
“The Stanton Springs Data Center prioritizes on-site water efficiency by: Using cooling technology that is significantly more water efficient than the industry standard. Reusing water numerous times before discharging it as wastewater.”
“We are also driving water efficiency in our data center operations and investing in local water restoration projects that will return 100% of the Richland Parish Data Center's water consumption to the Boeuf, Tensas, and Lower Mississippi watersheds.”
“In Beaver Dam we will restore 100% of the water consumed in our data center operations to local watersheds.”
“We supported the first water-reuse utility to treat 380 million gallons of datacenter wastewater in Quincy.”
“annual water use is modest, requiring roughly the amount of water a typical restaurant uses annually.”
“We'll minimize our water use and replenish more of your water than we use.”
“Due to the innovative closed-loop water cooling design, the facility will require minimal annual water needs.”
“minimize water use by prioritizing closed-loop or low-water cooling systems”
“Water is valuable, and we should engineer accordingly.”
“These data centers are designed to not use water. All of the data centers that we're building (in) this part of Stargate are designed to not use water. The reason we do that is because it turns out that's harmful for the environment and this is a better solution.”
“There's lots of rumors that we're going to suck the Great Salt Lake dry. That's ridiculous. Of course that's not gonna happen. In fact, if anything, we'll be adding to the Great Salt Lake because the water rights on that land will be used.”
“I'm the only developer of data centers on Earth that graduated from environmental studies. I'm pretty aware of what these concerns are. They are around air, water use, heat, noise pollution. So sustainability is at the heart of what we do in terms of all these proposals.”
“xAI is committed to building a state-of-the-art water recycling plant in Memphis.”
“We need to focus on finishing Colossus 2 and ensuring it is extremely stable, then will build the water recycling plant.”
“Switch will replenish and restore up to two times more water than it uses operationally.”
“Switch identifies and leads water improvement projects in the communities where we operate to allow us to run our campuses on 100% recycled water.”
“Become a carbon-, waste-, and water-neutral data center provider by the year 2030.”
“Vantage is also committing to water positivity for new data centers, which is just one of several sustainability goals we have to ensure responsible growth around the world.”
“Since day one, Compass saw a zero-water solution as a mandate.”
“Through continuous innovation and advancements in cooling technologies, Microsoft has improved its water use effectiveness by nearly 90% since its first generation of datacenters in the early 2000s.”
Snapshotted from pranava0x0/datacentercommunitybenefits on 2026-07-26. Quotes are verbatim — they reflect what each company has claimed, not independently verified water usage. See the Transparency Scorecard for what is actually measurable.
Curated headlines on data center water regulation, enforcement, research, and solutions — linked to this tracker's datasets where applicable. Newest first.
34 items
Dataset last updated 2026-07-06.
Solutions to data center water challenges documented across this tracker — organized by who is driving them: state and federal regulators, water utilities, and industry operators. Status badges indicate real-world deployment stage.
Enacted laws, permits, and proposed rules that require or incentivize water-responsible data center siting, design, and reporting.
Water utility programs and regional planning approaches that integrate data center demand into supply management, capacity planning, and dual-feed infrastructure.
Engineering approaches that reduce or eliminate water consumption through improved cooling design, alternative water sources, and efficiency metrics.
Dataset last updated 2026-07-06. Deployment status is as of the dataset date; check source links for current status.
Status of all known data pipelines for tracking data center water consumption — what's working, what's blocked, and what's coming.
| Federal | |||
| ● | EPA ECHO DMR — 8 WWTP permits · aggregate, not per-facility | Working | Add permits |
| ● | EPA ECHO NAICS — NAICS 518210 facility discovery · intermittent 500s | Working | Monitor |
| ● | EIA Form 923 §8D — Plant-level thermoelectric cooling · indirect footprint | Not built | Build scraper |
| ● | EPA FRS cross-reference — Links facilities across 90+ EPA databases | Not built | Build utility |
| ● | HR 6984 / S. 4213 — Federal DC water disclosure mandate · not enacted | Policy gap | Monitor |
| Virginia | |||
| ● | Loudoun Water ACFR — ~1.6B gal/yr aggregate · annual only · no per-DC breakdown | Working | Expand utilities |
| ● | PWC Water IUS — 56 DCs · ERU proxy, not metered consumption | Working | Annual update |
| ● | HB 496 / SB 553 reports — Monthly utility DC volumes · reporting channel unconfirmed | Coming | Watch SWCB / DEQ |
| ● | DEQ ArcGIS / VWP — Permit metadata only · no flow in ArcGIS layers | Partial | Metadata only |
| ● | DEQ VPDES Excel — WAF 403 block · stormwater-only permits anyway | Blocked | Wait / retry |
| Ohio | |||
| ● | EPA ECHO DMR (OH) — 4 Columbus-area WWTP permits · same aggregation limit | Working | Add permits |
| ● | OHD000001 DMRs — First per-DC direct mandate · public comment closed | Coming | Awaiting finalization |
| ● | Central OH Water Study — Demand projections 40 → 90 MGD (2030 → 2050) | Working | Annual update |
| Local / Utility | |||
| ● | Water service contracts — Per-DC monthly volumes · NDA-blocked in 25 of 31 VA localities | Blocked | No FOIA path |
| ● | Zoning applications — Pre-construction water estimates · variable quality | Partial | Expand coverage |
| Private (voluntary) | |||
| ● | Operator water claims — 29 verbatim quotes · 5 independently assessed | Working | Annual refresh |
| ● | CDP questionnaires — Structured water security filings · MSFT / GOOG / META file | Not built | Build ingest |
| ● | FracTracker DC database — 1,400+ sites · cooling type (air / evaporative / hybrid) | Not built | Build ingest |
| ● | PJM Large Loads 2026 — ≥50 MW DC loads in PJM territory · electricity proxy | Not built | Build ingest |
Static build 2026-08-05 · Sources: EPA ECHO DMR, VA DEQ, Ohio EPA, Loudoun Water. Data center cooling water tracked via receiving WWTP flow · llms.txt (LLM-friendly summary) · source