WaterMark / Jurisdictions / Clark County, NV (Las Vegas)
Clark County, NV (Las Vegas): Data Center Water Impact
Reference data for evaluating a data center proposal in Clark County, NV (Las Vegas). Every figure below is a stored value with its primary source attached. Facility-scale results are produced by the assessment tool.
Water supply
| Metric | Value | Source / basis |
|---|---|---|
| Water utility | Las Vegas Valley Water District (SNWA) | Utility of record |
| Supply source | Lake Mead / Colorado River | Utility of record |
| Treatment capacity | 410 MGD | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 15010014. Lake Mead at lowest level on record. |
| Water rate | $5.50 / 1,000 gal | Las Vegas Valley Water District (SNWA) published rate schedule |
| Watershed stress | Extremely High (4.5 / 5) | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 15010014. Lake Mead at lowest level on record. |
Watershed consumptive use
Basin: Lower Colorado (HUC-8 15010014). Figures are consumptive use, not withdrawal, because evaporative data center loss is consumptive. USGS data year 2020.
| Category | Consumptive use (MGD) | Share of basin |
|---|---|---|
| Residential | 280 | 68.0% |
| Thermoelectric power | 35 | 8.5% |
| Industrial | 18 | 4.4% |
| Irrigation | 65 | 15.8% |
| Mining | 8 | 1.9% |
| Existing data centers | 6 | 1.5% |
| Total | 412 | 100.0% |
Total is the sum of the categories listed above. Shares are each category divided by that total. Source: USGS Water Use 2020, Clark County. SNWA.
Grid generation water (Scope 2)
Generating the electricity a data center consumes evaporates water at the power plant. That volume is real, it is attributable, and it is excluded from most corporate "water positive" accounting. On a thermal grid it is frequently comparable to the facility's own cooling water.
| Metric | Value | Source / basis |
|---|---|---|
| Grid region | WECC Southwest | NV Energy |
| Electric utility | NV Energy | Utility of record |
| Grid water intensity | 0.18 gal / kWh | Macknick et al. 2012 × NV generation mix (~70% gas, ~18% solar, coal nearly phased out (North Valmy Unit 2 retired Dec 2024), balance hydro/geo) |
| Local peak demand | 7,800 MW | NV Energy |
| Modeled rate impact | 5% to 11% | See methodology |
Where this water is consumed: NV Energy gas plants in Clark County draw cooling water locally; Hoover hydropower attribution complex.
Run this county at your facility size. The assessment tool computes direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) water for a specific load, cooling system, and mitigation stack, with the same citations attached.
Reducing the footprint here
A high stress reading is a design constraint, not a verdict. Closed-loop and dry or hybrid cooling, adiabatic assist, immersion, and reclaimed or non-potable sourcing each move the direct number, and siting against a cleaner grid mix moves the indirect number. The solutions catalog lists each option with its water reduction, its energy and cost tradeoff, and its source.
Regulatory and siting status
Las Vegas. Lake Mead — lowest level on record. SNWA imposes strict outdoor restrictions. NV permissive on industrial. The 2007 Colorado River interim guidelines expire 1 Oct 2026; Reclamation's post-2026 Final EIS (31 Jul 2026) proposes a 10-year framework through 2036 allowing Lower Basin reductions of up to 3 MAF/yr, with a Record of Decision still pending. Nevada holds the smallest Lower Basin allotment, so proportional cuts land on a narrow base.
- Arid / water stressed
Sources: Water: SNWA. Colorado River: Reclamation post-2026 Final EIS; DOI, 31 Jul 2026. Grid: WECC SW (NV Energy).
Comparative siting scores for this county, alongside every other county tracked, are on the US Siting Matrix.
Related counties
| County | Water source | Watershed stress |
|---|---|---|
| Washoe County, NV (Reno) | Truckee River + Donner Lake | High (3.2/5) |
| Storey County, NV (Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center) | Groundwater (Tracy Segment) + imported Reno-Sparks treated effluent | High (3.4/5) |
| Pima County, AZ (Tucson) | Colorado River / Central AZ Project + Aquifer | Extremely High (4.2/5) |
| Chandler, AZ | Salt River Project / CAP / Reclaimed | High (3.9/5) |
| Mesa, AZ (Maricopa County) | Salt River Project / CAP (Colorado River) + groundwater | High (3.8/5) |
How these numbers are derived
Assumptions, formulas, and the full source list are in the methodology. WaterMark is published by Standard Water Corp and is not affiliated with any data center developer, utility, or government agency.