WaterMark / Jurisdictions / Franklin County, OH (Columbus)
Franklin County, OH (Columbus): Data Center Water Impact
Reference data for evaluating a data center proposal in Franklin County, OH (Columbus). 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 | Columbus DPU | Utility of record |
| Supply source | Scioto River + Hoover/Griggs Reservoirs | Utility of record |
| Treatment capacity | 145 MGD | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 05060001. |
| Water rate | $5.20 / 1,000 gal | Columbus DPU published rate schedule |
| Watershed stress | Medium (2.5 / 5) | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 05060001. |
Watershed consumptive use
Basin: Lower Scioto (HUC-8 05060001). 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 | 100 | 66.5% |
| Thermoelectric power | 22 | 14.6% |
| Industrial | 18 | 12.0% |
| Irrigation | 4 | 2.7% |
| Mining | 0.3 | 0.2% |
| Existing data centers | 6 | 4.0% |
| Total | 150.3 | 100.0% |
Total is the sum of the categories listed above. Shares are each category divided by that total. Source: USGS Water Use 2020, Franklin County.
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 | PJM (AEP zone) | PJM AEP |
| Electric utility | AEP Ohio | Utility of record |
| Grid water intensity | 0.45 gal / kWh | Macknick et al. 2012 × PJM AEP zone |
| Local peak demand | 2,900 MW | PJM AEP |
| Modeled rate impact | 6% to 14% | See methodology |
Where this water is consumed: AEP Ohio generation distributed across the multi-state PJM grid; some local thermo contributes.
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
Columbus. Diversified market; AEP transmission solid. State incentives strong.
- Hyperscale activity
Sources: Water: Columbus DPU. Grid: PJM AEP.
Comparative siting scores for this county, alongside every other county tracked, are on the US Siting Matrix.
Related counties
| County | Water source | Watershed stress |
|---|---|---|
| Licking County, OH (New Albany) | Aquifer + Hoover Reservoir | Medium-High (2.8/5) |
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.