WaterMark / Jurisdictions / Frederick County, VA
Frederick County, VA: Data Center Water Impact
Reference data for evaluating a data center proposal in Frederick County, VA. 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 | Frederick Water | Utility of record |
| Supply source | Shenandoah River + Anderson Lake | Utility of record |
| Treatment capacity | 14 MGD | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 02070007. Karst geology — extra diligence needed. |
| Water rate | $6.00 / 1,000 gal | Frederick Water published rate schedule |
| Watershed stress | Low-Medium (2 / 5) | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 02070007. Karst geology — extra diligence needed. |
Watershed consumptive use
Basin: Shenandoah (HUC-8 02070007). 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 | 4 | 39.6% |
| Thermoelectric power | 1.5 | 14.9% |
| Industrial | 1 | 9.9% |
| Irrigation | 3 | 29.7% |
| Mining | 0.1 | 1.0% |
| Existing data centers | 0.5 | 5.0% |
| Total | 10.1 | 100.0% |
Total is the sum of the categories listed above. Shares are each category divided by that total. Source: USGS Water Use 2020, Frederick County VA.
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 Interconnection | PJM |
| Electric utility | Dominion / SVEC | Utility of record |
| Grid water intensity | 0.42 gal / kWh | Macknick et al. 2012 × PJM GATS EY2024 |
| Local peak demand | 350 MW | PJM |
| Modeled rate impact | 12% to 25% | See methodology |
Where this water is consumed: PJM grid; Scope 2 water occurs outside the Shenandoah basin.
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
Winchester area. Smaller scale market; karst geology requires extra diligence.
Sources: Water: Frederick Water. Grid: PJM Dominion.
Comparative siting scores for this county, alongside every other county tracked, are on the US Siting Matrix.
Related counties
| County | Water source | Watershed stress |
|---|---|---|
| Loudoun County, VA | Potomac River / Goose Creek Reservoir | High (3.4/5) |
| Prince William County, VA | Occoquan Reservoir | High (3.4/5) |
| Henrico County, VA | James River | Medium (2.6/5) |
| Mecklenburg County, VA | Roanoke River / Buggs Island Lake | Low-Medium (1.8/5) |
| Spotsylvania County, VA | Rappahannock River | Medium (2.4/5) |
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.