WaterMark / Jurisdictions / Licking County, OH (New Albany)
Licking County, OH (New Albany): Data Center Water Impact
Reference data for evaluating a data center proposal in Licking County, OH (New Albany). 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 | Licking County Water + Aldrich aquifer | Utility of record |
| Supply source | Aquifer + Hoover Reservoir | Utility of record |
| Treatment capacity | 25 MGD | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 05040006. Intel fab driving aquifer pressure. |
| Water rate | $5.50 / 1,000 gal | Licking County Water + Aldrich aquifer published rate schedule |
| Watershed stress | Medium-High (2.8 / 5) | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 05040006. Intel fab driving aquifer pressure. |
Watershed consumptive use
Basin: Licking (HUC-8 05040006). 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 | 10 | 15.3% |
| Thermoelectric power | 6 | 9.2% |
| Industrial | 35 | 53.6% |
| Irrigation | 2 | 3.1% |
| Mining | 0.3 | 0.5% |
| Existing data centers | 12 | 18.4% |
| Total | 65.3 | 100.0% |
Total is the sum of the categories listed above. Shares are each category divided by that total. Source: USGS Water Use 2020, Licking County. Industrial dominated by Intel fab + DC clusters (AWS, Google, Meta).
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 (slightly more coal than PJM avg) |
| Local peak demand | 1,100 MW | PJM AEP |
| Modeled rate impact | 8% to 18% | See methodology |
Where this water is consumed: AEP Ohio thermo plants nearby contribute to Scope 2 water locally.
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
New Albany — Intel fab + AWS, Google, Meta clusters. Aquifer pressure from Intel. Power transmission build-out underway.
- Hyperscale activity
- High existing data center load
Sources: Water: Licking County Water + Aldrich aquifer. Grid: PJM AEP zone. JobsOhio + DC sales tax exemption.
Comparative siting scores for this county, alongside every other county tracked, are on the US Siting Matrix.
Related counties
| County | Water source | Watershed stress |
|---|---|---|
| Franklin County, OH (Columbus) | Scioto River + Hoover/Griggs Reservoirs | Medium (2.5/5) |
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.