WaterMark / Jurisdictions / Mecklenburg County, VA
Mecklenburg County, VA: Data Center Water Impact
Reference data for evaluating a data center proposal in Mecklenburg 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 | Roanoke River Service Authority | Utility of record |
| Supply source | Roanoke River / Buggs Island Lake | Utility of record |
| Treatment capacity | 8 MGD | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 03010104. Utility: rural Roanoke River basin authorities. |
| Water rate | $4.50 / 1,000 gal | Roanoke River Service Authority published rate schedule |
| Watershed stress | Low-Medium (1.8 / 5) | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 03010104. Utility: rural Roanoke River basin authorities. |
Watershed consumptive use
Basin: Roanoke (HUC-8 03010104). 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 | 1.5 | 8.5% |
| Thermoelectric power | 8 | 45.5% |
| Industrial | 1 | 5.7% |
| Irrigation | 2 | 11.4% |
| Mining | 0.1 | 0.6% |
| Existing data centers | 5 | 28.4% |
| Total | 17.6 | 100.0% |
Total is the sum of the categories listed above. Shares are each category divided by that total. Source: USGS Water Use 2020, Mecklenburg County VA. Existing DC: Microsoft Boydton.
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 | Mecklenburg Electric Coop / Dominion | Utility of record |
| Grid water intensity | 0.42 gal / kWh | Macknick et al. 2012 × PJM GATS EY2024 |
| Local peak demand | 220 MW | PJM |
| Modeled rate impact | 15% to 30% | See methodology |
Where this water is consumed: PJM grid serves this region; Scope 2 water consumed at distributed PJM thermo plants outside the Roanoke 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
Boydton — Microsoft cluster. Low population, abundant water, rural welcome. Capacity-constrained on transmission.
- Hyperscale activity
Sources: Water: Roanoke River Service Authority. 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) |
| Spotsylvania County, VA | Rappahannock River | Medium (2.4/5) |
| Frederick County, VA | Shenandoah River + Anderson Lake | Low-Medium (2/5) |
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.