WaterMark
Data Center Water Impact Assessment Tool

WaterMark / Jurisdictions / Pima County, AZ (Tucson)

Pima County, AZ (Tucson): Data Center Water Impact

Reference data for evaluating a data center proposal in Pima County, AZ (Tucson). Every figure below is a stored value with its primary source attached. Facility-scale results are produced by the assessment tool.

Water supply

MetricValueSource / basis
Water utilityTucson WaterUtility of record
Supply sourceColorado River / Central AZ Project + AquiferUtility of record
Treatment capacity110 MGDWater stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 basin 15050302. Utility data: Tucson Water 2024 Report.
Water rate$7.56 / 1,000 galTucson Water published rate schedule
Watershed stressExtremely High (4.2 / 5)Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 basin 15050302. Utility data: Tucson Water 2024 Report.

Watershed consumptive use

Basin: Rillito (HUC-8 15050302). Figures are consumptive use, not withdrawal, because evaporative data center loss is consumptive. USGS data year 2020.

CategoryConsumptive use (MGD)Share of basin
Residential 75 21.9%
Thermoelectric power 4 1.2%
Industrial 2 0.6%
Irrigation 200 58.4%
Mining 60 17.5%
Existing data centers 1.5 0.4%
Total342.5100.0%

Total is the sum of the categories listed above. Shares are each category divided by that total. Source: USGS Water Use 2020, Pima County. Mining: ADWR mining sector reports.

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.

MetricValueSource / basis
Grid regionWECC SouthwestWECC
Electric utilityTEPUtility of record
Grid water intensity0.37 gal / kWhMacknick et al. 2012 consumption factors, weighted by AZ generation mix (EIA)
Local peak demand2,200 MWWECC
Modeled rate impact8% to 18%See methodology

Where this water is consumed: WECC Southwest grid plants serving Pima County (incl. Palo Verde nuclear) are located outside the Rillito basin. Scope 2 water is consumed in those source basins.

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.

Open Pima County, AZ (Tucson) in the assessment tool

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

Tucson. Extreme stress (Aqueduct 4.2/5). CAP-dependent. On 5 Aug 2026 the City Council adopted Tucson's first large-scale data center regulations 6-1: by-right zoning eliminated, mandatory demonstration of adequate water and power supply, and no potable water for cooling for facilities outside the city's Large Quantity Water Users Ordinance. Applies to facilities over 25,000 sq ft or 20 MW. Separately, the County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 on 11 Aug 2026 to direct staff to draft a 120-day moratorium on data centers in unincorporated Pima County; the moratorium text has not yet returned to the Board for adoption, so no county moratorium is in force.

Sources: Water: Tucson Water + ADWR. Grid: WECC SW (TEP). Ordinance: City of Tucson PDSD, 6 Aug 2026. County moratorium direction: AZPM, 13 Aug 2026; Pima County Board of Supervisors File ID 20637.

Comparative siting scores for this county, alongside every other county tracked, are on the US Siting Matrix.

CountyWater sourceWatershed stress
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)
Pinal County, AZ (Casa Grande / Eloy) Groundwater + Central Arizona Project (Colorado River) — Pinal AMA Extremely High (4.6/5)
Clark County, NV (Las Vegas) Lake Mead / Colorado River Extremely High (4.5/5)
Washoe County, NV (Reno) Truckee River + Donner Lake High (3.2/5)

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.