WaterMark / Jurisdictions / Salt Lake County, UT
Salt Lake County, UT: Data Center Water Impact
Reference data for evaluating a data center proposal in Salt Lake County, UT. 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 | Salt Lake City DPU | Utility of record |
| Supply source | Wasatch streams + Provo Reservoirs (CUP) | Utility of record |
| Treatment capacity | 130 MGD | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 16020310. Great Salt Lake decline driving regional water-policy attention. |
| Water rate | $3.80 / 1,000 gal | Salt Lake City DPU published rate schedule |
| Watershed stress | High (3.4 / 5) | Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 16020310. Great Salt Lake decline driving regional water-policy attention. |
Watershed consumptive use
Basin: Great Salt Lake basin (HUC-8 16020310). 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 | 80 | 51.9% |
| Thermoelectric power | 22 | 14.3% |
| Industrial | 15 | 9.7% |
| Irrigation | 30 | 19.5% |
| Mining | 3 | 1.9% |
| Existing data centers | 4 | 2.6% |
| Total | 154 | 100.0% |
Total is the sum of the categories listed above. Shares are each category divided by that total. Source: USGS Water Use 2020, Salt Lake 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 | WECC Northwest | PacifiCorp |
| Electric utility | Rocky Mountain Power (PacifiCorp) | Utility of record |
| Grid water intensity | 0.45 gal / kWh | Macknick et al. 2012 × UT generation mix (heavy coal still + gas + growing wind/solar) |
| Local peak demand | 2,000 MW | PacifiCorp |
| Modeled rate impact | 7% to 16% | See methodology |
Where this water is consumed: Several PacifiCorp coal plants (Hunter, Huntington) in the broader Utah basin contribute 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
Wasatch Front. Great Salt Lake decline is a major regional water-policy driver. Cool nights help cooling.
Sources: Water: SLCDPU. Grid: PacifiCorp / Rocky Mountain Power.
Comparative siting scores for this county, alongside every other county tracked, are on the US Siting Matrix.
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.