WaterMark
Data Center Water Impact Assessment Tool

WaterMark / Jurisdictions / Williamson County, TX (Austin metro)

Williamson County, TX (Austin metro): Data Center Water Impact

Reference data for evaluating a data center proposal in Williamson County, TX (Austin metro). 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 utilityBrazos River Authority + city contractsUtility of record
Supply sourceBrazos River + Edwards Aquifer + reservoirsUtility of record
Treatment capacity90 MGDWater stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 12070205. Edwards Aquifer constraints.
Water rate$5.50 / 1,000 galBrazos River Authority + city contracts published rate schedule
Watershed stressHigh (4 / 5)Water stress: WRI Aqueduct 4.0, HUC-8 12070205. Edwards Aquifer constraints.

Watershed consumptive use

Basin: San Gabriel (HUC-8 12070205). Figures are consumptive use, not withdrawal, because evaporative data center loss is consumptive. USGS data year 2020.

CategoryConsumptive use (MGD)Share of basin
Residential 50 58.1%
Thermoelectric power 8 9.3%
Industrial 5 5.8%
Irrigation 18 20.9%
Mining 1 1.2%
Existing data centers 4 4.7%
Total86100.0%

Total is the sum of the categories listed above. Shares are each category divided by that total. Source: USGS Water Use 2020, Williamson 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.

MetricValueSource / basis
Grid regionERCOTERCOT
Electric utilityOncor / TX-NM Power / coopsUtility of record
Grid water intensity0.22 gal / kWhMacknick et al. 2012 × ERCOT mix (~47% gas, ~28% wind, ~15% solar, ~7% coal, ~4% nuclear)
Local peak demand1,800 MWERCOT
Modeled rate impact5% to 12%See methodology

Where this water is consumed: ERCOT plants are largely in-state; some Scope 2 water is consumed in the Brazos / Colorado TX river 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 Williamson County, TX (Austin metro) 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

Austin metro N. Edwards Aquifer constraints. ERCOT cheap power but extreme heat hurts cooling. TX has historically been permissive on permitting, but statewide: on 3 Aug 2026 the Governor directed the PUCT and ERCOT to audit every data center in the interconnection queue before any further project may advance, and ERCOT paused its Batch Zero study. The audit requires each project to disclose projected annual and peak water consumption, water sources, and cooling technology.

Sources: Water: Brazos River Authority + city contracts. Grid: ERCOT. Statewide audit: Office of the Governor, 3 Aug 2026.

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

CountyWater sourceWatershed stress
Denton County, TX (DFW) Trinity River High (3.5/5)
Bexar County, TX (San Antonio) Edwards Aquifer + diversified portfolio Extremely High (4.2/5)

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.