WaterMark
Independent water and siting-risk assessment for proposed data center projects. Used by community officials, utility planners, developers, and journalists evaluating where data center infrastructure can and should be built. A project of Standard Water.
June 1, 2026 — SpaceX named water access a risk factor in its amended S-1, citing drought, competition for supply, and regulatory limits on cooling water (SEC S-1 · TechCrunch). WaterMark estimates that risk at the watershed level for any US county below. "Water now sits beside power as a gating constraint on where data centers can be built. WaterMark puts a sourced number on it, county by county." Ravi Kurani, Standard Water Corp

Assessment Results

Estimated water impact for a 200 MW evaporative-cooled data center in Prince George's County, MD. Numbers below are planning-level estimates; every figure links to a primary source and is citable in planning briefs, permit filings, or journalism.

Planning-level estimate. Assumes continuous operation and a single facility; cumulative impact from multiple data centers in the same jurisdiction is higher. This is not an engineering or environmental-impact analysis. Full limitations and assumptions →

Direct Water Consumption (Scope 1)

Metric Value Source / Basis
Daily consumption 1,200,000 gal/day 200 MW × 24h × 1.8 L/kWh × 0.264 gal/L (LBNL)
Annual consumption 438,000,000 gal/yr Daily × 365
Acre-feet per year 1,344 AF/yr Annual ÷ 325,851 gal/AF

Community Impact Context

Metric Value Source / Basis
Household equivalency 8,000 homes Daily ÷ 150 gal/household/day (USGS)
Share of utility capacity 0.71% Daily ÷ WSSC system capacity 170 MGD (WSSC)
Annual water cost (at muni rate) $4,292,400/yr Annual × $9.80/1,000 gal (WSSC)

Municipal Water Supply Impact

0.71%
0% 10% — typical planning stress threshold 100%

Bar shows this facility's daily consumption as a share of total utility system capacity. ICPRB (March 2026) estimates data centers collectively account for 9–12% of regional Potomac consumptive use during summer peak.

Watershed Stress Allocation

Showing this facility's projected water use in context of all major consumptive users in the same HUC-8 basin. Comparison is local — not national. Methodology §3.5.

Category Consumptive use (MGD) % of basin Source

Indirect Water — Power Generation (Scope 2)

This section calculates water consumed by power plants generating electricity for this facility. Standard corporate "water positive" reporting counts on-site (Scope 1) water only, so this generation water is not reflected in the disclosures published by Google, Microsoft, or AWS.

Metric Value Source / Basis
Indirect water (daily) 2,200,000 gal/day 200 MW × 24h × 1,000 kW/MW × 0.42 gal/kWh (EIA-923, PJM grid mix)
Indirect water (annual) 803,000,000 gal/yr Indirect daily × 365
Total water footprint (daily) 3,400,000 gal/day Direct + indirect
Total water footprint (annual) 1,241,000,000 gal/yr Direct + indirect
Direct: 35%
Indirect: 65%

Indirect water intensity varies by grid region. PJM Interconnection (serving MD/VA/DC) uses a mix of natural gas (44%), nuclear (33%), coal (15%), and renewables (8%) per PJM-EIS GATS EY2024, yielding a weighted water intensity of 0.42 gal/kWh (Macknick et al. 2012 NREL consumption factors, recirculating cooling tower medians). See Methodology §3 for derivation.

Scenario Comparison

Side-by-side comparison of saved scenarios. To revise, load a scenario from the sidebar list, change inputs, save under a new name, then compare again.

Electricity and Rate Impact

Metric Value Source / Basis
Peak power draw 200 MW User input
Annual electricity consumption 1,752,000 MWh/yr 200 MW × 8,760 hr/yr
Est. residential rate impact +$12–$22/mo per household Based on EIA state rate data and PEPCO infrastructure cost allocation models. Range reflects uncertainty.
Share of local grid capacity ~11.8% 200 MW ÷ ~1,700 MW PEPCO peak (PJM)

Limitations and Disclaimers

  • Estimates are based on published industry averages and publicly available utility data. Actual consumption depends on facility design, IT load profiles, climate conditions, and operational decisions not modeled here.
  • Indirect water calculations use regional grid-average water intensity. Facilities with dedicated renewable energy or power purchase agreements may have different indirect water footprints.
  • Residential rate impact is a range estimate. Actual rate changes depend on regulatory proceedings, infrastructure investment allocation, and utility-specific cost structures.
  • This tool is provided for informational and planning purposes. It does not constitute engineering analysis, legal advice, or regulatory determination.

Full methodology, assumptions, and data sources: Methodology. Questions or corrections: ravi@standardwater.co.

For journalists

WaterMark is built and maintained by Standard Water Corp, a water-infrastructure company. It is not affiliated with any data center developer, utility, or government agency. Every figure in the tool links to a primary source (LBNL, USGS, EIA, WRI, ICPRB, utility filings) and is citable as published.

Contact: ravi@standardwater.co. Full methodology: HTML or PDF (v3.7, June 2026). High-resolution screenshots available on request.

Representative figures from the default scenario (200 MW evaporative-cooled data center, Prince George's County, MD), all sourced in the tool: