WaterMark
Data Center Water Impact Assessment Tool

Prince George's County, Maryland

Data center water impact assessment — Brightseat Tech Park (820 MW proposed) and regional cumulative effects on WSSC Water / Potomac River basin.

Moratorium — Expires Apr 30, 2026

Development Summary

Primary projectBrightseat Tech Park — 87 acres, former Landover Mall site
DeveloperBrightseat Associates LLC (Lerner Enterprises / The Tower Companies)
Scale5 buildings, 4.1M sq ft, up to 820 MW
Investment$5 billion projected
ApprovalsPlanning Board approved preliminary subdivision (March 2024); final plan (Oct 2024). Did not require County Council review.
StatusHalted — moratorium in effect through April 30, 2026

Sources: Data Center Dynamics; MVEMNT

Water Infrastructure

UtilityWSSC Water (bi-county: PG + Montgomery)
Primary sourcePotomac River (Potomac WFP)
System capacity170 MGD
WRI stress indexHigh — 3.4/5
Residential rate$9.80/1,000 gal
Existing DC count5 operational in PG County

Sources: WSSC Water 2024; WRI Aqueduct 4.0; Fox Baltimore

ICPRB, March 2026: Data centers in the D.C. metro region account for 9–12% of Potomac consumptive use during summer peak. With unconstrained growth, projected to reach 80 MGD peak demand by 2050. — WTOP / ICPRB Study

Moratorium Timeline

  • Apr 15, 2025 Council adopts CR-016-2025 establishing Qualified Data Center Task Force
  • Sep 15, 2025 County Executive Braveboy pauses all data center permits (executive order)
  • Sep 16, 2025 Council adopts CR-98-2025 — 180-day moratorium on permits and subdivision plans
  • Nov 2025 Task Force issues 460+ page final report with 14 recommendations
  • Jan 23, 2026 Executive Order No. 1-2026 extends hold through April 30, 2026
  • Feb 11, 2026 All four pending data center bills' hearings canceled — Council to consider collectively
  • Apr 30, 2026 Moratorium expires. No replacement legislation passed as of this writing. Either new rules take effect, another extension is issued, or regulatory gap opens.

Sources: PG County Council; Greenbelt News Review; EO 1-2026 (PDF)

Key Stakeholders

Government

  • Aisha N. Braveboy — County Executive. Cautious, regulatory-forward. Issued moratorium executive orders.
  • Wala Blegay — Council At-Large. Lead sponsor of moratorium (CR-98-2025). Task Force member. Primary legislative architect.
  • Krystal Oriadha — Council Vice Chair. Co-sponsor. Publicly stated she is "against data centers anywhere."
  • Edward Burroughs III — Council Chair. Task Force Co-Chair.

Community Organizers

  • Taylor Frazier McCollum — Landover resident. Change.org petition: 22,500+ signatures. Framed fight as environmental racism.
  • Staci Hartwell — South County Environmental Justice Coalition. Task Force member (community voice from the inside).
  • Kamita Gray — President, Brandywine TB Southern Region Neighborhood Coalition.

Consulting / Advisory

  • Gensler — Retained under RFP 45-135 for community engagement and case study comparison. Elaine Asal led engagement; Evan Totes presented to Council.
  • Sage Policy Group — Economic analysis (on behalf of MD Tech Council). Projected $1B economic activity, ~$19.6M annual county taxes.

Sources: AFRO; Maryland Daily Record; PG Council Task Force

Water Impact Assessment

820 MW · Evaporative · Scope 1+2

Direct Water — On-Site Cooling (Scope 1)

Daily consumption 9.4 million gal/day 820 MW × 24h × 1.8 L/kWh × 0.264 gal/L (LBNL)
Annual consumption 3.4 billion gal/yr Daily × 365
Acre-feet per year 10,480 AF/yr Annual ÷ 325,851 gal/AF
Household equivalency 62,382 homes Daily ÷ 150 gal/hh/day (USGS)

Municipal Impact

Share of WSSC capacity 5.5% 9.4M gal ÷ 170 MGD (WSSC)
Annual water cost (muni rate) $33.6M/yr 3.4B gal ÷ 1,000 × $9.80 (WSSC)

Indirect Water — Power Generation (Scope 2)

Daily indirect water 8.3 million gal/day 820 MW × 24h × 1,000 × 0.42 gal/kWh (Macknick 2012 × EIA-923 / PJM EY2024 mix)
Annual indirect water 3.0 billion gal/yr Indirect daily × 365

Excluded from disclosure. This figure does not appear in any corporate sustainability report. Google, Microsoft, and AWS exclude power-generation water from "water positive" claims.

Total Water Footprint

Total daily 17.7 million gal/day
Total annual 6.4 billion gal/yr
53%
47%
Direct (on-site) Indirect (power generation)

Electricity and Grid Impact

Annual electricity 7.2 million MWh/yr 820 MW × 8,760 hr/yr
Share of PEPCO peak ~48% 820 MW ÷ ~1,700 MW (PJM)
Est. residential rate impact +$12–$22/mo Per household. EIA + PEPCO cost allocation models.
Open in Full Assessment Tool →

Estimates use published industry averages and public utility data. Not engineering analysis. See full methodology for assumptions and limitations.

Pending Legislation (as of April 2026)

Four data center bills were introduced. All hearings were canceled or postponed as of February 11, 2026 — the Council intends to consider legislation collectively before the moratorium expires.

Bill Sponsor Summary
LDR-001-2026 Most restrictive CM Jolene Ivey Data centers only by special exception in industrial zones. No by-right development.
LDR-016-2026 Moderate Chair Oriadha & CM Blegay Requires detailed site plans for all data center proposals.
LDR-021-2026 Process CM Adams-Stafford Transparency and process requirements: searchable database of pre-application neighborhood meetings.
LDR-028-2026 Less restrictive CM Blegay By-right in industrial zones; special exception in agricultural/rural zones (25+ acre parcels, distance requirements).

Source: Community group summary; PG County Council

Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) Status

No legally binding CBAs have been executed with any data center developer in Prince George's County as of April 2026. The CBA framework remains an advisory recommendation from the Task Force report, not yet codified in legislation.

The Task Force's 14 recommendations included community benefits alongside special-use exceptions and overlay districts. Task Force Co-Chair Anthony Jones stated: "Data centers should be held to high energy efficiency standards, and data centers that locate in the county should also provide community benefits to the county." Dozens of residents at the January 27, 2026 Council briefing asked for workforce-development commitments and monitoring requirements for energy, water, and noise. (Citizen Portal)

A prior CBA precedent exists: MGM National Harbor executed a CBA with the county for casino development. (PG County CBA Summary). Separately, Brookings Institution (Jan 2026) published a report recommending CBAs for data centers, citing the PG County situation.

What Happens After April 30, 2026?

Three scenarios exist:

1. New legislation passes before April 30. The moratorium is replaced by permanent rules — likely some form of special exception or site plan review process. Given that all bill hearings were canceled as of February, this is the scenario the Council is working toward but has not confirmed.

2. Another executive order extends the hold. County Executive Braveboy has already extended once (EO 1-2026). A second extension would buy more time but face increasing legal and political pressure from developers.

3. The moratorium lapses with no replacement. A regulatory gap opens. Brightseat Associates and other developers could resume applications under pre-moratorium rules — the same permitting framework that allowed Planning Board approval without Council review. This is the worst-case scenario for communities seeking stronger oversight.

The county's structural budget deficit ($130–$170M for FY2026) keeps data center tax revenue (~$20M/year for Brightseat alone) in the conversation even among skeptics. (WJLA)