Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Want to understand Texas’ water crisis? Start with the guide to water terms.

News Feed
Thursday, March 13, 2025

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. This article is part of Running Out, an occasional series about Texas’ water crisis. Read more stories about the threats facing Texas’ water supply here. Texas legislative leaders have prioritized securing the state’s long-term water supply this year. The state is losing billions of gallons of water annually to poor infrastructure. Warmer weather is depleting the state’s reservoirs and rivers. And the state’s rapid growth — and increased energy demands — is adding considerable pressure. While the debate over solutions is just getting started at the Legislature, the most likely outcome will include asking voters to approve more money for water projects. That means you’ll hear a lot about water between now and the November election. Water is complicated, and so is its language. To better understand Texas’ water landscape, the Texas Tribune created the glossary below. Water sources Swallows fly over the Little Wichita River on Monday, May 6, 2024 in Henrietta, Texas. The proposed Lake Ringgold dam will be built on the river if a permit to construct Lake Ringgold, a reservoir the City of Wichita Falls says will help with future water needs, is approved. Residents and ranchers of Clay County say they will lose acres of their property and claim the project is unnecessary. Credit: Desiree Rios for The Texas Tribune Groundwater — Water that exists underground in soil, sand and rock. Groundwater is created by precipitation, including rain and melting snow and ice that seeps into the ground. Aquifers — A body of rock or sediment underground that holds groundwater. Aquifers can be formed through many types of sediments, including gravel, sandstone, and fractured limestone. In Texas, there are nine major aquifers and 22 minor aquifers that store groundwater. Private landowners and cities access this water using wells. Recharge — An increase in the amount of water that enters an aquifer. This can occur naturally, through precipitation that seeps into the soil and moves down where water is stored. Or it can come from human-controlled methods, like redirecting water across the surface through basins or ponds, or injecting water directly through injection wells. Surface water — Any source of water that is found above ground, on the Earth’s surface. This includes saltwater in the ocean, and freshwater in rivers, streams and lakes. Surface water supplies in Texas come from 15 major river basins, eight coastal basins and more than 180 reservoirs. Water table — An underground boundary that separates the soil surface and the area where groundwater is being stored. Water management Recycled water outfall at the Steven M. Clouse Water Recycling Center in San Antonio in 2024. Credit: Chris Stokes for The Texas Tribune Reservoirs — Man-made lakes that serve as big pools to hold drinking water. Most reservoirs are created by constructing dams across rivers or lakes to control water levels. The dam and gates control the amount of water that flows out of the reservoir. Reservoirs are built to hold back a certain amount of water because water levels in a river can vary over time. There are different types of reservoirs; the most common are for flood control and water conservation. Texas has 188 reservoirs that supply water to people. Dam — A barrier that stops or controls the flow of surface water. Modern-day dams are often made of concrete, though they can also be made of steel or PVC. Drought — An extended period with less than average rain, snow or ice, which impacts water levels at aquifers and reservoirs. A lack of water leads local officials to place restrictions on people’s water usage and limits agricultural production. Texas water planners use the 1950 drought as a benchmark for statewide water planning. Acre-foot — An acre-foot of water is enough to cover approximately the size of a football field to a depth of one foot. One acre-foot of water is equal to almost 326,000 gallons — enough water to last six Texans for one year. Cubic feet per second (cfs) — The rate at which water passes a specific point over a period of time. It's often used to report the flow of streams. One cfs is equal to about 450 gallons per minute. Irrigation — The application of water to crops through pipes, canals, sprinklers or drip streams. Water reuse — The process of reclaiming water from a variety of sources to treat and recycle for other purposes. Water infrastructure — Man-made systems for meeting water and wastewater needs, such as dams, wells, conveyance systems, water pipes and water treatment plants. Governance From left, Sarah Schlessinger, Texas Water Foundation, Sarah Kirkle, Texas Water Association, Heather Harward, Texas Water Supply Partners, Lara Zent, Texas Rural Water Association, Vanessa Puig-Williams, Environmental Defense Fund, and Jeremy Mazu, Texas 2036, sit on a panel during Texas Water Day at the Texas Capitol on March 3. Credit: Lorianne Willett/The Texas Tribune Water utility — A public or private entity that provides water directly to residents and businesses. For the majority of the utilities, an acronym is listed after the name describing the type of utility. Examples: Municipal Water Authority, Municipal Utility District, Water District and Water System. Rule of capture — The law that essentially means the first person to extract groundwater is the rightful owner of that source of water. Landowners own the water beneath them and reserve the right to pump as much water as they need. Texas governs groundwater by this rule. Groundwater conservation districts — A local or regional governing body tasked with developing and implementing management plans to conserve and protect groundwater resources. Districts try to maintain a balance between protecting property rights and protecting the water resource. Texas Water Development Board — The state agency created after an intense drought in 1950. It serves as a bank that funds water projects across the state to fix leaking pipes, flood mitigation projects and water research. Texas Water Caucus — A bipartisan group of lawmakers that focuses on prioritizing the state’s water resources at the Capitol. The caucus was established during the 2023 legislative session. It includes 74 members from the House of Representatives and one Senate member. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality — A state agency that regulates air, water and waste management. This agency issues permits to businesses and people for surface water. Boil-water notice — An alert that indicates when water in a distribution system may be unsafe for consumption. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental agency, requires that residents of the affected area boil water to help destroy harmful bacteria when they want to use it for drinking and cooking. TCEQ is also the agency that must lift the notice. Texas Water Fund — A one-time investment of $1 billion created in the 2023 legislative session using surplus state funds that funded water infrastructure projects. Texas water plan — A guide the state uses to manage the long-term demand for the state’s water resources. The plan accounts for the water needs for municipal, irrigation, and livestock, among other uses. It also addresses each region in Texas and proposes water supply solutions to meet demand. It is written by the Texas Water Development Board, and the final plan is submitted to the Texas Legislature, governor and lieutenant governor. Other types of water and treatments Groundwater, picked up by wells near Rancho Viejo, goes through microfiltration at the SRWA Brackish Groundwater Treatment Facility in Brownsville on July 15, 2024. Credit: Eddie Gaspar/The Texas Tribune Desalination — The process of removing salt from seawater or salty groundwater so it can be used for drinking water, irrigation and industrial uses. Researchers say desalination could be a solution to water shortages. Produced water — Water that comes out of the ground as wastewater during the extraction of oil and gas production. Brackish water — Salty groundwater with salinity levels higher than fresh water, but lower than sea water. Brackish groundwater forms when fresh and sea water mix or rainfall seeps into the ground and mixes with minerals within the subsurface. Water runoff — When there is more water than the land can absorb, causing erosion, flooding, and water pollution. Sources: We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more. Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Water is complex. So are the terms used to describe it. Get to know the language as Texas debates how to save its water supply.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state.


This article is part of Running Out, an occasional series about Texas’ water crisis. Read more stories about the threats facing Texas’ water supply here.

Texas legislative leaders have prioritized securing the state’s long-term water supply this year.

The state is losing billions of gallons of water annually to poor infrastructure. Warmer weather is depleting the state’s reservoirs and rivers. And the state’s rapid growth — and increased energy demands — is adding considerable pressure.

While the debate over solutions is just getting started at the Legislature, the most likely outcome will include asking voters to approve more money for water projects. That means you’ll hear a lot about water between now and the November election.

Water is complicated, and so is its language. To better understand Texas’ water landscape, the Texas Tribune created the glossary below.

Water sources

Swallows fly over the Little Wichita River on Monday, May 6, 2024 in Henrietta, Texas. The proposed Lake Ringgold dam will be built on the river if a permit to construct Lake Ringgold, a reservoir the City of Wichita Falls says will help with future water needs, is approved. Residents and ranchers of Clay County say they will lose acres of their property and claim the project is unnecessary. Credit: Desiree Rios for The Texas Tribune

Groundwater — Water that exists underground in soil, sand and rock. Groundwater is created by precipitation, including rain and melting snow and ice that seeps into the ground.

Aquifers — A body of rock or sediment underground that holds groundwater. Aquifers can be formed through many types of sediments, including gravel, sandstone, and fractured limestone. In Texas, there are nine major aquifers and 22 minor aquifers that store groundwater. Private landowners and cities access this water using wells.

Recharge — An increase in the amount of water that enters an aquifer. This can occur naturally, through precipitation that seeps into the soil and moves down where water is stored. Or it can come from human-controlled methods, like redirecting water across the surface through basins or ponds, or injecting water directly through injection wells.

Surface water — Any source of water that is found above ground, on the Earth’s surface. This includes saltwater in the ocean, and freshwater in rivers, streams and lakes. Surface water supplies in Texas come from 15 major river basins, eight coastal basins and more than 180 reservoirs.

Water table — An underground boundary that separates the soil surface and the area where groundwater is being stored.

Water management

Recycled water outfall at the Steven M. Clouse Water Recycling Center in San Antonio in 2024. Credit: Chris Stokes for The Texas Tribune

Reservoirs — Man-made lakes that serve as big pools to hold drinking water. Most reservoirs are created by constructing dams across rivers or lakes to control water levels. The dam and gates control the amount of water that flows out of the reservoir. Reservoirs are built to hold back a certain amount of water because water levels in a river can vary over time. There are different types of reservoirs; the most common are for flood control and water conservation. Texas has 188 reservoirs that supply water to people.

Dam — A barrier that stops or controls the flow of surface water. Modern-day dams are often made of concrete, though they can also be made of steel or PVC.

Drought — An extended period with less than average rain, snow or ice, which impacts water levels at aquifers and reservoirs. A lack of water leads local officials to place restrictions on people’s water usage and limits agricultural production. Texas water planners use the 1950 drought as a benchmark for statewide water planning.

Acre-foot — An acre-foot of water is enough to cover approximately the size of a football field to a depth of one foot. One acre-foot of water is equal to almost 326,000 gallons — enough water to last six Texans for one year.

Cubic feet per second (cfs) — The rate at which water passes a specific point over a period of time. It's often used to report the flow of streams. One cfs is equal to about 450 gallons per minute.

Irrigation — The application of water to crops through pipes, canals, sprinklers or drip streams.

Water reuse — The process of reclaiming water from a variety of sources to treat and recycle for other purposes.

Water infrastructure — Man-made systems for meeting water and wastewater needs, such as dams, wells, conveyance systems, water pipes and water treatment plants.

Governance

From left, Sarah Schlessinger, Texas Water Foundation, Sarah Kirkle, Texas Water Association, Heather Harward, Texas Water Supply Partners, Lara Zent, Texas Rural Water Association, Vanessa Puig-Williams, Environmental Defense Fund, and Jeremy Mazu, Texas 2036, sit on a panel during Texas Water Day at the Texas Capitol on March 3. Credit: Lorianne Willett/The Texas Tribune

Water utility — A public or private entity that provides water directly to residents and businesses. For the majority of the utilities, an acronym is listed after the name describing the type of utility. Examples: Municipal Water Authority, Municipal Utility District, Water District and Water System.

Rule of capture — The law that essentially means the first person to extract groundwater is the rightful owner of that source of water. Landowners own the water beneath them and reserve the right to pump as much water as they need. Texas governs groundwater by this rule.

Groundwater conservation districts — A local or regional governing body tasked with developing and implementing management plans to conserve and protect groundwater resources. Districts try to maintain a balance between protecting property rights and protecting the water resource.

Texas Water Development Board — The state agency created after an intense drought in 1950. It serves as a bank that funds water projects across the state to fix leaking pipes, flood mitigation projects and water research.

Texas Water Caucus — A bipartisan group of lawmakers that focuses on prioritizing the state’s water resources at the Capitol. The caucus was established during the 2023 legislative session. It includes 74 members from the House of Representatives and one Senate member.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality — A state agency that regulates air, water and waste management. This agency issues permits to businesses and people for surface water.

Boil-water notice — An alert that indicates when water in a distribution system may be unsafe for consumption. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental agency, requires that residents of the affected area boil water to help destroy harmful bacteria when they want to use it for drinking and cooking. TCEQ is also the agency that must lift the notice.

Texas Water Fund — A one-time investment of $1 billion created in the 2023 legislative session using surplus state funds that funded water infrastructure projects.

Texas water plan — A guide the state uses to manage the long-term demand for the state’s water resources. The plan accounts for the water needs for municipal, irrigation, and livestock, among other uses. It also addresses each region in Texas and proposes water supply solutions to meet demand. It is written by the Texas Water Development Board, and the final plan is submitted to the Texas Legislature, governor and lieutenant governor.

Other types of water and treatments

Groundwater, picked up by wells near Rancho Viejo, goes through microfiltration at the SRWA Brackish Groundwater Treatment Facility in Brownsville on July 15, 2024. Credit: Eddie Gaspar/The Texas Tribune

Desalination — The process of removing salt from seawater or salty groundwater so it can be used for drinking water, irrigation and industrial uses. Researchers say desalination could be a solution to water shortages.

Produced water — Water that comes out of the ground as wastewater during the extraction of oil and gas production.

Brackish water — Salty groundwater with salinity levels higher than fresh water, but lower than sea water. Brackish groundwater forms when fresh and sea water mix or rainfall seeps into the ground and mixes with minerals within the subsurface.

Water runoff — When there is more water than the land can absorb, causing erosion, flooding, and water pollution.

Sources:


We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.

Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.

TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

EU waters down plans to end new petrol and diesel car sales by 2035

Carmakers, particularly in Germany, have lobbied heavily for concessions to the planned rules.

The European Commission has watered down its plans to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2035.Current rules state that new vehicles sold from that date should be "zero emission", but carmakers, particularly in Germany, have lobbied heavily for concessions.Under the European Commission's new plan, 90% of new cars sold from 2035 would have to be zero-emission, rather than 100%.According to the European carmakers association, ACEA, market demand for electric cars is currently too low, and without a change to the rules, manufacturers would risk "multi-billion euro" penalties.The remaining 10% could be made up of conventional petrol or diesel cars, along with hybrids.Carmakers will be expected to use low-carbon steel made in the EU in the vehicles they produce.The Commission also expects an increase in the use of biofuels and so-called e-fuels, which are synthesised from captured carbon dioxide, to compensate for the extra emissions created by petrol and diesel vehicles. Opponents of the move have warned that it risks undermining the transition towards electric vehicles and leaving the EU exposed in the face of foreign competition.The green transport group T&E has warned that the UK should not follow the EU's lead by weakening its own plans to phase out the sale of conventional cars under the Zero Emission Vehicles Mandate."The UK must stand firm. Our ZEV mandate is already driving jobs, investment and innovation into the UK. As major exporters we cannot compete unless we innovate, and global markets are going electric fast," said T&E UK's director Anna Krajinska.Ahead of the announcement, Sigrid de Vries, director general at ACEA, said that "flexibility" for manufacturers was "urgent"."2030 is around the corner, and market demand is too low to avoid the risk of multi-billion-euro penalties for manufacturers," she said."It will take time to build the charging points and introduce fiscal and purchase incentives to get the market on track. Policy makers must provide breathing space to manufacturers to sustain jobs, innovation and investments."Carmakers in the UK have previously called for better incentives to encourage drivers to buy electric ahead of the government's planned ban on sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030.Firms across the world have been changing their production lines and investing billions as governments try to persuade people to drive greener cars to meet environmental targets.Volvo said it had "built a complete EV portfolio in less than 10 years" and was prepared to go fully electric, using hybrids as a transition. It argued if it can move away from petrol and diesel vehicles, other companies should be able to as well.The carmaker said: "Weakening long-term commitments for short-term gain risks undermining Europe's competitiveness for years to come. "A consistent and ambitious policy framework, as well as investments in public infrastructure, is what will deliver real benefits for customers, for the climate, and for Europe's industrial strength."However, German carmaker Volkswagen welcomed the European Commission's draft proposal on new CO₂ targets, calling it "economically sound overall".It said: "The fact that small electric vehicles are to receive special support in future is very positive. It is extremely important that the CO₂ targets for 2030 are made more flexible for passenger cars and adjusted for light commercial vehicles."Opening up the market to vehicles with combustion engines while compensating for emissions is pragmatic and in line with market conditions."Colin Walker, head of transport at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) think tank, said the UK having "stable policy" would give companies the confidence to invest in charging infrastructure and avoid "jeopardising investments"."It was government policy that saw Sunderland chosen to build Nissan's original electric Leaf, and today the latest Nissan EV has started rolling off the production lines in the North East, securing jobs for years to come," he said.Octopus Electric Vehicles chief executive Fiona Howarth warned that if the UK reduced its goals because of changes in Brussels, it would send a "damaging signal to investors, manufacturers and supply-chain partners".Many of these groups have already invested heavily in the transition "on the assumption the UK would stay the course," she said.

How the myth of ‘aqua nullius’ still guides Australia’s approach to groundwater

For too long, Indigenous perspectives have not been heard in groundwater science. We must work together to protect Australia’s precious groundwater.

Clint Hansen, CC BY-NDIndigenous people have coexisted with Australia’s vast and ancient groundwater systems for thousands of generations. Their knowledge extends back through deep time, before our current climate and waterways. It offers insights that Western science is only beginning to quantify. When rain falls, some can seep into the ground, becoming groundwater. This water can remain underground for as little as a few months, or for millions of years. Eventually it is taken up by plants, or flows into springs, rivers and the ocean. Australia’s groundwater resources underpin the economic growth and prosperity of the country. But they are under greater pressure than ever before. Legal battles over water in the NT, including extraction licences, highlights the rapid pace at which decisions over the future of water are being made. Our new paper shows the “business as usual” approach to groundwater science and management risks perpetuating colonial injustices. And it compromises our ability to manage water sustainably as the climate grows warmer and population increases. Most Australians are aware of terra nullius, the legal fiction that Australia belonged to no-one before European settlement. But very few know about aqua nullius, – “water belonging to no-one”. This is a similar fiction suggesting Traditional Owners had no rights to the water they had used for millennia. We show how the legacy of aqua nullius remains embedded within contemporary groundwater science. And urge Australia to take a different approach. Indigenous care of groundwater Indigenous knowledge systems embody many thousands of years of groundwater monitoring. This includes tracking spring behaviour and soil moisture, animal movement and vegetation cues. Australia’s colonial expansion used the water knowledge of Indigenous peoples to support economic and agricultural development. This came at the expense of Indigenous peoples’ water, food, and culture. Bitter Springs in Mataranka, in the Northern Territory. The Traditional Owners are the Mangarayi and Yangman people. Felix Dance/Wikimedia, CC BY Indigenous voices ignored For too long, and too often, Indigenous perspectives on groundwater have not been heard or acted upon. In many instances, Indigenous people bear the impacts of groundwater decline or contamination. And yet, they have limited power to influence the development approvals that create these pressures. For Indigenous communities who have cared for these waters for tens of thousands of years, rapid decision-making over the future of groundwater represents a profound risk to cultural obligations and the living systems that hold songlines, identity, and law. Western scientific approaches are prioritised, while Indigenous groundwater expertise is dismissed and neglected in decision-making. When Indigenous perspectives are considered, there can be backlash from industry. There is often an expectation the government will prioritise economic development. Accelerating pressures from industry and agriculture are superimposed onto the existing inequalities in water access. Many Aboriginal homelands communities still facing water insecurity. Australia’s recent critical minerals agreement with the United States will lead to more water-intensive production and processing and substantial long-term environmental impacts. Mine closure is rare in Australia. Mine rehabilitation often falls short of societal expectations. The legacy of decisions made now is likely to last for thousands of years. And they will disproportionately affect Indigenous communities. Rights vs legal obligations In 2009, Australia endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But these rights are not reinforced by current approaches to groundwater science and management. Article 25 states Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain their relationships with traditional lands and waters. Yet over-extraction is leading springs in Australia to dry out. Springs are places of ceremony, law, healing and identity. A dry spring not only has an environmental impact but causes cultural harm, with intergenerational consequences. The UN declaration also says states should obtain consent before any project, including the exploitation of water. Yet in most states and territories there is only a legal obligation to “consult” with Indigenous peoples. Country as a living relative Better outcomes require the colonial settler community to make genuine efforts to understand and incorporate Indigenous perspectives and knowledge in groundwater science and management. The deconstruction of colonial legacies must be facilitated by people working within government agencies and regulatory authorities, and water scientists, in partnership with Aboriginal communities. Genuine relationship building is not just an “engagement activity”. It should be grounded in respect, reciprocity and an understanding of the obligation to care for Country as a living relative. This process takes time and will not necessarily progress according to a particular schedule. This creates a tension between existing approvals mechanisms and best-practice engagement with Indigenous communities. Some governments and companies are working towards improving relationships with Indigenous communities. But this is not a requirement of existing systems for groundwater management. Our cultural heritage continues to be lost. We must work together for a better future so our precious water is protected, not just for the next 50 years but for the next 5,000. This requires a holistic understanding that weaves together Western and Indigenous perspectives to ensure that both people and Country can thrive. A future where Indigenous laws, sciences and decision-making authority are embedded in, not appended to, water science and governance. Sarah Bourke receives funding from the National Water Grid Authority of the Australian Government. She is affiliated with the International Association of Hydrogeologists. Margaret Shanafield receives funding from the National Water Grid Authority of the Australian Government.Bradley J. Moggridge and Clint Hansen do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Water levels across the Great Lakes are falling – just as US data centers move in

Region struggling with drought now threatened by energy-hungry facilities – but some residents are fighting backThe sign outside Tom Hermes’s farmyard in Perkins Township in Ohio, a short drive south of the shores of Lake Erie, proudly claims that his family have farmed the land here since 1900. Today, he raises 130 head of cattle and grows corn, wheat, grass and soybeans on 1,200 acres of land.For his family, his animals and wider business, water is life. Continue reading...

The sign outside Tom Hermes’s farmyard in Perkins Township in Ohio, a short drive south of the shores of Lake Erie, proudly claims that his family have farmed the land here since 1900. Today, he raises 130 head of cattle and grows corn, wheat, grass and soybeans on 1,200 acres of land.For his family, his animals and wider business, water is life.So when, in May 2024, the Texas-based Aligned Data Centers broke ground on its NEO-01, four-building, 200,000 sq ft data center on a brownfield site that abuts farmland that Hermes rents, he was concerned.“We have city water here. That’s going to reduce the pressure if they are sucking all the water,” he says of the data center.“They’re not good, I know that.”Two years ago, the company said it would invest about $202m on a “hyperscale” data center that would employ 18 people and dozens more in the construction process. Although the company claims it uses a closed-loop, air-cooled system for cooling its computers that can reduce the need for water, artificial intelligence, machine-learning and other high power-demand processes do rely on water as a cooling agent.All the while, a 10-minute drive north, the shoreline of Lake Erie hasn’t been this low in years.Water levels across all five Great Lakes have begun to drop in recent months as part of a long-term fall. Since 2019, the Great Lakes have seen water-level decreases of two to four feet. While experts say this is a natural decrease given the record highs the lakes have experienced since 2020, it’s happening at a time when a huge new consumer of water has appeared on the horizon: data centers.The source of the largest single deposit of freshwater on the planet, the Great Lakes, in particular Lake Erie, are already struggling with the fallout of drought and warmer water temperatures that, at this time of year, fuel major lake-effect snowstorms, and greater than normal levels of evaporation due to the absence of ice cover.With major cities such as Chicago, Toronto, Detroit and Pittsburgh all within a few hundred miles of each other, small, under-resourced communities around the Great Lakes have become hugely attractive for data-center companies.In Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, Microsoft is building what it calls the “world’s most-powerful AI data center” that is set to open early next year and expected to use up to 8.4bn gallons of municipal water from the city of Racine every year. Racine gets its water from Lake Michigan. Similar stories are playing out in Hobart, Indiana, where AWS is planning to build a data center two miles from Lake Michigan’s shoreline, and in Port Washington, Wisconsin.In Benton Harbor, Michigan, locals are concerned that a proposed $3bn data center would contribute to environmental pollution and traffic.Forty miles west of Aligned’s under-construction data center in Ohio, in Woodville Township, hundreds of people showed up to a public meeting last October to voice concern about another proposed data center project in their rural community.“The Great Lakes region, especially in states such as Illinois and Ohio, [is] among the most data-center dense states in the region. In addition to the high volumes of water used on site for cooling, our recent research found that even more water may be consumed to generate electricity to power data centers’ energy needs,” says Kirsten James, senior program director for water at Ceres, a nonprofit headquartered in Boston.“These impacts can conflict with communities’ water-resource planning efforts.”The Great Lakes Compact, a 2005 accord signed by the governors of eight US states and two Canadian provinces, means that Great Lakes Water must only be used within the regional basin.Research by Purdue University found that data centers on average consume about 300,000 gallons of water a day. Water used by data centers is warmed significantly and for those that do not use a closed loop system, that heated effluent water, just 20% of the initial amount, is often discharged back into local wastewater systems or the environment, with potentially serious consequences for flora, fauna and human consumers. Even closed-loop systems that reuse the same water repeatedly need millions of gallons of water.While many new data centers are drawing water from local municipalities that, in turn, get their water from groundwater, much of that supply comes from the Great Lakes watersheds.Some communities are fighting back. Last month, residents of Fife Lake, Michigan, were overjoyed after hearing a plan for a data center in their town of 471 residents would be scrapped due to local opposition.Similar stories of successful opposition have played out in Indiana and elsewhere.But the data centers are fighting back.Private firms representing data center companies have often successfully sued community authorities, accusing them of illegally excluding certain types of developments, making small towns powerless in the battle to keep out giant water-guzzling corporations.In Michigan’s Saline Township, a community of about 400 people outside Ann Arbor, OpenAI and Oracle used a representative company to successfully sue the local authority to overcome opposition and build a massive facility that would use 1.4 gigawatts of electricity – roughly the equivalent of powering 1.4 million homes.The Detroit Free Press editorial board assailed the move, calling it a “a fait accompli, hammered into this tiny Washtenaw county community over the objections of residents, the elected board that represents them, and Michigan’s attorney general, absent expert or outside testimony save a cursory public hearing held over Microsoft Teams”.Data companies and their backers, however, say their presence is a net gain for Great Lakes communities by providing jobs and investment over the course of years.Aligned has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Perkins Township, the local school system and a career center. In return, it gets a 15-year tax exemption from local authorities. A representative declined to respond to questions from the Guardian asking how much water it intends to use at the data center and from where it originates.Local municipalities that support these facilities claim that the data centers will increase tax revenue and help rebuild ageing infrastructure such as water delivery systems that, in some places, are in significant need of upgrading. Calls, emails and messages left with Erie county commissioners asking if local authorities plan to supply the Perkins Township data center with water were not responded to.Some Perkins Township residents say a number of local companies have been hired during the construction phase, bringing work to the area.But many argue those investments are not worth the long-term price the community may pay.Amanda Voegle, who works at a heating business now directly facing the data center, is concerned about water and many other issues.“A couple of years ago, there was a water pollution issue at the site. I’m very concerned. Is this [water] going back into the lake?”Two years ago, the construction site upon which the data center is being built was found to be the source of contamination of a river that flows into Lake Erie, with the remediation company responsible cited by the Ohio EPA for unauthorized discharges into state waters.“I don’t understand why they built it so close to the street, because it’s an eyesore,” says Voegle.She says there have been other unusual incidents at her workplace recently, including power surges.“I don’t know if it’s related [to the data center]. It’s probably almost weekly that we lose power and have to fully reboot everything. There was a couple of things we actually had to replace because [the power surge] fried it.”

Some big water agencies in farming areas get water for free. Critics say that needs to end

The federal government is providing water to some large agricultural districts for free. In a new study, researchers urge the Trump administration to start charging more for water.

The water that flows down irrigation canals to some of the West’s biggest expanses of farmland comes courtesy of the federal government for a very low price — even, in some cases, for free.In a new study, researchers analyzed wholesale prices charged by the federal government in California, Arizona and Nevada, and found that large agricultural water agencies pay only a fraction of what cities pay, if anything at all. They said these “dirt-cheap” prices cost taxpayers, add to the strains on scarce water, and discourage conservation — even as the Colorado River’s depleted reservoirs continue to decline.“Federal taxpayers have been subsidizing effectively free water for a very, very long time,” said Noah Garrison, a researcher at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. “We can’t address the growing water scarcity in the West while we continue to give that water away for free or close to it.”The report, released this week by UCLA and the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, examines water that local agencies get from the Colorado River as well as rivers in California’s Central Valley, and concludes that the federal government delivers them water at much lower prices than state water systems or other suppliers.The researchers recommend the Trump administration start charging a “water reliability and security surcharge” on all Colorado River water as well as water from the canals of the Central Valley Project in California. That would encourage agencies and growers to conserve, they said, while generating hundreds of millions of dollars to repair aging and damaged canals and pay for projects such as new water recycling plants.“The need for the price of water to reflect its scarcity is urgent in light of the growing Colorado River Basin crisis,” the researchers wrote. The study analyzed only wholesale prices paid by water agencies, not the prices paid by individual farmers or city residents. It found that agencies serving farming areas pay about $30 per acre-foot of water on average, whereas city water utilities pay $512 per acre-foot. In California, Arizona and Nevada, the federal government supplies more than 7 million acre-feet of water, about 14 times the total water usage of Los Angeles, for less than $1 per acre-foot. And more than half of that — nearly one-fourth of all the water the researchers analyzed — is delivered for free by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to five water agencies in farming areas: the Imperial Irrigation District, Palo Verde Irrigation District and Coachella Valley Water District, as well as the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District in Nevada and the Unit B Irrigation and Drainage District in Arizona. Along the Colorado River, about three-fourths of the water is used for agriculture.Farmers in California’s Imperial Valley receive the largest share of Colorado River water, growing hay for cattle, lettuce, spinach, broccoli and other crops on more than 450,000 acres of irrigated lands. The Imperial Irrigation District charges farmers the same rate for water that it has for years: $20 per acre-foot. Tina Shields, IID’s water department manager, said the district opposes any surcharge on water. Comparing agricultural and urban water costs, as the researchers did, she said, “is like comparing a grape to a watermelon,” given major differences in how water is distributed and treated.Shields pointed out that IID and local farmers are already conserving, and this year the savings will equal about 23% of the district’s total water allotment. “Imperial Valley growers provide the nation with a safe, reliable food supply on the thinnest of margins for many growers,” she said in an email.She acknowledged IID does not pay any fee to the government for water, but said it does pay for operating, maintaining and repairing both federal water infrastructure and the district’s own system. “I see no correlation between the cost of Colorado River water and shortages, and disagree with these inflammatory statements,” Shields said, adding that there “seems to be an intent to drive a wedge between agricultural and urban water users at a time when collaborative partnerships are more critical than ever.”The Colorado River provides water for seven states, 30 Native tribes and northern Mexico, but it’s in decline. Its reservoirs have fallen during a quarter-century of severe drought intensified by climate change. Its two largest reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are now less than one-third full.Negotiations among the seven states on how to deal with shortages have deadlocked.Mark Gold, a co-author, said the government’s current water prices are so low that they don’t cover the costs of operating, maintaining and repairing aging aqueducts and other infrastructure. Even an increase to $50 per acre-foot of water, he said, would help modernize water systems and incentivize conservation. A spokesperson for the U.S. Interior Department, which oversees the Bureau of Reclamation, declined to comment on the proposal.The Colorado River was originally divided among the states under a 1922 agreement that overpromised what the river could provide. That century-old pact and the ingrained system of water rights, combined with water that costs next to nothing, Gold said, lead to “this slow-motion train wreck that is the Colorado right now.” Research has shown that the last 25 years were likely the driest quarter-century in the American West in at least 1,200 years, and that global warming is contributing to this megadrought.The Colorado River’s flow has decreased about 20% so far this century, and scientists have found that roughly half the decline is due to rising temperatures, driven largely by fossil fuels.In a separate report this month, scientists Jonathan Overpeck and Brad Udall said the latest science suggests that climate change will probably “exert a stronger influence, and this will mean a higher likelihood of continued lower precipitation in the headwaters of the Colorado River into the future.” Experts have urged the Trump administration to impose substantial water cuts throughout the Colorado River Basin, saying permanent reductions are necessary. Kathryn Sorensen and Sarah Porter, researchers at Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy, have suggested the federal government set up a voluntary program to buy and retire water-intensive farmlands, or to pay landowners who “agree to permanent restrictions on water use.”Over the last few years, California and other states have negotiated short-term deals and as part of that, some farmers in California and Arizona are temporarily leaving hay fields parched and fallow in exchange for federal payments.The UCLA researchers criticized these deals, saying water agencies “obtain water from the federal government at low or no cost, and the government then buys that water back from the districts at enormous cost to taxpayers.”Isabel Friedman, a coauthor and NRDC researcher, said adopting a surcharge would be a powerful conservation tool. “We need a long-term strategy that recognizes water as a limited resource and prices it as such,” she wrote in an article about the proposal.

California cities pay a lot for water; some agricultural districts get it for free

Even among experts the cost of water supplies is hard to pin down. A new study reveals huge differences in what water suppliers for cities and farms pay for water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada.

In summary Even among experts the cost of water supplies is hard to pin down. A new study reveals huge differences in what water suppliers for cities and farms pay for water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada. California cities pay far more for water on average than districts that supply farms — with some urban water agencies shelling out more than $2,500 per acre-foot of surface water, and some irrigation districts paying nothing, according to new research.  A report published today by researchers with the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability and advocates with the Natural Resources Defense Council shines a light on vast disparities in the price of water across California, Arizona and Nevada.  The true price of water is often hidden from consumers. A household bill may reflect suppliers’ costs to build conduits and pump water from reservoirs and rivers to farms and cities. A local district may obtain water from multiple sources at different costs. Even experts have trouble deciphering how much water suppliers pay for the water itself. The research team spent a year scouring state and federal contracts, financial reports and agency records to assemble a dataset of water purchases, transfers and contracts to acquire water from rivers and reservoirs. They compared vastly different water suppliers with different needs and geographies, purchasing water from delivery systems built at different times and paid for under different contracts. Their overarching conclusion: One of the West’s most valuable resources has no consistent valuation – and sometimes costs nothing at all.  Cities pay the highest prices for water. Look up what cities or irrigation districts in California, Nevada and Arizona pay for surface water in our interactive database at calmatters.org “It costs money to move water around,” the report says, “but there is no cost, and no price signal, for the actual water.” That’s a problem, the authors argue, as California and six other states in the Colorado River basin hash out how to distribute the river’s dwindling flows — pressed by federal ultimatums, and dire conditions in the river’s two major reservoirs. The study sounds the alarm that the price of water doesn’t reflect its growing scarcity and disincentivizes conservation. “We’re dealing with a river system and water supply source that is in absolute crisis and is facing massive shortfalls … and yet we’re still treating this as if it’s an abundant, limitless resource that should be free,” said Noah Garrison, environmental science practicum director at UCLA and lead author on the study.  Jeffrey Mount, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, applauded the research effort. Though he had not yet reviewed the report, he said complications abound, built into California’s water infrastructure itself and amplified by climate change. Moving, storing and treating water can drive up costs, and are only sometimes captured in the price.  “We’ve got to be careful about pointing our fingers and saying farmers are getting a free ride,” Mount said. Still, he agreed that water is undervalued: “We do not pay the full costs of water — the full social, full economic and the full environmental costs of water.”  Coastal cities pay the most The research team investigated how much suppliers above a certain purchase threshold spend on water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada.  They found that California water suppliers pay more than double on average than what Nevada districts pay for water, and seven times more than suppliers in Arizona.  The highest costs span the coast between San Francisco and San Diego, which the researchers attributed to the cost of delivery to these regions and water transfers that drive up the price every time water changes hands.  “In some of those cases it’s almost a geographic penalty for California, that there are larger conveyance or transport and infrastructure needs, depending on where the districts are located,” Garrison said.  Agricultural water districts pay the least In California, according to the authors, cities pay on average 20 times more than water suppliers for farms — about $722 per acre foot, compared to $36.  One acre foot can supply roughly 11 Californians for a year, according to the state’s Department of Water Resources.  Five major agricultural suppliers paid nothing to the federal government for nearly 4 million acre-feet of water, including three in California that receive Colorado River water: the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley Water District and the Palo Verde Irrigation District.  Tina Anderholt Shields, water manager for the Imperial Irrigation District, which receives the single largest share of Colorado River water, said the district’s contract with the U.S. government does not require any payment for the water.  Cities, by contrast, received less than 40,000 acre-feet of water for $0. The report notes, however, that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a major urban water importer, spends only 25 cents an acre-foot for around 850,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River.  Bill Hasencamp, manager of Colorado River resources at Metropolitan, said that the true cost of this water isn’t reflected in the 25-cent fee, because the expense comes from moving it. By the time the Colorado River water gets to the district, he said it costs several hundred dollars. Plus, he added, the district pays for hydropower, which helps cover the costs of the dams storing the water supply. “That enables us to only pay 25 cents an acre foot to the feds on the water side, because we’re paying Hoover Dam costs on the power side.” Federal supplies are the cheapest; transfers drive up costs Much of the difference among water prices across three states comes down to source: those whose supplies come from federally managed rivers, reservoirs, aqueducts and pumps pay far less on average than those receiving water from state managed distribution systems or via water transfers.  Garrison and his team proposed adding a $50 surcharge per acre-foot of cheap federal supplies to help shore up the infrastructure against leaks and losses or pay for large-scale conservation efforts without tapping into taxpayer dollars.  But growers say that would devastate farming in California.  “It’s important to note that the ‘value’ of water is priceless,” said Allison Febbo, General Manager of Westlands Water District, which supplies San Joaquin Valley farms. The report calculates that the district pays less than $40 per acre foot for water from the federal Central Valley Project, though the Westlands rate structure notes another $14 fee to a restoration fund. “The consequences of unaffordable water can be seen throughout our District: fallowed fields, unemployment, decline in food production…” The Imperial Irrigation District’s Shields said that a surcharge would be inconsistent with their contract, difficult to implement, and unworkable for growers.  “It’s not like farmers can just pass it on to their buyers and then have that roll down to the consumer level where it might be ‘manageable,’” Shields said. The most expensive water in California is more than $2,800 an acre-foot The most expensive water in California, Arizona or Nevada flows from the rivers of Northern California, down California’s state-managed system of aqueducts and pumps, to the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency in Riverside County. Total cost, according to the report: $2,870.21 per acre foot.  Lance Eckhart, the agency’s general manager, said he hadn’t spoken to the study’s authors but that the number sounded plausible. The price tag would make sense, he said, if it included contributing to the costs for building and maintaining the 705-mile long water delivery system, as well as for the electricity needed to pump water over mountains.  Eckhart compared the water conveyance to a railroad, and his water agency to a distant, distant stop. “We’re at the end, so we have the most railroad track to pay for, and also the most energy costs to get it down here,” he said.  Because it took decades for construction of the water delivery system to reach San Gorgonio Pass, the water agency built some of those costs into local property taxes before the water even arrived, rather than into the water bills for the cities and towns they supply. As a result, its mostly municipal customers pay only $399 per acre foot, Eckhart said.  “You can’t build it into rates if you’re not going to see your first gallon for 40 years,” Ekhart said.  The study didn’t interrogate how the wholesale price of imported water translates to residential bills. Water managers point out that cheap supplies like groundwater can help dilute the costs of pricey imported water.  The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, for instance, purchases water imported from the Colorado River and Northern California to fill gaps left by local groundwater stores, supplies from the Owens Valley, and other locally managed sources, said Marty Adams, the utility’s former general manager. (The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was unable to provide an interview.) Because the amount of water needed can vary from year to year, it’s added as an additional charge on top of the base rate, Adams said. “If you have to pay for purchased water somewhere, when you add all the numbers up, it comes out in that total,” he said.  “The purchased water becomes the wildcard all the time.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.