The main one is aquifer depletion. The consumptive vs withdrawal argument mostly holds water, but consumptive is a sliding scale. Evaporative cooling for data centers is solidly at the far ‘truly consumptive’ end of that scale because the consumed water will not reenter the local watershed. That’s problematic because aquifers are very slow to refill. So this is genuinely a concern in water stressed areas.

The other is the weak growth model. I suspect we’re only going to see faster and faster growth of data centers in coming years, making the consumption there more exponential than linear. Meanwhile the majority of the other consumptive consumers are strongly tied to demographics and population growth is slowing everywhere. For example agricultural water use in the US has held steady or even declined in recent years.

In fairness, part of that agricultural decline in use is from advancement in technology and methodology and we’ll likely see the same with data centers, but those numbers are unpredictable.

On the whole I agree that the concern over data centers in terms of water (and electricity) usage is overblown to an extent, but I think we do need to pay closer attention to the points that actually matter when looking at the situation.

This article feels a bit biased and I would love to see HN's take.

was 50$ bounty, now 300$ - that's an unusually brazen stance.

"AI uses more water than other things"

and more:

"AI's water usage is being approved without proper planning, because of the arguably fake sense of urgency around it."

Other industries that use significant water have significant regulations already . AI has been desperately trying to avoid ANY regulation (unless it forces folk to use AI.)

I don't personally think water usage is the biggest issue with how AI is being rolled out, but it's one that is easier to engage the public on then copyright, or societal context collapse. :)

Mega-scale AI data centers have other externalities. They're often touted as a way for rural counties to become the hubs of the digital era, but they don't employ many people, don't generate a whole lot of tax revenue, and basically just leverage cheap electricity at the expense of local residents. So it's a sham in that respect. You're not gonna have X, Google, Amazon, or Meta reinvigorate your community. You're just gonna have ratepayers subsidize some inference via higher electricity bills.

I have no doubt that someone will chime in saying with an "actually..." that electricity is fungible and therefore, it doesn't matter where the datacenter is built. If it were so, they wouldn't be getting built in places like Wyoming or eastern Washington, and electricity prices in these markets would be the same as they are in the SF Bay Area. In practice, though, there's plenty of factors that make the US electricity markets a lot more local.

My initial reaction is b.s. Companies building these data centers, in many instances, get tax breaks to start building. On top if it they get different breaks on cost of electricity or materials. And on top of it, we all know that corporates pay less taxes than individuals already. And last but not least, data centers don't require a lot of staff, so there is no "trickle down".

Curious to understand this better.

(Emphasis added)

I think that part of why AI data centers seem to have more stringent local objections even in areas that are generally pretty friendly to industrial development than do other industries that use a lot of water (or a lot of electricity) may be that there often isn't enough time to do that careful planning.

If you wanted to build say a new paper manufacturing plant there would be local objections because paper manufacturing a lot of both water and electricity. But nobody urgently needs a new paper manufacturing plant. There is plenty of time to address the objections and figure out something that will make most of the locals happy.

With AI data centers there is a (possibly bogus) need for a lot in a short timeframe, and so a lot of pressure on officials to approve them without the careful planning such a project should have.

1. No accounting for other countries or externalities such as large corporation leveraging to get what it wants at the expense of community members.

2. > Put another way, almost all (80%) the reported water used by AI occurs during the generation of electricity

Well that sure seems like a problem to me cuz that’s water that now needs to be used for generation that wasn’t prior and it’s a significant amount. And that impacts my water and electricity prices now.

Edit for 3: > Consumptive use can harm total access to freshwater, but freshwater sources are also regularly being replenished.

Yeah I don’t think so when Mexico City is sinking because its aquifer was depleted.

All in all he’s got some interesting points but I think he’s hyper focused on numbers and ignoring broader things.

The blog post never defines it

>The developer, Quality Technology Services, owed nearly $150,000 for using more than 29 million gallons of unaccounted-for water.

>The company said its water consumption was so high last year because of temporary construction-related activities, such as concrete work, dust control and site preparation.

I do find it interesting that the framing is "a data center" used a bunch of water if it really is "manufacturing concrete uses a bunch of water."

Different source and event, same misleading headline as the one mentioned in the parent article.

One seriously wonders if GenX didn't manage to hit a sweet spot for technological availability ahead of everything just going to seed.

There's a ton of reasons that are very very sensible to be very pissed off about AI. People very rarely benefit from human support staff being turned into chatbot AI. The unyielding limited mechanized systems we are forced to interact with suck.

And the billionaires themselves are so loudly advertising that the purpose of these things is to replace people. To obsolete so much labor. When it's so clear they suck, in so many ways. That people are upset is not just "the party line".

I've gone on about AI (even though I personally love it & think it's a miracle, having help in life I never thought I would get). But I don't want to fixate on AI. The sociological effect here, of how people constantly hunt for basically parallel constructions for what they want to believe: that's such a major factor in understanding people and societal forces. I think you're really smashing your ability to think to bits to chalk this up as "the party line". It's such a deeper more interesting force than than.

It again just goes to ai, which I think is not by point, but man what a moment of people seeking their existing biases: the "AI generated Monet" painting that actually is in fact a real Monet (Water Lilies). People went to town! https://bsky.app/profile/segyges.bsky.social/post/3mlsgc53ry...

This effect deeply deeply deeply predates the internet. I think perhaps yes there is a little more biting sarcasm & anger & negative energies that have infected us, by being exposed to so much attention-driven systems where negative energies rule! But this chasing your existing beliefs has been around probably since before the dawn of man. I'd put money in it.

Of course water use above replenishment rates is bad, it doesn't magically rain down in the same spot and all the underground water tables get full again. They deplete, meaning existing consumers have to dig deeper or just go without water. Even ancient peoples knew that if you take too much water from a well, it will dry out.

I imagine you would see the point in measuring how much water data centres use when one opens near you, and you can't flush your toilet any more.