upvote
Yes. As another comparison point, 13 million gallons per year amounts to 24 gallons per minute which is about 5 (five) bathtub faucets running 24/7/365.

The water bill alone would be only $100k/yr assuming average US domestic rate of $8 per 1000 gallons.

reply
So a system to recirculate the same 24 gallons per minute would be more expensive than $100k per year for water?
reply
My state's gasoline refineries use about ~13 million gallons of water each day. It's about .7 gallons of water per gallon of gasoline refined.
reply
I don't know if you mean to be reinforcing that it's nothing or not
reply
Remind me median income?
reply
$87k household. So that's 6 median incomes of water being used up by that datacenter. Put that way it doesn't sound bad, especially when you glance at the electric bill.

Also when it evaporates instead of going to the sewer that drops the price in half.

Edit: Oops I got that mixed up and was treating it like a per-faucet cost. So actually it's one full household income converted into water to handle the entire facility.

reply
Yeah I’m sure someone on median income feels the same
reply
Probably, yeah.

Do you think people look at big facilities and calculate that they're spending whatever times the medium wage on a crucial service and get mad about it?

Converting things into median wages is a way to put them into scale. They spent this many wages for construction, they spend this many on supplies, they sell this many in product, they hire this many people to work there. If anyone thinks its bad for anything a company buys to exceed a median wage, that's a very silly expectation and I wonder where they got it.

reply
Remind me who leaves 8 bath tub faucets running 24/7/365?
reply
Me?
reply
I live in a country of 5 million people and we lose 40 times that a year to leaks.
reply
So a single datacentre introduces a water consumption cost that is within an order-of-magnitude of a near-median-population nation.
reply
Perhaps not a meaningful amount at a national/worldwide scale. However, an individual datacentre consuming that amount at a local/regional scale could be more impactful.
reply
deleted
reply
Why aren’t the data centres just honest about their water usage if it’s seemingly so low?
reply
Transparency is not the same thing as honesty.

Companies might want to avoid this being used as a side channel to infer the amount of their compute.

Companies might want to avoid setting a precedent where activists can demand such information.

Companies might want to avoid the effort of publishing this data, or the risk of publishing incorrect data.

reply
I don't understand your question. I'm commenting on the figures we know from this report. I don't have to work out the motives behind them to evaluate whether they're material (they are not).
reply
Because the marketing teams don't do numbers and it's a high risk strategy
reply
They are, and people just accuse them of lying!

Facts & reason do nothing to a moral panic.

reply
Please elucidate if I'm wrong, but, isn't the problem the distribution of the water and not the amount? If you install a building of people in a road that is not prepared for that, all people down the people are in risk of lack of water.

I think at some point someone used the argument of the spoon of water to say about the quantity, but I remember to see explanations that it was unrelated.

reply
> If you install a building of people in a road that is not prepared for that, all people down the people are in risk of lack of water.

Part of why construction of such buildings (starting with pursuing and getting a permit for it) takes as long as it does is because those issues are worked out in advance.

Nobody who is responsible for managing water is surprised by data centers appearing, it's not like they just grow overnight after a rain like people believe mushrooms do.

reply
This feels like an important point! People comparing to leaks (or other distributed examples that aggregate similarly) are not thinking about how the amount of water used in a single location changes the scale.
reply
“Fireball Group LLC, the Google Data Center in Papillion… reports 547.88 megagallons for their 2025 Annual Water Consumption”.

I think the 13M is referring to “during peak times”, whatever that means.

reply
It looks to me like there's two Google DCs with different LLCs?

> However, using a computer cursor to highlight the redacted text box in the report to DWEE, then copying and pasting it into a separate document reveals that *Agate LLC* is reporting 52.65 megawatts of electricity during peak electrical demand and 13.299 megagallons of water between cooling towers, evaporative systems and site operations in the last year. That totals out to 13 million gallons of water.

> For context, 13 million gallons is enough to fill around 20 Olympic-size swimming pools, and is less than half of what the City of Lincoln reports using on Sept. 29.

> The *six* data centers reporting as of Sept. 30 show a total use of 765 million gallons of water last year, enough water to fill 1,159.93 Olympic-size swimming pools.

> More improper redaction shows that the data center using the most water annually is *Fireball Group LLC*, the Google Data Center in Papillion. Fireball LLC reports 547.88 megagallons for their 2025 Annual Water Consumption.

reply
Even that 765 is like 0.04% of the water needed to irrigate Nebraska's ethanol corn crop alone. And ethanol is basically an agricultural proof-of-work function.
reply
Also even in the totally fake scenario where that water completely evaporates, it's just gonna rain on Iowa a bit more.
reply
You can’t eat your algorithm.

So while pointing to agriculture and saying look there - those guys & gals way more than us it’s a red herring because we need food.

Sure improve efficiency of ag, but a better comp for water usage should be made. Reasonable people tune out.

reply
you can't eat ethanol either, you burn it to create more global warming
reply
That's why they talked about ethanol.
reply
How does it compare to the water used growing alfalfa for export to Saudi Arabia?
reply
"... and keep your hand up if your ethical, water saving stance means you've become vegan."
reply
Odd to hide behind an LLC (LLCs) then.
reply
Real estate is almost always "hidden" behind an LLC or REIT, as recommended as common practice by CPAs and attorneys.

It would be odder if it were directly in Google's business name.

reply
Do I understand the logic here to be "if there's an LLC with an obscure name involved, it must be using too much water"?
reply
To me, the logic is companies don’t put their brand on activities that contribute to tragedies of the commons.

Alphabet could have named the company “google data center 083941, llc.”

But Alphabet deliberately obfuscated its control of the facility.

reply
No, it’s that if there’s nothing to hide, then they shouldn’t jump through so many hoops to avoid basic industrial reporting requirements.

It’s not any one thing, it is the litany of things they do in order to avoid any transparency or accountability. It is undemocratic and contradictory to the idea of good governance of public resources.

If anything, a little sunshine here would probably be the best medicine. Trying to be opaque is what allows conspiracy theories to exist in the first place.

reply
I'm commenting here about the water figure. Are you talking about something else? Because the impact of that amount of water usage is knowable regardless of the corporate structure of the data center.
reply
That’s more of a convenient way to distribute and isolate risks than it is anything nefarious.
reply
You see, that is nefarious. Not taking responsibility is nefarious.
reply
Or to shift blame and hide wrongdoing.
reply
What I now wonder is why the hell they're trying to hide it then. If the numbers are strongly on your side, why hide them?!
reply
Because nobody reasonable believes water use is any issue, but these numbers are proxy for the usual stuff companies don't disclose for usual reasons (ones that rhyme with "competition" and "stock market")?
reply
They sure as hell aren't making it easy for the "reasonable" to take their side when their response to the "unreasonable" is "the numbers you claim are bad are actually good, but you don't get to see them because they go to a different school".
reply
We have perfectly good reasons to hide behind shell companies and ndas! Anyone who disagrees is a hater!
reply
Because hedge funds are going to use those numbers to get better estimates of their business and revenues and use that in their forecasting which means Google loses in the stock market.
reply
Are you regularly filling Olympic sized pools and checking the water usage of an entire town in Nebraska? I would rather see this put into context by comparing it to other businesses normalized by power usage or square footage.
reply
No, I'm not checking the water usage of Olympic swimming pools, because I intuitively understand that they are not meaningful users of water.
reply
I can see how a 0.27% increase in Lincoln’s water usage intuitively seems insignificant, but that was a a low usage data center in a large city. Papillion has 1/12 of Lincoln’s population, yet it’s data center used 42x more water. Assuming water usage was proportional to population it would have increased the city’s water usage ~136%.
reply
It doesn't seem insignificant. It is in fact insignificant. And it supports one of the most popular and widely used consumer products of the last 100 years, so it seems like a pretty incredible bargain.
reply
Tech companies are bundling AI into their base subscriptions and force feeding it to consumers, so I doubt the metrics they are reporting to their shareholders represent real demand or value.
reply
>they are not meaningful users of water.

How so? NOT COUNTING leaks and filling, the average Olympic sized swimming pool uses 1-2 million gallons of water a year.

See EPA Commercial Pooland Spa Equipment Best Management Practices for Commercial and Institutional Facilities https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-11/ws-commer...

reply
Yes. GP is literally saying that 1-2 million gallons of water is a pretty small number not meaningful to anything at scale.

It's basically like framing power consumption in watt hours. A million watt hours is tiny at any scale, your whole neighborhood uses millions every day.

reply
Please compare 1 million gallons to the 1 quadrillion gallons in the aquifer, or the 31 trillion that falls from sky each year in Nebraska and get back to me.
reply
Nebraska's main product is corn. Irrigated corn takes roughly 2 acre-feet of water, so the total DC water usage in the article (765M gallon) could irrigate 1k acres of corn. That's a single average-sized farm, not even a big operation. Calling a rounding error might be too generous.
reply
Different state, but: almond trees growing in California consume 1 trillion gallons a year (estimated).

So probably we could grow fewer almonds in California.

reply
How do you get the California water to this datacenter?

In other words, water scarcity is a distribution problem, not a globally finite resource problem.

reply