California's largest AI data center is suing for access to 287 million gallons of Colorado River water a year

midian182

Posts: 11,891   +182
Staff member
A hot potato: Once again, an AI data center is embroiled in controversy. This time, it's not land, electricity, or tax breaks under the spotlight, but water – specifically, water from the Colorado River. And the company behind the facility is suing to get it.

Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing (IVCM), the company behind what could become California's largest AI data center, is suing the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) after the publicly owned utility rejected its application for water.

The proposed $10 billion, 950,000-square-foot, 330-megawatt facility would require roughly 750,000 gallons per day for cooling, or about 287 million gallons annually.

That amount equals around 880 acre-feet, just 0.03% of IID's 3.1 million-acre-foot annual entitlement. However, the Colorado River is Imperial Valley's only source of fresh water and supplies between 35 million and 40 million people across the West. Federal officials are preparing new operating rules as reservoirs remain under pressure from prolonged drought and weak runoff.

Developer Sebastian Rucci argues that the project wouldn't increase overall demand. IVCM has leased 160 acres of nearby farmland and plans to stop irrigating it, redirecting roughly the same amount of water to the data center.

The company says the facility would create 1,688 construction jobs, more than 100 permanent positions, and nearly $3 billion in economic impact over 30 years in a county where unemployment reached 17.6% in June.

That pitch might sound enticing, but it hasn't won over the project's opponents. Water rights in Imperial Valley are held in trust and administered by IID rather than belonging outright to individual landowners. Critics fear that allowing private deals to shift agricultural water toward data centers could weaken public control and encourage more farmers to sell access to water instead of growing crops.

Imperial County has imposed a temporary moratorium on new data center projects while a commission reviews its rules.

While fallowing 160 acres is unlikely to threaten America's food supply, what's worrying people here is the potential precedent. Agriculture supports not only landowners but farmworkers, equipment suppliers, repair shops, transport companies, and other businesses. Once water becomes more valuable for powering AI than growing produce, the economic effects could spread beyond the fields being taken out of production.

The lawsuit arrives amid rapidly growing hostility toward data centers, especially over water use. There were the Georgia residents who blamed nearby facilities for water problems, a Fayette County data center that consumed 29 million gallons before receiving a bill, and Virginia's soaring data center water use. In Chile, facilities have been accused of worsening a 1,000-year drought, while wastewater from Meta's unfinished Cheyenne site recently introduced a rare bacterium into the city's reclaimed-water system.

Permalink to story:

 
The datacenter is asking for 0.03%, a quantity that doesn't even register .. and it's denied to them???

I remember the IID Board of Directors was involved in various dark funding corruption scandals. If the purpose of the bribes was to stop a datacenter, apparently the dark money comes from China.

But the datacenter company is also at fault. I mean, who in their right mind builds something in California??? There are so many normal places around to build whatever you like.
 
But the datacenter company is also at fault. I mean, who in their right mind builds something in California??? There are so many normal places around to build whatever you like.

Tech jobs/support. Also remember that land in rural California is dirt cheap.
 
Federal officials are preparing new operating rules as reservoirs remain under pressure from prolonged drought and weak runoff.

This is the only part of the article that matters for most people.
 
The precedent concern is the real issue here, not the 0.03% figure.

Once a private AI operator can sue a public water district, lose the administrative process, then force the question into court by claiming “we’ll just fallow some leased farmland and it’s a wash,” you’ve opened the door. Every subsequent project can run the same playbook: buy or lease a bit of ag land that already has a delivery right, stop irrigating it, and demand the water be re-characterized as industrial/cooling use. Courts are not designed to be water-policy bodies; they’re designed to decide whether a specific denial was arbitrary under existing rules. If the rules are weak or the district is pressured, the lawsuit becomes the path of least resistance.

Water rights in the Imperial Valley are held in trust by IID for the benefit of the district’s users and the broader Colorado River system, not as freely transferable private assets that can be flipped to the highest-value industrial use on a project-by-project basis. Treating them that way changes the incentive structure for landowners and weakens the public control that was the whole point of the trust arrangement. The 160-acre fallowing plan may be a net-zero volume claim on paper, but it still converts ag water into permanent industrial demand and sets the template for the next operator who wants a larger slice.

The economic pitch (jobs, tax revenue, construction employment in a high-unemployment county) is real and should be weighed. But once the mechanism is “sue until the resource is reallocated,” the resource decisions start being driven by whoever can sustain the legal costs rather than by elected or appointed water managers operating under public-interest criteria. That is the dangerous precedent.
 
The precedent concern is the real issue here, not the 0.03% figure.
Translation: "don't confuse me with facts and figures, my mind is made up."

Every subsequent project can run the same playbook: buy or lease a bit of ag land that already has a delivery right, stop irrigating it, and demand the water be re-characterized as industrial/cooling use.
What's your point? If they do so, they are not increasing demand by one single drop. Therefore, any claims the change would "increase demand" or "imperil water resources" is prima facie false. Public water is public ... and that includes public companies (which are owned by members of the public) as well as private citizens. If you bought land in Colorado with a house on it, and tore it down to build a newer home, would you have the right to sue if the local utility denied to sell you any water?
 
@Endymio
Translation: "don't confuse me with facts and figures, my mind is made up."

Note I did not dispute the 0.03% figure. My comment was about who has authority to approve or deny the transfer.

What's your point? If they do so, they are not increasing demand by one single drop. Therefore, any claims the change would "increase demand" or "imperil water resources" is prima facie false. Public water is public ... and that includes public companies (which are owned by members of the public) as well as private citizens. If you bought land in Colorado with a house on it, and tore it down to build a newer home, would you have the right to sue if the local utility denied to sell you any water?

Nobody said the project would magically create new demand for Colorado River water. The argument is that converting agricultural allocations into industrial allocations changes who gets the water and who gets to make that decision.

Those are governance questions, not arithmetic questions.

Your homeowner analogy fails because a homeowner asking for utility service isn't asking a court to override a water district's decision on the reallocation of existing water rights.
 
Now like never before is the time to increase spending on next gen cooling that requires little to no water.
I was never a hater of AI, but their greed for resources that people need more could make me one eventually.
This is year 2026 and they still waste immense amount of water while datacenters have grown exponentially. They should be forced to invest in the new cooling methods just as they begin to invest in their own electricity sources.
 
FACT: You do not need to use potable water to cool a data center. Gray water works just fine.
The bigger issue is whether the treated wastewater supply is already critical to the community's water balance. In areas where reclaimed water is heavily allocated, a large data center can still create resource pressure even without using drinking water.
 
Note I did not dispute the 0.03% figure.
Good, because the figure is wrong. The actual amount of new usage is 0.00%. Nothing.

My comment was about who has authority to approve or deny the transfer.
We have 250 years of case law in this country that government does not have unlimited authority to make decisions, especially when they transgress the rights of property owners.

Nobody said the project would magically create new demand for Colorado River water.
LOL, what? Countless people have implied just that, starting with the click-bait article headling itself.

The argument is that converting agricultural allocations into industrial allocations changes who gets the water and who gets to make that decision.
They are both commercial users of water. Government does NOT have the authority to value one user over another, based not on the effects on the water system but merely on how that water will be used.

Your homeowner analogy fails because a homeowner asking for utility service isn't asking a court to override a water district's decision
Oops! You are claiming governments do have the right to make such decisions. So what if they did -- but made them against a private resident, rather than a private company. Don't dodge the question-- answer it.
 
Last edited:
I've been hearing warnings about California being a drought for the last 20 years. So, either they aren't in a drought (and haven't been forever, it's just fear mongering) OR corporate interests matter more than the residents of the state.
 
The Colorado river has been over used for decases. Grow food somewhere other than a desert. Explain to.me why Las Vegas was necessary? Real estate developers in Arizona and California are a problem. People are fed up with developers and the politicians they buy preaching economic growth and the "housing crisis" as reasons why their new home devolpment is necessary. What it really means is higher utilitiy rates and making traffic even more miserable.Economic growth is beneficial to a point. Go past that point and it becomes a collectivr burden.

Data centers fall under the " is it more.necessafy than water" rule. People dont need AI. If Ai displaces as many people as nerds say it will, I wouldnt want to be one of its creators.
 
Good, because the figure is wrong. The actual amount of new usage is 0.00%. Nothing.


We have 250 years of case law in this country that government does not have unlimited authority to make decisions, especially when they transgress the rights of property owners.


LOL, what? Countless people have implied just that, starting with the click-bait article headling itself.


They are both commercial users of water. Government does NOT have the authority to value one user over another, based not on the effects on the water system but merely on how that water will be used.


Oops! You are claiming governments do have the right to make such decisions. So what if they did -- but made them against a private resident, rather than a private company. Don't dodge the question-- answer it.
Apart from the fields that no longer get irrigated and water gets taken out of the system (and don't even get me started trying to mention the water cycle or something, else the next thing we will end up with as an excuse is that you can get water from the ocean anyway or some bs, since electricity supposedly grows on trees, at least according to the data centres)
A data centre is not going to grow you food to eat and neither will an AI be able to magic it out of thin air, and the precedent here is the clear issue, if a datacenter can just demand access to water used by other users with the excuse of "oh we will just dry out ag land, it will be fine", all the farmers will be enticed to hand over water rights or sell ag land for data centres, dropping your agricultural production and causing other ecological effects in an area that already has water issues, the government very much has the right to assess if water is being used for the right reasons, no matter the amount, and not just kowtow because people building data centres are as tight as two coats of paint and just go head on with evaporative cooling, water use be dammned, because its cheap to implement and run compared to more dedicated cooling solutions, no matter how clearly you might be invested in AI, the real world exists and you're not about to be eating a data centre for breakfast
 
What the hell were they thinking building a DC in Commiefornia? As corporations are fleeing the over-regulated, over-taxed CA, they double down a new, huge DC?
 
Apart from the fields that no longer get irrigated
Because these particular fields no longer *need* to be irrigated.
... and water gets taken out of the system (and don't even get me started trying to mention the water cycle or something
Was that a joke? The vast majority of water used for irrigation either evaporates (as does water used for cooling data centers). A small amount is captured by the crops themselves -- crops are harvested and shipped around the country or even internationally.

A data centre is not going to grow you food to eat and neither will an AI be able to magic it out of thin air
Actually, had you been paying attention in class, you'd understand that AI-powered agriculture is not only substantially increasing crop yields, but actually reducing the amount of water consumed to grow them -- along with decreased use of fertilizers and pesticides.

...all the farmers will be enticed to hand over water rights or sell ag land for data centres, dropping your agricultural production
I see you failed Economics as well.
 
"The proposed $10 billion, 950,000-square-foot, 330-megawatt facility would require roughly 750,000 gallons per day for cooling, or about 287 million gallons annually."

You can wipe your *** with paper money, but you cant recuperate fresh water that easily when you have a monster that feeds itself on such vast quantity.

Good thing it was rejected.
 
"The proposed $10 billion, 950,000-square-foot, 330-megawatt facility would require roughly 750,000 gallons per day for cooling,
And it would SAVE exactly 750K gallons/day from its current usage: being dumped on the ground to irrigate a soybean field. Oh, and that's 750K gallons out of the 10,900,000,000 gallons/day that flows through the river there ... gallons that, if not used, flow freely into Mexico.

The true irony is the mentality exhibited by someone who's literally using a datacenter to post their anti-datacenter diatribe.
 
Last edited:
The datacenter is asking for 0.03%, a quantity that doesn't even register
0.03% registers when you're talking population-scale management.

If each of your customers requires 0.03% of your capacity, you can support 3,333 customers. How many customers do you think a county has?

If it was accurate, that is a very significant request from a single entity and deserves planning.
 
0.03% registers when you're talking population-scale management.
Did you not read the article or any of the replies? It's not 0.03% of new consumption, it's 0.03% being redirected from existing consumption.

If each of your customers requires 0.03% of your capacity, you can support 3,333 customers. How many customers do you think a county has?
To answer your question literally, if each customer redirects 0.03% of existing usage, then you can support an infinite number of such events. Nor do "most customers" offer a county hundreds of millions of dollars in property tax revenue.
 
Then we're talking about two different topics. I don't have an informed opinion on what % of the total available water capacity for a very large number of people this plan requires and I doubt I'm going to get a straight answer on that here. I'm merely stating that I disagree that if the answer really was 0.03%, that you could end the planning there because it "barely registers".

0.03% of a total population's available water is a significant chunk.
 
0.03% of a total population's available water is a significant chunk.
This California county has four golf courses, three of which each use nearly as much water as this data center, and all four combined more than twice as much.

What do you think will contribute more to our economic growth and national security: them, or this center?
 
This California county has four golf courses, three of which each use nearly as much water as this data center, and all four combined more than twice as much.

What do you think will contribute more to our economic growth and national security: them, or this center?

I get you want to talk about data centers. But I'm not debating with you about them. I responded to a single comment that got my eye that 0.03% is too small an amount to worry about.

I would absolutely also want to review proposals for "0.03% of water capacity" from golf courses, or even less discretionary uses up to and including a hospital.

And yes, personally, given a choice of a new data center or a new golf course, I'd take the data center. But I spend all day working on computers and I don't golf so that's not that hard a choice for me.
 
Back