California's largest AI data center project suing for access to 287 million gallons of Colorado River water, 0.03% of Imperial Valley’s supply — plaintiffs claim project equivalent to 160-acre farm amidst concern about jobs and reallocation of farmland

Google
(Image credit: Google)

Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing has filed a lawsuit in a bid to gain access to Colorado River water, 287 million gallons of which it says it needs to cool a 330-megawatt data center, which would be the largest in the state. Despite only representing a fraction of the region's water supply, the buildout of the data center may affect the local farming and adjacent industries and terminate hundreds, if not thousands, of positions, reports Business Insider.

After two cities in the region denied the California-based AI data center recycled wastewater for cooling, it filed a lawsuit demanding to get water from the Colorado River for cooling. The 330-megawatt facility was not only designed to be the biggest AI data center in California, but it specifically committed not to use water from the Colorado River because it was promised wastewater. But now the owner of the data center is essentially asking to redirect water supply from agriculture to the facility.

Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing — the owner of the 330 MW AI data center — is requesting access to approximately 287 million gallons of water per year after two cities — El Centro and Imperial — declined to supply reclaimed wastewater for cooling. The Imperial Irrigation District (IID), which distributes Colorado River water throughout Imperial Valley, also denied the company's request. The Colorado River supplies water to roughly 40 million people across seven western states and serves as the valley's sole freshwater source for roughly 180,000 people. Agriculture consumes about 80% of California's allocation from the river, while roughly 95–97% of the water IID delivers goes to agriculture.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware

The data center is seeking roughly 287 million gallons per year (about 750,000 gallons per day, or ~880 acre-feet per year), whereas the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) holds rights to approximately 3.1 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually, which means that the data center demands only a small fraction — 0.028% — of IID's total water supply.

Sebastian Rucci, a Huntington Beach attorney who leads the project, claims that the facility's water consumption would be comparable to that of a 160-acre farm and will require no additional Colorado River allocation. In fact, he states that the facility would not increase pressure on the river because the company intends to purchase nearby farmland together with its associated water allocations.

Under the proposal, irrigation on those properties would cease, thus transferring the existing water quotas to be redirected to the data center cooling, at the expense of local farming output and associated jobs. "There's a lot of resistance in any agricultural community to 'buy and dry' because that's jobs," a senior fellow at the Pacific Institute focused on Colorado River Basin water use told the outlet. According to them, local resistance to the plan is less about the amount of water, and more about buying up farmland and reallocating it for industrial use.

The approach, of course, differs from the earlier plan that intended to avoid using Colorado River water altogether. However, after the data center was denied wastewater from two cities, it does not have a choice if it wants to go ahead with the buildout.

Rucci reportedly indicated that the project would provide substantial economic benefits for the local community, including 1,688 construction jobs, more than 100 permanent positions, and an estimated $2.95 billion in economic impact over 30 years. For a region where unemployment stood at approximately 17% in May, the economic diversification is essential. However, the big question is whether 100 permanent roles could offset the lost positions in the farming industry and industries tied to agriculture.

Water policy specialists interviewed by Business Insider said that the debate extends beyond the project's annual consumption. Instead, they questioned whether converting irrigated farmland into industrial use is an appropriate long-term direction for the region, which has historically depended on farming. The experts also warned that although landowners could benefit from selling land or water rights, surrounding rural communities may lose employment and business activity adjacent to agriculture, which includes equipment suppliers, repair shops, and sellers of fertilizers. Another factor mentioned by the experts was the U.S. reliance on farms around Imperial, California, and Yuma, Arizona, as they were the main suppliers of certain agricultural products in winter.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • Kindaian
    The jobs are not real, as they will be mostly remote and outsourced to outside of USA. With luck, you get like 10 jobs... of people to just go to the cabinets replace cables, blades and disks.
    Reply
  • usertests
    Kindaian said:
    The jobs are not real, as they will be mostly remote and outsourced to outside of USA. With luck, you get like 10 jobs... of people to just go to the cabinets replace cables, blades and disks.
    Hmm, can we replace those with humanoid robots?
    Reply
  • StoneAssassin115
    I'm wondering why they can't use the wastewater they said they'd use. Can't they sue for that instead?

    And about the loss of farmland, not only would there be lost jobs, whatever they are growing will cause a loss to the agriculture industry and increase costs to bring food in from further away.
    Reply
  • friedmeg
    Kindaian said:
    The jobs are not real, as they will be mostly remote and outsourced to outside of USA. With luck, you get like 10 jobs... of people to just go to the cabinets replace cables, blades and disks.
    You really think a $10 billion facility would only create 10 full time jobs? There will easily be 100+ full time jobs (most of which will be high paying), and there is already data out there that supports that.

    How many full time jobs do you think a 150 acre alfalfa field that produces $200,000 of product per year can support?
    Reply
  • Arkitekt78
    They aren't entitled to anything. They think its theirs just because they want it. They don't provide any value back- not jobs, not viable product... tell em to pound sand.
    Reply
  • friedmeg
    StoneAssassin115 said:
    I'm wondering why they can't use the wastewater they said they'd use. Can't they sue for that instead?

    And about the loss of farmland, not only would there be lost jobs, whatever they are growing will cause a loss to the agriculture industry and increase costs to bring food in from further away.
    The cities arent allowing it as of now because it is politically unpopular to support data centers.

    The lost jobs issue is a nonstarter as a 150 acre alfalfa field supports maybe one or 2 full time jobs and the data center supports closer to 100.

    150 acres represents .1% of all alfalfa acreage in the Imperial Valley so not much concern regarding loss to ag industry. 90% of that alfalfa is exported anyways.
    Reply
  • friedmeg
    Arkitekt78 said:
    They aren't entitled to anything. They think its theirs just because they want it. They don't provide any value back- not jobs, not viable product... tell em to pound sand.
    You think a $10 billion data center would provide fewer jobs than a $1 Million 150-acre farm field?
    Reply
  • Kindaian
    friedmeg said:
    You really think a $10 billion facility would only create 10 full time jobs? There will easily be 100+ full time jobs (most of which will be high paying), and there is already data out there that supports that.

    How many full time jobs do you think a 150 acre alfalfa field that produces $200,000 of product per year can support?
    Most of the jobs will be remote. The 10 people hired will be low paid workers with training on just do the security/support requirements. The high paid jobs will not be there in the DC itself.

    I've seen DCs running with only 3 people permanently on the rota (security, maintenance and engineering low grade). That's about it. The remaining people worked remotely with visits to the DC from time to time only (very rarely and only when the equipment refused to work via remote access).
    Reply
  • CelicaGT
    friedmeg said:
    The cities arent allowing it as of now because it is politically unpopular to support data centers.

    The lost jobs issue is a nonstarter as a 150 acre alfalfa field supports maybe one or 2 full time jobs and the data center supports closer to 100.

    150 acres represents .1% of all alfalfa acreage in the Imperial Valley so not much concern regarding loss to ag industry. 90% of that alfalfa is exported anyways.
    Few of those jobs would go to locals. They likely lack the required education and skillset. This facility brings pretty much nil benefits to the community. I'd suggest reading the linked article, it provides a title more context. This is less about jobs and more about money and politics....on both sides of the argument.

    (edit: phrasing)
    Reply
  • Kindaian
    friedmeg said:
    You think a $10 billion data center would provide fewer jobs than a $1 Million 150-acre farm field?
    Yes. There are quite a few examples of mega projects with huge foreseen local employment numbers that never materialized. So what credibility do they have for people to believe that those jobs will materialize? Are they warrantying them? With financial penalties if they don't materialize? Like returning all the tax breaks they will get?
    Reply