When Big Tech’s Thirst Threatens Our Health, We Must Demand Better

By Ben Jealous

Ben Jealous

In Morrow County, Oregon, families are living through a crisis. According to a Rolling Stone investigation, mothers have suffered miscarriages. Neighbors are battling rare cancers. Local officials have raised concerns about dangerously elevated nitrate levels in the community’s drinking water following the siting of a nearby Amazon data center. The investigation reports that the facility’s massive water consumption—up to five million gallons per day—may have accelerated nitrogen migration into the aquifer faster than natural filtration can occur. Amazon strongly denies any connection between its operations and these health problems.

Whatever the ultimate cause of the health crisis in Oregon, the broader concern is undeniable: when data centers consume enormous amounts of water, communities can face real risks. And now, similar pressures are emerging in Ohio. Central Ohio already hosts about 130 data centers, representing more than half the state’s total. In Marysville, just two facilities consume roughly ten percent of the city’s entire daily water supply. Amazon operates dozens of data center facilities and campuses across the New Albany, Hilliard, and Dublin region. Residents are watching water demand surge as new facilities are proposed.

Here is what should concern every Ohioan. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has issued a draft General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit governing wastewater dis charges from data center facilities into state waters, including non contact cooling water, cooling tower blowdown, and associated stormwater. The publicly released draft does not specify nitrate limits among the listed regulated pollutants.

The draft permit also relies on existing antidegradation standards that allow a lowering of water quality when deemed necessary to accommodate important social or economic development. In plain terms, regulators are signaling that some degradation of water quality may be accept able to support data center growth.

This is not just about water. Modeling by researchers affiliated with the California Institute of Technology suggests that air pollution associ ated with data center growth could contribute to approximately 1,300 premature deaths annually nationwide by 2030, with an estimated public health burden approach ing $20 billion. But it does not have to be this way. We can build data centers today that eliminate operational water consumption entirely—and with the right policy reforms, they can be built at lower total cost than conventional designs. The solution is zero-water cooling through immersion systems with dry heat rejection. Instead of water, servers are cooled using spe cialized dielectric fluids. Instead of evaporative cooling towers, heat is rejected through air-cooled radiators or geothermal systems. In these configurations, operational water use is eliminated.

Some raise concerns about the safety of dielec tric cooling fluids. Modern formulations are engineered to be non-toxic, biodegradable, and safe for humans and wildlife. The answer is not avoid ing zero-water systems, but requiring the safest available fluids rather than the cheapest. Industry representatives argue that zero-water cooling is too expensive. That claim does not withstand scrutiny.

Multiple industry analyses, pilot deployments, and academic studies indicate that zero-water data center systems increase upfront capital costs by roughly 35 to 45 percent. However, analyses synthesizing findings across these studies suggest that targeted policy and procurement reforms can more than offset those added costs.

These reforms include streamlined permitting for zero-water systems, public sharing of facility designs tied to development incentives, competitive bidding requirements, bulk purchasing cooperatives, standardized modular systems, antitrust enforcement in cooling equipment markets, and shared geothermal infrastructure where appropriate. Taken together, these measures could reduce total project costs by more than ten percent while eliminating opera tional water consumption altogether. In other words, we can build cheaper data centers without draining aquifers or compromising drinking water.

Strong safeguards must accompany any expansion. Communities deserve meaningful input on whether data centers locate near by. Facilities should be con fined to industrial zones, with enforceable buffers for noise, heat, and air quality. Homes and schools should be off limits. Jerome Town ship has already enacted a moratorium on new data centers, citing utility and safety concerns. Other communities across Ohio are paying close attention. The technology exists. The economics can work. What remains is political will.

Big Tech will complain. Some companies may threaten to locate else where. But no community should accept develop ment that requires sacrific ing clean water or public health. Whatever ultimately caused the health crisis in Oregon, Ohio communi ties are already feeling the strain of unchecked data center growth. We know how to prevent similar harm. We know it can save money. The only remaining question is whether our leaders will act in time—or wait until the damage is done.

Ben Jealous is a professor of the practice at the University of Pennsylvania and former national president of the NAACP.