A sponsored opinion piece on DCD from Chris Kurtz, senior director of water strategy and sustainability at Rowan Digital Infrastructure, sets out a sequencing argument. Developers should first cut their own water demand through design, and only then look at conservation or replenishment projects. Because the author works for the developer, the claims below are company statements, not independent findings.
Kurtz's central point is that water consumption is not a fixed trait of a data center. He says it depends on where a facility is built, how it is engineered and, above all, which cooling technology is chosen. He also criticizes public debate for describing water use through the performance of earlier generations of infrastructure, and argues the question should be what demand today's designs actually require.
In his view no single cooling approach suits every location, so technology selection and local hydrology have to be assessed together. Rowan says it evaluates local water stress, expected demand, available infrastructure and cooling options early in development, before choices that lock in water needs for years.
In water-stressed parts of Texas, Rowan says it chose air-cooled, closed-loop systems that recirculate water rather than relying on a continuous supply of supplemental water. The company says this was built into the campus designs from the start to set a low baseline.
For its Cinco project in Medina County, Rowan says it invested in the Edwards Aquifer Conservancy and the Edwards Aquifer Authority's Groundwater Conservation Program. The program helps farmers move to irrigation methods that use significantly less groundwater. The conservation benefit is expected to offset 250 percent of the water associated with the project. The figure is a forecast, and the article gives no method behind it.
Rowan says it is working toward water-positive outcomes in water-stressed regions and building a framework covering risk assessment, efficient cooling, sustainable sourcing and local replenishment. Kurtz also argues that site selection, engineering, infrastructure planning and energy strategy should be judged together for their direct and indirect water effects.
Why it matters: The piece reflects a push to judge water stewardship by design choices before offsets. The evidence offered is thin and self-reported: one cooling approach, one expected offset figure and no performance data. Operators and investors should treat it as a statement of position and look for measured results.
TwinStack automated analysis, based on reporting by DCD. Check the original for full details.