Methodology

Our approach

The Central Texas Data Center Tracker is a volunteer-run civic organization. Our project tracker is built on publicly available information — no inside sources, no leaked documents. Every data point we publish must be traceable to a specific source, and we identify clearly when a figure is a developer claim vs. an independently verified fact.

When sources conflict, we show the discrepancy rather than picking a number. When a figure is unavailable, we say so rather than estimating. We will always err on the side of transparency about uncertainty.

Where our data comes from

Primary sources (highest confidence)

• Permit applications and government filings — Flood hazard development permits (Hays County), zoning applications and Preferred Scenario Map amendments (City of San Marcos), and TCEQ air quality permit applications.
• Developer disclosures — Official press releases, investor announcements, regulatory filings, and statements made at public hearings on the record.
• Utility and regulatory agency records — Crystal Clear Special Utility District, Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Edwards Aquifer Authority, ERCOT, PUC of Texas, and TCEQ.
• City and county meeting records — City of San Marcos council agendas and meeting recaps, Hays County Commissioners Court minutes, Guadalupe County and Caldwell County public records.

Secondary sources (verified journalism)

We rely on investigative reporting from local and regional outlets that have directly covered these proposals:

• San Marcos Record — Primary local newspaper of record for Hays County
• Community Impact (San Marcos/Buda/Kyle) — Detailed coverage of city council proceedings
• KUT Radio (Austin NPR) — Investigative reporting on water and grid impacts
• Texas Tribune, KVUE, KXAN, Texas Standard
• Data Center Dynamics and Data Center Frontier — Industry trade press

Reference standards and research

• Edwards Aquifer Authority — drought stage triggers, permitted withdrawal data
• Texas Water Development Board — 2022 State Water Plan (Hays County supply projections)
• NRDC, “Thirsty Data Centers” (2022) — data center water use methodology benchmarks
• Siddik et al., “The environmental footprint of data centers in the United States,” Environmental Research Letters (2021)
• Global Energy Monitor (GEM Wiki) — power plant tracking

How we estimate water use

Water figures are the hardest data to obtain. Texas law does not require data center operators to publicly disclose projected or actual water consumption. We use a tiered approach:

1. Developer-disclosed figures— Some developers have submitted water use estimates in permit applications or restrictive covenants (e.g., Highlander SM One's covenant cap of 75,000 gal/day). These are labeled as developer-stated.
2. Industry benchmarks— For facilities that haven't disclosed figures, we apply the U.S. industry-average Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE) of 1.8 L/kWh (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, DOE report LBNL-1005775, 2016), scaling to 2.5 L/kWh for Texas summer heat (Uptime Institute, 2016). At 80% utilization, this translates to:

Some modern hyperscale operators (Meta, Microsoft) achieve far lower WUE (0.2–0.3 L/kWh) through advanced cooling. Where a developer publicly discloses a lower figure, we use that instead. Where they claim “waterless” or “closed-loop” cooling without independent verification, we apply the industry benchmark — Texas law imposes no disclosure requirement, and self-reported developer figures have not been independently audited by TWDB or TCEQ.

3. Water-for-power estimates— We separately estimate the water consumed by the power source using Scanlon et al. (2013): 0.26–0.55 gal/kWh for the ERCOT grid blend (range covers natural gas combined-cycle at 0.19 gal/kWh to steam turbines at 0.52 gal/kWh), and 0.3–0.5 gal/kWh for on-site natural gas generation. This water is consumed at power plants, not at the data center itself. Note: ERCOT's growing share of wind and solar (~36% in 2025) reduces the actual grid water intensity below the historical range; we use the higher figures conservatively.

When a figure is a developer claim, we say so. When it is our estimate, we show the methodology. When we have no basis for a figure, we show “Not disclosed” rather than guess.

Project status and urgency

Each project carries two labels that we update as the approval process evolves:

Status

Status reflects where a project is in the regulatory and construction pipeline:

• In Planning — Credible reports of developer interest; no official filing yet
• Application Filed — Formal permit, rezoning, or development agreement application submitted to a government body
• Government Review — Active regulatory review underway; public comment periods and hearings may be open
• Under Construction — All required permits granted; construction authorized or underway
• Partially Operational — Some buildings or phases are online; campus expansion is ongoing
• Fully Operational — Facility is at or near full buildout and operational capacity

Urgency

Urgency reflects how much community action can still influence the outcome:

• Urgent — A public hearing, vote, or comment period is imminent; direct civic action is most effective right now.
• Engage — No immediate vote, but active regulatory proceedings are underway; contacting officials is productive.
• Monitor — No active proceedings; we are watching for new filings or developments.

Urgency is set manually by our data team. If you believe a project's urgency is outdated, contact us.

Verification

Projects carry an “Unverified — review in progress” badge until a member of our data team has independently confirmed the core facts against primary sources. Verified projects show the name of the reviewer and the date of last review.

Verification does not mean every figure is perfect — it means a human reviewer has read the underlying sources and believes the data is a fair, good-faith representation of what is publicly known.

What we flag as unverified

We explicitly label developer-stated claims that have not been independently confirmed. Current examples:

• CloudBurst / Evolve Holdings— The $10 billion investment figure comes from the developer's Guadalupe County tax abatement filing. The 480–600 permanent jobs projection is from the same filing. The “closed-loop, zero-evaporation” cooling claim has not been independently verified; the water feasibility study was declared confidential.
• Edged Energy— The “waterless cooling” claim is based on ThermalWorks technology. ThermalWorks is a sister company of Edged under the same parent (Endeavour) — not an independent third party. No peer-reviewed or third-party audit of ThermalWorks performance has been published.
• Highlander SM One— The developer's tax revenue projections ($9M/yr to the city, $15.2M to the school district) and permanent job count (~50 positions) are from hearing presentations and have not been independently modeled.
• Tract— The 800 permanent jobs figure is from the Hays-Caldwell Economic Development Partnership's announcement, citing full-buildout projections from the developer.

How to submit a correction or tip

We are a small volunteer team and we make mistakes. If you have a primary source that corrects or adds to our data:

• Use our contact form — messages go directly to our data team.
• Submit a correction with the project name, the field you believe is wrong, and a link to your source.
• Press inquiries: contact us

Corrections are reviewed within 7 days. If accepted, we publish a correction timeline event on the affected project so the change is visible in the project history.

Key references

Sources for water benchmarks are marked with ✦.

1. ✦ Shehabi, A. et al., “United States Data Center Energy Usage Report,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (DOE/LBNL-1005775), 2016 — establishes 1.8 L/kWh as the U.S. industry average WUE
2. ✦ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report,” December 2024 — most recent federal update; U.S. data centers consumed 17 billion gallons directly in 2023
3. ✦ Scanlon, B.R. et al., “Controls on Water Use for Thermoelectric Generation: Case Study Texas,” Environmental Science & Technology, 2013 — Texas grid water intensity: NGCC 0.19 gal/kWh, steam 0.52 gal/kWh
4. ✦ Orr, R. & Klesner, K., “Don't Ignore Water Consumption,” Uptime Institute Journal, June 2016 — hot-climate WUE can reach 2.5+ L/kWh; evaporative cooling tower analysis
5. KUT Radio, “Hays County residents aren't happy about a data center moving in,” June 4, 2025
6. KUT Radio, “With 5 data centers on the horizon, Hays County water advocates see the fight as just beginning,” February 26, 2026
7. Edwards Aquifer Authority, J-17 Index Well Data and Drought Management Rules
8. Texas Water Development Board, 2022 State Water Plan — Water for Texas
9. NRDC, “Thirsty Data Centers,” 2022
10. Siddik, M.A., Shehabi, A., & Marston, L., “The environmental footprint of data centers in the United States,” Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 16, No. 6, 2021
11. Crystal Clear Special Utility District, Service area and infrastructure records
12. City of San Marcos, Council meeting agendas and recaps