Are you sure? People think water for data centers is "consumed", like the output is sewage or something. Giving those people concrete numbers is not gonna change such misconceptions (and that's assuming they look at such numbers in reasonable relative terms in the first place).

The majority of current large data centers use open-loop evaporative water cooling which does in fact consume water.

Most of the consumer water is evaporated but that leaves behind dissolved solids and minerals and so some of the water is used to clean that out. That water also often contains additives like biocides, anti-scale agents, and corrosion inhibitors.

This water is discharged into the sewer system or to municipal wastewater treatment facilities.

Here's an article on the various ways data centers can be cooled and what effect each has on water usage [1].

[1] https://www.fwpcoa.org/content.aspx?page_id=5&club_id=859275...

Seems easy enough to report multiple numbers and be clear on what water comes in (can even separate initial filling/construction from ongoing usage) vs what gets lost and what comes out as waste. I think people can understand this and it isn't a good enough reason to not share the numbers.

It is consumed because they evaporate it away and remove it from the local environment.

They easily could build near heating system or cooling the water down in another probably big facility close by and send it to the city

Fair point. But if I had initially learned that google was putting data centers in and it recycled water and it was a minor amount I would be more receptive than hearing that google is bullying communities and hiding details behind NDAs.

> Are you sure? People think water for data centers is "consumed", like the output is sewage or something.

Right, isn't that what sharing the information is about to show, that it isn't consumed? Show how much water they're adding to the ecosystem, since I'm guessing they'd have numbers on that, if that's how it works.