[jeffbee]

I don't think 2 feet of irrigation per year is an outrageous claim, certainly you see that in western Kansas, and maybe half that amount in Nebraska. In California we need 2-3 feet per year, but California only has a small fraction of corn land compared to the corn belt states. And yes, that is stupid, but isn't that the point of this thread? People do outrageous stuff with water all over America to a far larger extent than anyone is proposing to do with data centers.

[butvacuum]

I'm somewhere south-ish in the US- We get the same amount of rain, but in torrents over a couple hours every 6 weeks with triple digit temperatures in between.

So, nothing disingenuous or even really ignorant on my part- just the idea that consistent rainfall can be trusted so much that crop failure due to no rain is an acceptable risk is alien enough it didn't cross my mind... Especially when I was mainly trying to put it in perspective. People space out when Billions come into play. So, I find comparisons with a factor <100 more digestible, and thought I'd share.

[colechristensen]

You're missing the point. We don't irrigate. 80% of corngrowers don't irrigate.

We don't have the irrigation hardware, we don't have the wells to irrigate, there is no irrigation.

It's an outrageous claim because it's false.

The folks who do irrigate corn more than a foot per year shouldn't be allowed. It is a huge unnecessary waste of water and we aren't lacking for corn production.

[jeffbee]

At least your stance on this topic is internally consistent, setting you apart from most of the commentariat. For that, I salute you.

As you have established, eastern Nebraska and western Iowa have an abundance of rain, surface water, and shallow aquifers. Would you then agree that it is a perfectly appropriate place for data centers?

[colechristensen]

Data centers just shouldn't be using groundwater as a heat sink, regardless of where. That is an inappropriate usage of a natural resource.

The Ogallala aquifer is dropping considerably and geological processes happen which means even if you stop pulling water out of it it never restores. The most wasteful usages of it (growing corn where it has no business being grown where the majority of the water must come out of the acquirer, data centers that cool from the aquifer, etc) need to be curtailed.

Just because a small minority of people grow corn in the near desert doesn't mean that ALL corn grown is wasteful. Environmental enthusiasts lie with statistics they don't understand and as a result you don't get good environmental policy because too few people who actually understand the situation care to make reasonable choices.

Eating beef pastured on naturally watered land and unirrigated corn has a much different environmental impact than cattle grown on semi-arid-irrigated corn. If you just have "america beef fuk yah" vs. "save muh envroments!" it's just meaningless sectarian strife between fools.

[jeffbee]

This makes sense to me. I also don't think that data centers or anyone else should draw down fossil aquifers that never recharge[1]. But that wasn't what I asked. In data center country, the eastern Nebraska / western Iowa area that is thick with major data centers, the aquifers are alluvial. They are above the Ogallala, and they are tied to the Missouri River. They are a renewable resource and I see no problem with utilizing their water for human purposes.

1: A good book about this is "Running Out: In Search of Water on the High Plains"