Safeguards → Water
Water
Key protections unverified in reviewed recordsReviewed records do not establish a binding water-use limit for the whole campus, or funded protections for neighboring wells.
County application
Less than 15 acre-feet annually
Applicant’s June 2026 description.
County description and source →State correspondence
No more than 800 acre-feet of state waters annually
Earlier applicant cooling assumption.
State description and source →These are not established as comparable scopes. The reviewed records do not explain whether the descriptions cover the same facilities, phases or uses. They are not the low and high ends of one forecast.
How much water — and is there a cap?
Potentially different or undefined scopes · relationship unresolved
Because the county and state descriptions may or may not cover the same facilities, phases, or uses, the reviewed records do not establish a binding whole-project limit — nor whether the two figures describe the same thing. The step that matters is a single, lawful maximum, set by phase and at full build-out, before any water-dependent approval.
Sources: state email (p.1), county application · county figure → · state-email figure → · scope comparison →
How to interpret the figures and gallon conversions
The county application anticipates less than 15 acre-feet of water a year. An earlier email to the state describes cooling using no more than 800 acre-feet of state waters a year. The reviewed records do not explain whether these two descriptions cover the same facilities, phases, or uses — so they are not the low and high ends of a single forecast. For scale, 15 acre-feet is about 4.9 million gallons and 800 acre-feet about 261 million gallons; those conversions illustrate the two figures, they do not establish the campus's expected use. The questions below are what would turn these descriptions into a firm, enforceable number and protect the people already drawing water nearby — with what the records show, and where they are silent.
Where the water comes from, and how cooling works
Applicant statement · not established as a binding design
The applicant describes closed-loop cooling, which can use relatively little water — but the reviewed records show that as a description, not a proven, binding final design or a zero-water guarantee. It also matters that "water withdrawn," "water delivered," and "water consumed" are three different numbers. A firm answer would fix the cooling design in the permit, cap consumption, and weigh lower-water alternatives before design is locked in.
Sources: state email (p.1) · full evidence entry →
Protecting the wells already there
Discussed & proposed · not established in reviewed records
Three protections for neighboring domestic and agricultural wells have been discussed or proposed but are not established in the reviewed records: an independent baseline study of groundwater before any pumping begins; ongoing, published monitoring of nearby wells and aquifer levels; and a funded, make-whole commitment to lower, deepen, or replace a well the campus draws down. The reviewed records show no funded study, no monitoring duty, and no posted mitigation money. (A drop in a well's level is not, by itself, a legal finding of injury — which is exactly why a pre-agreed baseline and remedy matter.)
Who comes first in a drought
Proposed · legal limits noted
A reasonable ask is that the campus cut back first in a drought, protecting essential household and agricultural supply. Worth being clear-eyed: a county agreement cannot reorder other people's state water rights, so this works through the project's own commitments and lawful state administration, not by county fiat.
Who pays for the water system
Proposed · project terms unresolved
The principle is that the campus pays the full, metered cost of the water it uses and any infrastructure built to serve it — rather than shifting that cost onto other ratepayers. The reviewed records do not establish the project's meters, rates, or cost-allocation terms.
The state's large-use water review
Conditional state requirement · route & trigger unresolved
State law adds a water-supply review, but it is tied to a permitting route: it applies to permit or application-waiver applicants whose facility requires at least 800 acre-feet of Wyoming water a year (W.S. §35-12-108). An upper estimate of 800 does not establish that the facility requires 800. Whether Site Layer 4 takes a route that triggers it isn't established in the reviewed records, and a state permitting exemption could remove it. A local commitment can address some of the same concerns but cannot reproduce the state process's legal effect — so if an exemption is sought, keeping this review is worth insisting on.
statute (pp. 784–785) · water-review trigger → · other water-right requirements can remain → · how the permitting path changes this →
What you can ask for in county rule comments
The hearing concerns proposed countywide land-use rules, not a Site Layer 4 project permit. Distinguish a requested countywide standard from a future project-specific condition.
These are proposed safeguards, not adopted requirements. The responsible body, legal authority and project applicability must be verified before adoption.
- A defined, enforceable water budget — one lawful maximum, by phase, settled before any water-dependent approval, that also resolves whether the 15- and 800-acre-foot descriptions cover the same thing.
- Funded baseline testing, well monitoring, and make-whole mitigation for neighboring wells, paid by the developer with independent oversight.
Go deeper: read the source correspondence, the county application, or the full water evidence entries (WATER-001–015). Every claim above links to the record it rests on; where the record is silent, this page says so rather than filling the gap.