logo
Arizona's Water Is Vanishing Before AI Gets a Crack at It

Arizona's Water Is Vanishing Before AI Gets a Crack at It

Mint4 days ago

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- While we worry about the growing threat of robots guzzling up America's groundwater, we can't ignore the risk that cows will consume it all first.
A new study this week by researchers at Arizona State University put the depth of our water problem in perspective. It found that groundwater in the lower Colorado River basin — a region filling up with both data centers for artificial intelligence and alfalfa farms to feed cows — is being depleted far more quickly than surface water from reservoirs such as Lake Mead and Lake Powell, which are also vanishing rapidly.
Nearly 28 million acre-feet of water has disappeared from aquifers since 2003, satellite measurements suggest, compared with about 14 million acre-feet from surface reservoirs. The vast majority of this water was underneath Arizona, 60% of which is suffering from extreme drought after its hottest, driest stretch in recorded history. One acre-foot of water is enough to flood an acre of land, or one American football field, with a foot of water. Twenty-eight million acre-feet is roughly the entire capacity of Lake Mead, the biggest reservoir in the US, which provides water for 20 million Americans.
The actual Lake Mead receives a lot more attention. The white 'bathtub ring' showing how far its water line has fallen — it's at just 32% of capacity as of this writing — has long demonstrated that a notoriously dry region is getting even thirstier as the planet heats up and droughts become more frequent and intense. But quietly, below the ground, one entire Lake Mead has already disappeared. It will take millennia to replenish.
'People used to say the Colorado River was the lifeblood of the Southwest US,' Arizona State professor Jay Famiglietti, the study's senior author, told me. 'Now it's the groundwater. We need to make sure we take precautions to sustain that groundwater for multiple generations in the future.'
The report comes at a time of growing alarm about the water and power demands of the AI boom. Every time you ask a robot to write your Ethics 101 term paper or generate one of those brainrot videos all the kids are watching these days, a data center somewhere takes a drink (essentially). Water is used to cool the servers cooking up this slop, and it's also used in generating the electricity that powers those massive computers.
A study last year by the University of California, Riverside, for the Washington Post estimated that one 100-word email written by ChatGPT consumes more than a 16-ounce bottle of water. By 2028, US data centers could swallow 74 billion gallons of water per year, up from less than 6 billion in 2014, according to a December study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
And those servers are thirstier depending on where they're situated. In Arizona, that same 100-word email would consume about two bottles of water, according to the Post/UC Riverside study. Unfortunately, Arizona and other desert locales are prime real estate for data centers. The Grand Canyon State is home to 26 new server farms built or planned since 2022, according to Bloomberg News, joining hundreds of others cropping up in areas of the US under high water stress, as defined by the nonprofit World Resources Institute.
Friendly regulation, abundant empty land, low humidity and a relative lack of natural disasters (unless you count flesh-searing heat) help explain Arizona's allure to server farmers. They also help explain its allure to farmer farmers — whose runaway water use makes AI look as water-stingy as a Dune fremen in comparison.
Arizona farms used about 4 billion gallons of water every day, on average, between 2010 and 2020, according to a US Geological Survey report, or nearly 1.5 trillion gallons a year, accounting for 72% of the state's total water use. Those 74 billion gallons that US data centers might drink in 2028 wouldn't keep Arizona farms in business for a month. (Heck, golf-course irrigation in Maricopa County alone used nearly 31 billion gallons in 2015, according to that USGS report.)
And most of this water is used to grow food for cows. A study last year in the journal Communications Earth & Environment found nearly a third of all Colorado River water use — about 6.24 million acre-feet per year, on average, or nearly a quarter of one whole Lake Mead — irrigated alfalfa and grass hay between 2000 and 2019. All other crops used just 3.85 million acre-feet, roughly matching the water used by cities.
All that hay is used to feed beef and dairy cows. And about a fifth of it grown in seven Western states is exported to China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and other countries, according to a 2023 study by University of Arizona researchers. In other words, we are literally exporting our dwindling water supply.
Pumping groundwater makes the land above it sink. A study earlier this month in the journal Nature found that the 28 most populous US cities were sinking to some degree or another, mostly because of groundwater depletion. They have nothing on Arizona, parts of which have fallen as much as 18 feet over several decades as the water disappeared beneath them. Wells have gone dry, and giant fissures have opened in the land, wrecking homes and infrastructure.
Despite all the damage their pumping wreaks, farmers and the politicians supporting them fight furiously for their right to keep doing it. Though Arizona has some sound water-management practices, including designated water-management areas that have helped stop the bleeding in Phoenix, Tucson and other places, most of the state's groundwater is still unregulated. When Governor Katie Hobbs proposed creating a new management area in the Willcox Basin in the southeast corner of the state, where the land is sinking by 3 ½ inches a year, the farmers protested. To Hobbs' credit, she created the management area anyway. Now the locals are fighting a proposal to cut their groundwater use by 50% in 50 years.
President Donald Trump has made matters worse by freezing $4 billion in Inflation Reduction Act funding earmarked for protecting the Colorado River. Securing the water supply of millions of Americans in one the fastest-growing regions in the country deserves more research and funding, not less. Other possible solutions include encouraging farmers to fallow their land, transition to less-thirsty crops or sell their water rights to urban developers. And of course, Americans could always stand to eat much less beef.
As for those robots, they might have an easier time using less water. Microsoft Corp. already has plans for data centers that consume none at all. Competitors will probably want to follow suit, if only to calm a growing backlash. And if we must live with AI, then maybe we can at least get it to figure out how to spend less water on cows.
More From Bloomberg Opinion:
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Mark Gongloff is a Bloomberg Opinion editor and columnist covering climate change. He previously worked for Fortune.com, the Huffington Post and the Wall Street Journal.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Promise And Peril Of A Crewed Mars Mission
The Promise And Peril Of A Crewed Mars Mission

NDTV

time3 hours ago

  • NDTV

The Promise And Peril Of A Crewed Mars Mission

A crewed mission to Mars would rank among the most complex and costly undertakings in human history -- and US President Donald Trump has vowed to make it a national priority. That political momentum, coupled with SpaceX chief Elon Musk's zeal, has breathed new life into a cause long championed by Red Planet advocates -- even as major obstacles remain, including Trump and Musk's latest feud. Why go? As NASA writes in its Moon to Mars blueprint, "exploration of the cosmos remains a great calling for humanity." A mission to Mars would pursue scientific objectives like determining whether Mars ever hosted life and charting the evolution of its surface, as well as answering broader space physics questions -- such as the history of the Sun through studying Martian soil. Geopolitics also looms large, as Trump has pledged to "plant the American flag on the planet Mars and even far beyond," invoking the "unlimited promise of the American dream." Critics, however, say cuts to NASA's science budget and the cancellation of key projects -- including the return of rock samples collected by the Perseverance rover -- are undermining the research mission. "The purpose of exploration is not just to go somewhere," Nobel-winning astrophysicist John Mather told AFP. "This is not a tourist thing. This is a fundamental knowledge thing." Getting there Musk is betting SpaceX's future on Starship, the largest rocket ever built, despite fiery failures in its nine test flights. He's aiming for an uncrewed launch by late 2026, timed with the next favorable Earth-Mars alignment. But the timeline is widely seen as optimistic: Starship has yet to land its upper stage or demonstrate in-orbit refueling -- both essential for deep space travel. Some experts believe the system is fundamentally sound, while others say it's too soon to judge. "A lot of the pertinent and relevant technical information... is not known to us," Kurt Polzin, chief engineer for NASA's space nuclear propulsion project, told AFP. He backs Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP), which uses fission to heat hydrogen and generate thrust. NTP delivers "a lot of power in a very small package," Polzin said, eliminating the need for orbital refueling or fuel production on Mars. Astronauts would spend seven to nine months in a cramped spacecraft, exposed to intense space radiation beyond Earth's magnetosphere. Ideas to improve radiation shielding range from passive methods, like using dense materials, to active concepts such as plasma fields that deflect radiation, while drugs are being developed to reduce cell damage. Without a system to simulate gravity -- such as rotational spin -- crews would also need grueling exercise routines to counteract muscle and bone loss. Mental health is another concern. Growing plants aboard -- more for morale than sustenance -- has proved beneficial on the ISS. Communication delays further complicate matters. On the station, real-time data has helped prevent an average of 1.7 potentially fatal incidents per year, said Erik Antonsen, chair of NASA's human systems risk board -- but such communication will not be possible en route to Mars. Life on Mars Once on the surface, the uncertainties grow. Probes and rovers have found hints -- organic molecules, seasonal methane -- but no definitive signs of life. If it ever existed, it likely died out long ago. Still, Earth's own "extremophiles" offer intriguing clues -- from fungi that harness Chernobyl's radiation for energy, to microbes that survived 500,000 years in frozen stasis. "If they can survive here in extreme environments, we have every reason to suspect they can be on Mars," said NASA astrobiologist Jennifer Eigenbrode at the recent Humans to the Moon and Mars Summit. And while NASA has decided nuclear fission will power surface operations, other choices -- from crop selection to habitat design -- remain open. "Mars has a 24-hour, 39-minute day -- that small difference creates strain, increases stress, and reduces sleep quality," said Phnam Bagley, a space architect who designs for comfort and crew well-being -- critical factors in preventing conflict. The first trip would be around 500 days on the surface, but long-term colonization raises deeper questions. For instance, scientists don't yet know whether mammalian embryos can develop in low gravity -- or what childbirth on Mars would entail. "I think it's really important to take that seriously," said NASA's Antonsen. "Even if you don't plan on it happening, people are still going to have sex, and somebody might get pregnant. Then it becomes a medical issue."

In Trump vs Musk battle, Nasa is the biggest loser
In Trump vs Musk battle, Nasa is the biggest loser

India Today

time3 hours ago

  • India Today

In Trump vs Musk battle, Nasa is the biggest loser

US President Donald Trump and his once closest aide Elon Musk are at loggerheads days after the billionaire engineer decided to reduce his political role in the Trump administration and re-focus on his multi-million dollar companies Tesla, SpaceX and X.A major feud erupted as Trump and Musk took to social media platforms Truth Social and X, respectively, to berate each other so much that Trump threatened to cancel Musk's government contracts, and Musk hit back with threats of decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft, key to the American space exploration the bitter feud between the two, Nasa has emerged as the biggest loser as it balances between prioritising Musk and Trump. While Trump has certain plans for Nasa, the American space agency is heavily dependent on Musk's SpaceX for most of its operations in the Low Earth Orbit. WHAT HAPPENED? The dispute escalated after Musk publicly criticised a key spending bill backed by the Trump administration, calling it an 'abomination'. Trump responded on his social media platform by suggesting that axing Musk's government contracts would save the US billions and questioned why such action hadn't already been declared on X, "In light of the President's statement about the cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately".However, he later decided to not go ahead with the IS THE BIGGEST LOSERThe Trump vs Musk feud shows the vulnerability of Nasa as the American space agency is largely dependent on Elon Musk's SpaceX for transporting crew and cargo to the International Space Station. The Dragon spacecraft, which is subsidised by the US government, is the lone vehicle that is ferrying American and allied astronauts to the Space Station to ensure its smooth operation until 2030. SpaceX is also one of the biggest contractors for Nasa and the US Space Force for launching their satellites, probes and missions to Low Earth Orbit and geostationary orbit and even in deep space. The reusable rocket fleet is used by global players and SpaceX conducts those launches from Nasa's launch has also been contracted to crash the Space Station in 2030 at the end of its life. The company is building a vehicle that will be used to gradually lower its orbit before it burns up in the atmosphere. The Trump vs Musk feud shows the vulnerability of Nasa. (Photo: Reuters) Meanwhile, Nasa is still looking for a permanent administrator to run the show. Days after Musk distanced himself from the Trump government, the administration pulled back its support for Jared Issacman, who was nominated to be the next Nasa boss. Issacman is a close confidant of Musk and has flown on several missions to space aboard the Dragon was also the first private astronaut to conduct a spacewalk as he stepped on top of the Dragon spacecraft flying above is still reeling from the budget cuts and firings that were ushered during Elon Musk's White House stint as the head of Doge, a body formed by Trump to enhance efficiency and cut down spending. Several missions are looking at delays due to budgetary friends to foes as the Trump-Musk relationship evolves, Nasa is still trying to understand which side to pick as two of the world's most publicly outspoken leaders negotiate its fate and Reel

Musk-Trump feud threatens billions in SpaceX deals, risks US space goals
Musk-Trump feud threatens billions in SpaceX deals, risks US space goals

Business Standard

time7 hours ago

  • Business Standard

Musk-Trump feud threatens billions in SpaceX deals, risks US space goals

Elon Musk and Donald Trump's spat on Thursday has escalated from online exchanges to potential real-world consequences, threatening a key part of the US space programme. After Trump threatened to cancel all federal contracts with Musk, putting a significant source of revenue for SpaceX at risk, Musk said that he would decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which ferries cargo and astronauts to the International Space Station for the US. However, he later appeared to back down, reported Bloomberg. SpaceX, the world's leading rocket launcher, also holds lucrative contracts with the Pentagon to launch national security satellites and is developing a spacecraft aimed at landing American astronauts on the Moon within two years. While Musk voiced his criticism on his social media platform X, Trump fired back during a meeting with the German Chancellor and through posts on his own site, Truth Social. However, the question remains whether either will carry out their threats. SpaceX's critical role in US space and defence The Bloomberg report quoted a senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, saying that cutting contracts with SpaceX would trigger a domino effect across many critical US government functions, especially within the Pentagon and Nasa. 'Right now, no other company can match what SpaceX provides,' he said. SpaceX, valued at around $350 billion and one of the world's most valuable start-ups, has secured over $22 billion in unclassified contracts from the Department of Defense and Nasa since 2000. Nasa awarded SpaceX nearly $4 billion to help land US astronauts on the Moon. The agency's dependence on SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft for missions to the International Space Station has increased, particularly due to delays with Boeing's Starliner programme. SpaceX also holds an $843 million contract to safely decommission the ISS at the end of its mission. Earlier this week, Musk revealed that SpaceX earned approximately $1.1 billion from Nasa contracts in 2025 alone. SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service, which provides broadband access to rural areas and holds contracts with the Pentagon, could also face jeopardy. According to Peter Hays, a professorial lecturer at George Washington University's Space Policy Institute, 'Musk has launched more satellites than the rest of the world combined. It wouldn't be simple to just cut ties with him.' SpaceX, alongside Boeing, Lockheed Martin's United Launch Alliance (ULA), and soon Blue Origin, plays a vital role in launching US national security missions, including surveillance satellites for the Pentagon. However, Blue Origin has only recently introduced its New Glenn rocket, and ULA is still struggling to increase its launch capacity, leaving the Space Force and the National Reconnaissance Office heavily reliant on SpaceX. The report quoted Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, saying, 'They can't really cut off SpaceX without having a severe impact on the military space capabilities.' According to Harrison, the conflict between Trump and Musk could affect the future of the Golden Dome missile defence system. If the administration decides to use a design less dependent on space technology, SpaceX might face fewer contract opportunities. 'This dispute could influence the final design choices for the Golden Dome system,' he said. Legal authority and challenges to contract cancellation It remains uncertain whether Trump can unilaterally cancel contracts or revoke subsidies granted to SpaceX. Contract awards and cancellations are meant to be free from political influence, and if the President acts on his threats, SpaceX could sue for breach of contract. Even if the administration tries to end the contract through standard procedures, the public statements by the President could provide grounds to challenge the termination. Terminating federal contracts is both costly and politically sensitive. Most contracts include a 'termination for convenience' clause, but exercising this often requires the government to compensate contractors for billions of dollars in lost expenses. Moreover, only designated contracting officers, not the President, have the legal authority to sign or cancel federal contracts, according to a Bloomberg report. The report quoted Caryn Schenewerk, a space industry consultant and law professor at Georgetown University who formerly worked at SpaceX, stating, 'You can't just flip a switch. There are established procedures and responsibilities that must be followed to cancel contracts.' Improper handling of contract cancellations could expose the government to further legal battles, especially given Musk's history of litigation. In 2014, Musk sued the Air Force to allow SpaceX to compete for national security satellite launches but dropped the suit when the Air Force opened the contract to competition.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store