The report, required by a 2024 General Assembly law, says current conditions appear unlikely to support a reliable, sufficient groundwater supply for another large industrial user in the region. It recommends stronger state authority over withdrawal permits, requiring large applicants to consider surface water or reuse, better local planning and more staffing and monitoring.

The report does not ban data centers, impose a moratorium or cancel existing permits. Its recommendations would require action by the General Assembly, state regulators or both.

Withdrawals fell, then groundwater gains leveled off

Eastern Virginia’s groundwater withdrawals declined after a major industrial paper mill closed about 15 years ago. The report says stronger management and reduced withdrawals helped water levels improve in some areas.

That improvement later leveled off. The analysis says groundwater availability is constrained and current projections indicate that declines are likely to resume in the near future. Conditions vary by aquifer, location and depth, so the projection does not mean every well or community faces the same immediate risk.

WHRO reported that groundwater use in the coastal region could become unsustainable within the next five to 10 years without additional action. That is a regional projection, not a finding that all wells are currently failing or unsafe.

Why data centers are part of the policy debate

Data centers can use substantial amounts of water for cooling, but the report says comprehensive public information about their groundwater withdrawals is not available.

Most existing and planned data-center capacity in eastern Virginia is located in public-water service areas that mostly draw from surface water. The report does not conclude that all data centers use groundwater, and it does not establish the exact number of facilities that do.

The study instead examined a hypothetical large facility using evaporative cooling. Under current conditions, it found that such a facility — or another comparable industrial user — would be unlikely to find a reliable, sufficient groundwater supply anywhere in the region.

That finding could affect where future water-intensive projects are proposed and whether applicants must rely on surface water, reuse systems or other alternatives. It does not automatically stop construction or change permits already issued.

What the report recommends

The analysis calls for lawmakers to strengthen DEQ‘s authority to deny or condition groundwater withdrawal permits when a proposed use would be unsustainable. It also recommends requiring large applicants to evaluate surface-water sources and water reuse before seeking significant groundwater withdrawals.

Other recommendations include better local water-use planning, additional state employees and equipment, improved monitoring and clearer information about withdrawals from private wells and industrial facilities.

Those are proposals, not current requirements. The report does not give DEQ unlimited discretion to reject permits under existing law; rather, it says the agency’s current authority may be insufficient for the conditions identified in the analysis.

What residents and utilities could face

Private well owners are not subject to new household requirements because of the report. They could, however, be affected by future monitoring, permitting decisions and local water-management plans. WHRO reported that lawful, unpermitted withdrawals such as private drinking-water wells account for up to 40% of total groundwater withdrawals in eastern Virginia, according to the report.

Public utilities may need to plan for different water sources, expanded treatment or distribution infrastructure and additional monitoring as groundwater availability changes. Those decisions could bring costs for local governments, utilities and ratepayers, although the report does not establish a specific dollar amount.

Groundwater depletion also has broader consequences. In Hampton Roads, pumping contributes to land subsidence, which can worsen flooding as sea levels rise. On the Eastern Shore, communities rely heavily on the Yorktown-Eastover aquifer, and saltwater intrusion is a particular concern because alternative drinking-water sources are limited. These are regional risks identified in the reporting and analysis, not findings that a particular resident’s well or utility is currently unsafe.

Recharge projects help, but are not a complete answer

Hampton Roads’ Sustainable Water Initiative for Tomorrow, or SWIFT, treats wastewater to drinking-water standards and injects it into the Potomac aquifer. WHRO reported that the project passed one billion gallons of underground recharge in 2025.

The state analysis says the injections may produce localized increases in water levels, but those gains can dissipate rapidly when recharge stops. The report calls for better monitoring of recharge effects and evaluation of whether similar projects could work elsewhere.

SWIFT is therefore a long-term management tool, not an immediate replacement for stronger permitting, conservation and water-source planning.

What happens next

The report was due in January 2026 but was not released publicly for more than six months. The Associated Press obtained it after an open-records request and questions about the state’s refusal to release it. A spokesperson for Gov. Abigail Spanberger attributed the delay to a backlog of work from the previous administration.

Spanberger’s office said the governor intends to work with the General Assembly to evaluate the findings and strengthen Virginia’s groundwater-management policies. Some lawmakers have called for a special session, but no new statewide restriction or data-center prohibition follows from the report alone.

The next consequential steps would be legislation, formal regulations, permit changes, agency guidance or new funding for monitoring and water management. Until one of those actions occurs, the report remains an analysis and set of recommendations rather than enforceable new policy.

For residents, the report turns groundwater capacity into a statewide development and public-infrastructure question. The science identifies a narrowing margin in eastern Virginia; whether that leads to enforceable limits depends on what state officials do next.

Sources

• Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Eastern Virginia Groundwater Resources Report
• Associated Press, Virginia study on groundwater, data centers calls for tighter water regulations
• WHRO, Hampton Roads' groundwater supply is under threat, new analysis shows

The two actions put water-use policy and data-center development under review as Scottsdale considers how future growth could affect demand for water. The large-water-user initiative could shape requirements for future high-water-use development, while the standards review concerns how data-center projects are evaluated in the city.

What happens next

The city’s review of data-center development standards is the next identified step. The announcement did not specify which standards are being examined. It also did not state the final text of the proposed large-water-user ordinance, an enactment date or the council vote tally, so the initiative should not be treated as an enacted law.

Mayor Borowsky and the council are the identified city officials leading the two policy actions. Any future ordinance or revised development standards could affect the approval and planning of projects with substantial water demand, including data centers, but the announcement did not describe specific thresholds or restrictions.

A federal proposal reported by The Associated Press could require Arizona, California and Nevada to reduce their combined use by as much as 3 million acre-feet annually through 2036. The proposal would allow deeper reductions in drier conditions, but it is not the final operating rule and would not automatically impose the full amount on every household or farm.

The Interior Department says it will decide how the river’s major reservoirs will be operated after 2026 before Oct. 1, 2026, the start of Water Year 2027. The current operating agreements expire at the end of calendar year 2026.

Why the deadline matters

The current framework includes the 2007 Interim Guidelines and the 2019 Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Plans. Those agreements guide operations for Lake Powell, Lake Mead and related facilities through the end of 2026.

On Feb. 14, 2026, the Interior Department said it would continue the post-2026 National Environmental Policy Act process and make an operating decision before Oct. 1 despite the lack of full consensus among Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

Reclamation’s draft environmental review evaluates several possible operating strategies. It covers domestic river operations. Mexico’s deliveries are handled through a separate binational process under the 1944 water treaty.

What the proposal could require

The proposal described by AP would place mandatory reductions primarily on the Lower Basin states: Arizona, California and Nevada. Together, they could face reductions of up to 3 million acre-feet per year through 2036, with the actual amount determined every two years based on conditions across the basin.

Under the proposal, half of the reductions would be divided under a plan developed by the three states. For other reductions, the federal framework would account for existing water-right priorities, which generally provide California users greater protection than users in Arizona and Nevada.

The states have not agreed on the approach. Arizona officials called the proposal flawed, Nevada officials described the potential reductions as unrealistic and damaging, and California officials said it was an important step but not a final agreement. The Upper Basin states have opposed mandatory reductions in their states, although they could pursue voluntary conservation.

Reservoir levels are also a power issue

Reclamation’s emergency 2026 actions are separate from the post-2026 rulemaking. The agency plans to add as much as 2.48 million acre-feet to Lake Powell by transferring water from Flaming Gorge Reservoir and reducing releases from Lake Powell to Lake Mead.

Reclamation said it intended to release between 660,000 acre-feet and 1 million acre-feet from Flaming Gorge from April 2026 through April 2027. It also planned to reduce the annual release from Lake Powell to Lake Mead by 1.48 million acre-feet, from 7.48 million acre-feet to 6 million acre-feet, through September 2026.

The measures are intended to keep Lake Powell above the 3,490-foot minimum power pool. Reclamation said that if Glen Canyon Dam falls below that level, releases would be limited to river outlet works, creating operational uncertainty and reducing power generation.

The same strategy puts additional pressure on Lake Mead. Reclamation said reduced releases from Lake Powell could produce an additional reduction of as much as 40% in Hoover Dam’s hydropower generating capacity as early as fall 2026. That could affect power customers and regional electricity costs, but it does not automatically mean widespread outages.

Who could feel the effects

Reclamation says the Colorado River provides municipal water for approximately 40 million people, supports 5.5 million acres of farmland and serves 30 Tribal Nations. The river also supports hydropower customers, seven national wildlife refuges, four national recreation areas and 11 national parks.

For cities, a federal reduction would not necessarily mean that household taps immediately lose the full amount. Effects will depend on the final rule, reservoir conditions, legal rights, state implementation and hydrologic triggers. Some communities may face higher water costs or greater reliance on groundwater, recycling and other supplies.

Farmers could face reduced deliveries, fallowed fields or higher water prices. Lower reservoir levels can also limit boat access, affect rafting and fishing conditions, and create pressure on wildlife programs and public lands. Tribal Nations are part of the federal consultation process, but their interests and positions are not uniform.

What is decided and what remains unresolved

The 2026 emergency operations are near-term measures intended to protect the river system and its infrastructure. The post-2026 proposal is part of a separate federal environmental review and operating-guideline process. Neither establishes the final allocation of future reductions.

State objections, tribal consultation, implementation details and possible litigation remain unresolved. The federal review also does not replace the separate binational process governing deliveries to Mexico.

What happens next

Reclamation’s monthly 24-Month Study reports will continue to provide modeled projections for reservoir elevations and operations. The agency says those projections carry uncertainty and may change as hydrologic and operating conditions change.

Interior must complete the post-2026 process and decide on operations before Oct. 1, 2026. Until that decision is issued, the reported 3-million-acre-foot ceiling remains a proposal, while the emergency 2026 measures remain a separate effort to protect Lake Powell, water deliveries and power generation during the transition.

Sources

• Bureau of Reclamation: Interior Department moves forward on Colorado River guidelines
• Associated Press: Arizona, California and Nevada would share Colorado River cuts

Reclamation released the Final Environmental Impact Statement on July 30. The Federal Register published the notice of availability on July 31. The documents advance a preferred framework under which Arizona, California and Nevada could together reduce Colorado River use by as much as 3 million acre-feet a year through 2036.

That figure is the upper end of the proposed framework, not an immediate mandatory cut already imposed on households, farms or states. The agency still must issue a record of decision, and the amount of any reductions would be recalculated or revisited every two years as river and reservoir conditions change.

Why the proposal focuses on the Lower Basin

The Colorado River basin is divided into an Upper Basin—Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming—and a Lower Basin consisting of Arizona, California and Nevada. The river supplies more than 40 million people, supports irrigated agriculture and tribal water users, and generates electricity at major dams.

The preferred framework concentrates mandatory reductions in the Lower Basin because those states account for the largest share of current consumptive use. It also emphasizes protecting Lake Powell and Lake Mead, which help support water deliveries and hydropower across the Southwest.

Under the proposal, the Upper Basin states would not face comparable mandatory reductions for now. They could pursue voluntary conservation, however, and their hydrology, water use and reservoir operations would still affect the wider river system.

The federal approach follows years of unsuccessful negotiations among the seven basin states. Lower Basin states have sought measurable contributions from all seven states, while Upper Basin officials have argued that mandatory reductions imposed on them could conflict with the Colorado River Compact and other governing rules.

What an acre-foot means for residents

An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons. It is often described as enough water for roughly two to three homes for a year, although household-use comparisons vary by location, household size and conservation practices.

A reduction measured in millions of acre-feet would be distributed through water agencies, entitlement holders and operating decisions—not imposed as a direct federal service cut to every household. Residents in Arizona, California and Nevada could instead see effects through local conservation requirements, watering restrictions, supply projects, infrastructure spending or future water-rate cases.

The Final EIS does not establish a uniform increase in household bills. Local utilities and water agencies would decide how to manage shortages, replace supplies and recover infrastructure costs. Some communities may face higher costs for groundwater, recycling, treatment or other supplies, but the timing and size of any bill changes would vary.

Risks for agriculture and food production

Farm communities could face some of the most direct economic pressure. Reclamation’s socioeconomic analysis models possible reductions in irrigated acreage and crop value in areas including California’s Imperial Valley and Central Arizona.

Those are modeled outcomes under particular operating conditions, not guaranteed losses for every farm or community. Actual effects would depend on water-right priority, delivery arrangements, conservation payments, crop choices and how states and local water agencies distribute reductions.

Because Southern California and Yuma, Arizona, are important winter sources of leafy greens, reduced irrigation could also affect farm employment, local business activity and food-supply planning. The scale of those effects remains uncertain until the federal decision and state implementation plans are known.

Tribal water rights remain a central issue

The Final EIS separately examines tribal resources, Indian trust assets and consultation. Tribal impacts will vary because water rights, settlements, priorities and delivery arrangements differ among tribes and communities.

The federal proposal does not resolve those legal and political questions. Tribal positions, negotiations with states and potential litigation could influence the final operating rules and how shortages are implemented.

Lower reservoirs could also affect hydropower

Lake Powell and Lake Mead levels affect the water pressure available to generate electricity. Reclamation’s analysis of Glen Canyon, Hoover, Davis and Parker dams treats reduced generation and capacity as modeled risks if reservoir elevations approach key power-pool thresholds.

That does not mean the proposal announces a dam shutdown or a certain loss of generation. Any effect on public power customers and regional electricity planning would depend on future river flows, reservoir elevations, operating decisions and the final rules.

What happens next

Reclamation must complete the decision process before establishing the post-2026 operating framework. The agency’s environmental review is finished, but the record of decision is not yet the same as a final water-allocation order, and the states could still reach a separate agreement.

The next major date is October 1, 2026, the start of the 2027 water year. By then, federal officials are expected to have determined how Lake Powell and Lake Mead will be operated after the current post-2026 process concludes.

Sources

• Bureau of Reclamation final environmental impact statement
• Federal Register notice published July 31, 2026
• Associated Press report on the three-state proposal

For Nevada, the immediate point is what the document does not do: It does not order a new water cut, establish a final Nevada allocation or impose new household restrictions.

Instead, the preferred alternative would create a 10-year adaptive decision framework covering operating years 2027 through 2036. Federal officials would develop operating guidelines in anticipated two-year intervals, using defined principles, thresholds and operating limits that could change with reservoir conditions and future agreements.

What Reclamation proposed

The framework addresses operations at Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the reservoirs that anchor Colorado River deliveries and hydropower across the Southwest. Reclamation said the basin states did not reach consensus on long-term successor rules before the Final EIS was completed.

The preferred alternative therefore establishes a process rather than a complete set of operating rules. The Final EIS says guidelines for each operating interval would be developed later and would have to remain within the framework’s sideboards. Those guidelines are expected to cover approximately two years at a time unless the states reach a longer consensus-based agreement.

The Federal Register published the Final EIS notice on July 31, 2026. The document is an environmental review supporting future federal action, not a Record of Decision, final operating plan or current Nevada water cut.

What the modeled shortage numbers mean for Nevada

Under the preferred alternative’s representative modeling for critically dry hydrology, the maximum analyzed Lower Basin reduction is 3.6 million acre-feet, including assumptions about reductions to Mexico. The same modeling identifies a median Nevada reduction of 0.21 million acre-feet in that scenario.

Those figures are not a guaranteed future cut. They are modeled results from the Representative Preferred Alternative, a set of assumptions designed to approximate operating guidelines that could be developed within the preferred framework. The actual effect on Nevada would depend on future guidelines, reservoir conditions, federal decisions and the allocation rules that apply at the time.

The Final EIS also analyzes other alternatives with different shortage results. That is why the 3.6 million and 0.21 million acre-foot figures should not be presented as Nevada’s final allocation or as a fixed legal obligation.

Reclamation’s summary says annual water availability for Arizona, California and Nevada would continue to be tied to federal law and the Supreme Court’s Colorado River decree in Arizona v. California. The EIS describes the Lower Basin framework around 7.5 million acre-feet, with the Secretary of the Interior determining when the available amount would be at, below or above that level under the applicable legal framework.

Why Southern Nevada is closely affected

Southern Nevada relies on water stored behind Hoover Dam in Lake Mead for drinking water and other uses. The Colorado River Commission of Nevada says existing shortage guidelines and drought agreements already require reductions in Nevada’s consumptive use when shortage conditions are declared.

Those existing obligations are separate from the post-2026 framework described in the Final EIS. The July 31 document does not create a new statewide household restriction. Its most immediate operational exposure is Southern Nevada, while broader effects could reach state water planning, economic activity and future infrastructure decisions.

Nevada, the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the Colorado River Commission argued in comments on the draft review that Southern Nevada has already achieved substantial conservation and that additional reductions could become more difficult and costly. Those comments represent Nevada’s position; they are not an independent finding by Reclamation.

The state’s existing conservation record matters because future shortage rules could affect how much water Southern Nevada must conserve, how agencies plan for growth and how expensive additional supplies or efficiency measures become. The available record does not establish an immediate change to household water service or a fixed statewide cost.

What happens next

The next major federal step is a decision document published in the Federal Register. Reclamation’s executive summary says the operating guidelines for each anticipated two-year interval would be adopted through that document and then implemented through Annual Operating Plans.

Until those decisions and guidelines are issued, Nevada residents should treat the 3.6 million acre-foot Lower Basin figure and the 0.21 million acre-foot Nevada figure as planning scenarios, not legal orders. The practical question for Nevada will be how future hydrology and federal guidelines translate the framework’s sideboards into actual annual water availability and conservation obligations.

Sources

• Bureau of Reclamation Final EIS Executive Summary
• Federal Register Notice of Availability, July 31, 2026
• Colorado River Commission of Nevada drought and shortage information
• Associated Press report on the federal Colorado River proposal

The meetings are being led by the Kansas Water Office, the Kansas Department of Agriculture and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Sessions were held July 28, 2026, in Colby and July 29 in Hays. As of Friday, July 31, five scheduled meetings remained.

Where and when the remaining meetings are scheduled

The remaining meetings are scheduled from Aug. 13 through Aug. 27:

• Aug. 13, 9 a.m. to noon: Labette Community College in Parsons.
• Aug. 19, 1 to 4 p.m.: Forum Hall at the Kansas State University Student Union in Manhattan.
• Aug. 21, 9 a.m. to noon: Docking State Office Building in Topeka.
• Aug. 26, 9 a.m. to noon: The Refinery in Garden City.
• Aug. 27, 9 a.m. to noon: Wichita Public Library in Wichita.

The state said a meeting in the Kansas City metropolitan area may be announced later. That session was not confirmed in the available notices.

Residents who plan to attend should review the official meeting notice and follow its RSVP instructions. The available materials identify the meeting schedule and RSVP process, but they do not establish a separate formal written-comment deadline beyond the scheduled meetings.

What residents can raise

The consultation topics include water conservation, water quality, community infrastructure funding, regional planning and the relationship between water supply, growth and long-term sustainability.

That gives residents several ways to connect statewide planning to practical concerns. Farmers and other water users may focus on conservation and supply reliability. Communities may raise needs involving water systems, treatment, storage or other infrastructure. Residents may also discuss how water availability affects housing, economic development and the ability of communities to sustain future growth.

The meetings are not funding awards, final rules or a completed statewide water plan. They are opportunities for public input while the agencies gather regional information and priorities.

How the input fits into Kansas water planning

Kansas uses regional public input as part of its broader water-planning structure. The Kansas Water Office says its regional advisory committees advise the Kansas Water Office and Kansas Water Authority on local water-related issues and serve as a link between the public and water-management entities.

The Kansas Water Office also says state water planning addresses issues in regional areas of Kansas. That structure matters because water conditions and infrastructure needs differ across the state. A concern raised in southeast Kansas may not be identical to one in western or central Kansas.

Regional input can therefore help officials identify differences among communities before weighing conservation priorities, water-quality needs and potential infrastructure investments. The agencies’ notices describe the meetings as part of an ongoing effort to inform future water-planning strategies and funding discussions.

Public participation does not guarantee that a specific project, conservation policy or funding request will be approved. The current process is consultative rather than binding.

What happens next

The state’s next scheduled step is to hold the five remaining regional meetings through Aug. 27 and gather questions, concerns and ideas from participants. Officials can then use the regional input in future water-planning and investment discussions.

For residents who want to participate, the immediate action is to confirm the meeting location and date and complete any required RSVP. Because no broader formal comment deadline is identified in the available materials, attending one of the scheduled sessions is the clearest documented opportunity to provide input at this stage.

The process could inform future priorities for conservation, water quality, community infrastructure and regional planning across Kansas, but the meetings themselves do not make those decisions. They are a public-input step in determining what the state may consider next.

Sources

• Governor Kelly Announces Water Local Consult Meetings Across Kansas
• Help shape the future of water in Kansas at local consult meetings
• Regional Advisory Committees

Freeze succeeds Brian Steed and most recently served as the office’s deputy commissioner. Before that, she worked at the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, where she established and oversaw conservation programs including the Agricultural Water Optimization Program.

The appointment comes as Utah continues to debate how much water should remain in the Great Salt Lake basin, how conservation savings should be measured and how the state should balance the needs of farms, communities, businesses, wildlife and the lake itself.

What Freeze is taking over

Utah lawmakers created the Office of the Great Salt Lake Commissioner through House Bill 491. Gov. Cox signed the law on March 14, 2023, and it took effect July 1, 2023.

The law requires the commissioner to develop and maintain a strategic plan and coordinate collaborative work among state agencies and other interests connected to the lake. The office is a statewide coordinating body; it does not independently control every water decision made by Utah agencies, local governments or water users.

The office’s strategic plan calls for coordinating agencies and stakeholders, using the best available science and data, increasing water delivered to the lake and maintaining a sustainable water supply while balancing competing needs. Those needs include human health and quality of life, a healthy ecosystem and economic development.

The plan also calls for conservation across municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors; measuring water savings; directing saved water to the lake; protecting air and water quality; and maintaining public engagement.

Why her agricultural background matters

According to the governor’s appointment announcement, Freeze helped agricultural producers improve water efficiency through new technologies and irrigation upgrades. The commissioner’s office says her work at the agriculture department also involved strategic planning, legislative implementation and agricultural conservation.

That experience is relevant because agricultural diversions are a central part of Utah’s Great Salt Lake water debate. Efforts to conserve water in the basin can affect farmers and ranchers, while the state’s lake strategy calls for quantifying conservation gains and shepherding saved water toward the lake.

Freeze’s appointment does not itself establish a new alfalfa policy or change water rights. The immediate change is leadership of the office responsible for coordinating the strategic plan and related state efforts.

Alfalfa hats prompt accountability questions

A July 27 report by Axios Salt Lake City reported that Freeze previously sold hats embroidered with “Make alfalfa great again.” Axios reported that the hats appeared in Facebook posts in 2024 and 2025 and that a $20 sale price was listed in an August 2024 post, when Freeze was running the agriculture department’s water-optimization program.

Alfalfa has become a focal point in the Great Salt Lake debate because agricultural water use is part of the broader discussion over diversions, conservation and how much water reaches the lake. Axios reported that the hats prompted criticism after Freeze’s appointment.

Morgan Keller, a spokesperson for Freeze, told Axios that the hats were intended to correct what the spokesperson described as misinformation about alfalfa and to highlight the crop’s potential role in addressing Utah water problems. Keller also pointed to efforts encouraging farmers to voluntarily lease water and improve water-use efficiency.

The hat sales, by themselves, do not establish that Freeze has adopted a policy favoring alfalfa, violated an ethics rule or acted improperly. The sources reviewed for this article do not identify an official finding of misconduct or a formal policy decision arising from the hat sales. The episode does show why Freeze’s approach to agricultural conservation is likely to receive scrutiny.

What Utah residents should watch next

Residents should watch for updates to the commissioner’s strategic plan, agency coordination, public engagement opportunities, water-delivery initiatives and agricultural conservation actions. Key questions include how the state measures water savings, whether conserved water is legally and physically delivered to the lake, and how officials explain tradeoffs among ecological, health, quality-of-life and economic interests.

Freeze’s appointment is complete, but the policy choices that will define her tenure remain ahead. Her formal mandate is to maintain the strategic plan and coordinate the state’s collaborative response; it is not to unilaterally solve the lake’s decline or set all of Utah’s water policy.

Sources

• Gov. Cox appoints Hannah Freeze as Great Salt Lake commissioner
• Office of the Commissioner
• Utah HB 491: Amendments Related to the Great Salt Lake
• Utah's new Great Salt Lake commissioner sold alfalfa-promoting hats

The governor’s office announced the order on July 21. It said new data-center applications cannot be approved under the ImagiNE program. The order also requires the Nebraska Department of Economic Development and Department of Revenue to coordinate, as appropriate and consistent with law, with agencies that have expertise in natural resources, energy infrastructure, agriculture, public utilities and economic development when reviewing incentive decisions.

The action changes the state incentive environment for future projects but does not create a statewide ban on data centers. Pillen said the order is not a moratorium and does not discourage lawful development or private investment.

What the order changes

Executive Order 26-17 directs the Department of Economic Development to administer the ImagiNE Nebraska Act consistently with the law’s economic-development purposes while considering whether projects contribute to Nebraska’s long-term prosperity and environmental quality. It also directs coordination with the Department of Water, Environment, and Energy.

The governor’s announcement describes the immediate effect as prohibiting new data-center applications from being approved under the ImagiNE Act. The order itself establishes the administrative framework and directs agencies to consider statewide interests, including the effects of proposed projects on water, energy systems, agriculture, utilities, infrastructure and communities.

The order does not say that existing data centers or previously approved incentive agreements are cancelled. It also does not itself impose the reporting, utility-cost, decommissioning or community-benefit requirements adopted separately by the Legislature in 2026.

Task force will prepare 2027 recommendations

The order directs the Department of Water, Environment, and Energy to establish a data-center task force. The task force must study the effects of data centers on Nebraska’s water and environment and provide recommendations to the Legislature in 2027.

The recommendations must address how to ensure future data-center projects do not degrade the state’s natural resources. They also must include proposals for common-sense county zoning guidelines.

Those zoning guidelines and any additional safeguards remain future recommendations, not current statewide law. Residents and local officials should watch for the task force’s membership, meetings, reports and legislative proposals during the 2027 session.

Separate 2026 law adds requirements for large facilities

Nebraska’s 2026 legislation created new rules for data centers with peak electricity demand of at least 10 megawatts. Under Nebraska Revised Statutes section 70-1506, those facilities must report their name, owners and developers, physical size, location, electricity demand, water use, tax exemptions, incentives, conservation measures, renewable-energy commitments and expected service life.

Data-center owners also must bear decommissioning costs and enter community-benefit agreements with affected communities. The annual report is due to the Department of Water, Environment, and Energy and the Legislature’s Natural Resources Committee by Sept. 30 each year. The law took effect July 18, 2026.

The law also allows public-power suppliers to require data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrades made necessary by their operations. Suppliers may require direct payment or a letter of credit and may impose terms requiring the facility to pay the full cost of electric service so those costs are not shifted to other retail customers.

Those requirements must be fair, reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. Before imposing them, the public-power supplier must conduct a load study identifying the project’s costs, impacts and needed infrastructure upgrades.

Tax exemptions are changing on separate timelines

The Nebraska Department of Revenue says one data-center sales-and-use-tax exemption was repealed effective July 1, 2026. The provision covered tangible personal property acquired by a data-center operator for storing, managing or disseminating data used outside Nebraska.

A separate personal-property-tax exemption is scheduled for repeal effective Jan. 1, 2027. The different dates mean Nebraska has not ended every data-center tax provision on the same day.

What residents should watch next

For future projects, the immediate change is that new data-center applications will not be approved for ImagiNE Nebraska Act incentives under the policy announced by the governor. Large projects remain legally possible, but they will face the new statutory requirements governing utility costs, reporting, decommissioning and community benefits, along with any applicable local approvals.

The economic and fiscal effect will depend on whether companies proceed without the ImagiNE incentive pathway and how individual projects are reviewed by state agencies, public-power suppliers and local governments. The next major policy step is the Department of Water, Environment, and Energy task force’s work and the Legislature’s 2027 consideration of water protections and county zoning standards.

Sources

• Executive Order No. 26-17
• Gov. Pillen Signs Executive Order on Data Centers
• Nebraska Revised Statutes, Section 70-1506
• 2026 Nebraska Legislative Changes
• Gov. Pillen signs order to protect Nebraska’s public power from data center drain

The study was required by Senate Joint Resolution 25 and was due in January. It was released in late July, more than six months after the deadline. The delay became a transparency issue after the Associated Press reported that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality withheld the report in response to a public-records request before the governor’s office provided a copy.

What the study found

The report says groundwater withdrawals in the region fell sharply about 15 years ago after a paper mill closed. That reduction, along with regulatory efforts, helped water levels rise in the region’s largest aquifer. Those gains have since stalled, and the study projects that levels will resume declining.

Its central warning is that a large new industrial groundwater user may not be sustainable under current conditions. The report attributes the projected pressure to population growth and industrial use. It does not establish that data centers caused the aquifer’s decline.

Data centers remain part of the policy debate because the industry uses water for cooling and continues to expand in Virginia. The report says most existing and planned data-center capacity is located in public-water-service areas that mostly rely on surface water. It also says comprehensive public data on groundwater withdrawals by data centers is not available.

The study separately examined a hypothetical facility using evaporative cooling or a comparable water-intensive process. Under current conditions, the report said, such a user would be unlikely to find a reliable and sufficient groundwater supply anywhere in the Eastern Virginia region.

What the state regulates now

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality currently issues groundwater-withdrawal permits in designated groundwater-management areas, including the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area. Under the DEQ Ground Water Withdrawal Program, permits generally apply to withdrawals greater than or equal to 300,000 gallons per month, subject to exclusions in state regulations.

The study itself does not change that threshold, cancel existing permits or impose new requirements on data centers. Any such changes would require action through the General Assembly, new regulations or both.

What could change next

The report recommends giving regulators more authority to reject or condition industrial withdrawal permits. It also calls for applicants to examine surface-water and water-reuse alternatives, stronger local water planning, and additional funding for monitoring, enforcement, staffing and equipment.

Those recommendations could affect how local governments, utilities and developers plan future industrial growth in Eastern Virginia. They could also make water-supply analysis a more important part of data-center proposals and other large projects.

For residents, the immediate issue is not an automatic change to household water service. The next concrete signals will be the governor’s response, proposals in the General Assembly, DEQ guidance, meetings of the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Advisory Committee and decisions on new withdrawal permits. The broader question is whether Virginia treats the study as a warning for future planning or as the basis for enforceable limits.

Sources

• Associated Press report on the delayed study
• U.S. Geological Survey Virginia Coastal Plain groundwater report
• Virginia DEQ Ground Water Withdrawal Program

At the July 21, 2026, City Commission meeting, commissioners unanimously directed staff to schedule further discussion and a future vote on a moratorium ordinance. WSLR reported that the proposed freeze could include at least one data center application already submitted to the city.

The applicant and project were not publicly identified in the available reporting. The city has not approved construction or issued a final decision on the application.

What the proposed moratorium could cover

The proposed 18-month pause would address data center applications or approvals, including the pending application, according to the commission discussion reported by WSLR. That provision remains subject to ordinance drafting, legal review, and a final commission vote.

North Port’s staff summary says the city’s Unified Land Development Code does not define data centers as a separate land-use category. Depending on the project, the facilities may currently fit within light industrial, heavy industrial, or essential-services classifications.

That means the commission is considering whether existing zoning rules are sufficient for facilities that can create substantial demands for electricity, water, land, and utility infrastructure. Noise and other operating impacts are also part of the issues under review.

State law adds legal questions

Florida’s CS/CS/SB 484 took effect July 1, 2026. The law preserves local authority over comprehensive planning and land-development regulations involving data centers while adding requirements for utilities and large-scale facilities.

For large-scale data centers, the law addresses water-use permits and potential effects on local water resources, zoning, and comprehensive-plan rules. The city’s staff summary also flags hurricane-related statutory restrictions that may affect how a local moratorium or other land-development action is drafted.

North Port’s city attorney identified questions about whether a proposed moratorium would need to account for properties damaged by Hurricanes Debby, Helene, or Milton and how the ordinance could be structured within state law. The staff review does not mean those provisions automatically block the proposal.

Pending applications and vested rights

One of the most important questions is whether a future moratorium can apply to an application already submitted. The city’s staff summary says that issue could involve vested-rights concerns, meaning the applicant may argue that existing rules protect some development rights.

The commission must also decide whether an 18-month period is legally reasonable and whether the ordinance should apply only to applications filed after enactment. The final answer will depend on the ordinance language and the commission’s vote.

What happens next

Staff and the city attorney are expected to prepare proposed ordinance language for a noticed commission meeting. Residents should watch for the ordinance text, agenda materials, public-hearing information, and the final vote.

For now, North Port is considering a temporary development pause, not an adopted moratorium or permanent ban. The next commission action will determine whether the city moves from discussion to a legally enforceable restriction.

Sources

• WSLR News report on North Port's proposed data center moratorium
• North Port City Commission staff summary, File 26-0985
• Florida Senate SB 484 data-center bill record

In the city’s authorization packet, Phoenix ties early implementation planning to the federal timeline for Post-2026 Colorado River Operating Guidelines effective January 1, 2027. That means the practical “what happens next” is largely about preparation and coordination—not an immediate change in everyday water service.

What Phoenix approved (the decision in the official record)

Phoenix’s packet seeks authority for the city manager (or designee) to enter into “Aid Agreements”—mutual-aid style agreements—with partner entities including Tucson and the Town of Cave Creek, plus Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) and other relevant Arizona/federal entities and Colorado River/Central Arizona Project entitlement holders.

The packet also asks for authority to execute related “Transactional Agreements” designed to advance the objectives of the Aid Agreements, while still noting these agreements are structured for later completion subject to additional required approvals.

And Phoenix included a city-code exception to allow specific indemnification and liability language in transaction-related documents that would otherwise be restricted under Phoenix City Code.

SWAP in plain terms: voluntary sharing, not a new water supply

Public reporting describes SWAP as completely voluntary and built around multiple parts:

• An emergency reserve: described as a small amount that could be made available on a very short-term basis to create “runway” while a longer-term plan is developed.
• Longer-term mechanisms: including an “offset reduction” approach and a structure intended to connect willing buyers with willing sellers—positioned as hands off and intended to keep transactions occurring at the user-to-user level.

The key takeaway for residents: SWAP is meant to reduce regional risk and improve readiness if cutbacks occur. It is not a guarantee that Phoenix will automatically receive extra water on a predictable schedule in any specific shortage scenario.

What Phoenix residents should realistically expect next

Because what Phoenix approved is a framework for agreements and readiness, residents should expect planning and coordination first—followed by details on how the program’s early components will operate.

City materials also emphasize that Phoenix is already using a phased drought-management approach that prioritizes public awareness and conservation. As that plan evolves, residents and businesses may see conservation actions expand if conditions worsen.

So for most households and local businesses, the near-term changes tied to SWAP are likely to feel like more coordination and messaging, not like a new water source turning on.

What to watch next

• Follow-up approvals for the finalized transactional agreements referenced in the authorization packet.
• More specifics on “initial portions” of the program—what will be ready first, and how the emergency reserve and other mechanisms are expected to work as the January 1, 2027 federal timeline approaches.

Bottom line: SWAP is one risk-management tool in Phoenix’s broader Colorado River planning—built to support voluntary cooperation with other cities, while conservation and long-term reliability planning remain central.

Sources

• Phoenix Legistar: Secure Water Arizona Program (SWAP) authorization (agenda packet/official materials)
• KJZZ: Phoenix approves water share program (SWAP) to help Arizona weather Colorado River shortages
• City of Phoenix newsroom: Update on water resources/drought (SWAP background)

The state’s invasive-mussel guidance says the problem can clog pipelines, screens and filters, foul boat hulls and motors, and drive up repairs for water infrastructure, hydropower facilities and boats. California officials also say the first North American detection was in October 2024 at the Port of Stockton during routine monitoring, which is part of why the Delta response is being watched so closely in Stockton.

Why the county declared an emergency

In its April 28 proclamation, the county said the Delta is central to drinking water, agriculture, economic activity and recreation, and that more than two-thirds of the Delta lies within San Joaquin County. Supervisors directed staff through the Office of Emergency Services to keep working with local, regional, state and federal partners to pursue funding, technical help, mitigation strategies and infrastructure protection resources. The board also said it will review the emergency at least every 60 days.

CBS Sacramento reported that Stockton’s Delta Marine Yacht Center is already seeing the infestation up close as boats move through the region’s waterways. Owner Tony Faso said the business is seeing clearer water and more evidence of mussels on boats and waterfront surfaces, and he is part of a county committee looking for ways to slow the spread and test deterrent technology on agricultural pipes.

What changed at Lake Oroville

On April 29, DWR ended watercraft inspections, decontamination services and seal checks at Lake Oroville and nearby facilities, reopening trailered launching there. KPBS reported on June 12 that the change reflects a new risk analysis and a view that upstream river flows could still carry larvae into the reservoir even if boats are inspected. DWR says it would restart inspections if mussels are detected at Oroville.

For Stockton readers, the bigger story is that the response is widening, not settling down. County leaders are signaling that local resources are not enough on their own, while state agencies are balancing recreation access against long-term protection of reservoirs, Delta operations and water infrastructure. Boaters, marina users and waterfront businesses should expect more pressure to clean, drain and dry equipment — and possibly more restrictions if the infestation spreads.

Sources

• San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors — Local emergency proclamation on golden mussel
• California Department of Water Resources — Invasive mussel mitigation page
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife — Golden mussel species page
• CBS Sacramento — San Joaquin County invasive golden mussels and federal help
• KPBS Public Media / CalMatters — California scales back golden mussel safeguards at vital reservoir