Luke Barratt                REPRINTED FROM THE GUARDIAN 

Amazon strategised about keeping the public in the dark over the true extent of its datacentres’ water use, a leaked internal document reveals.

The biggest owner of datacentres in the world, Amazon dwarfs competitors Microsoft and Google and is planning a huge increase in capacity as part of a push into artificial intelligence. The Seattle firm operates hundreds of active facilities, with many more in development despite concerns over how much water is being used to cool their vast arrays of circuitry.

Amazon defends its approach and has taken steps to manage how efficient its water use is, but it has faced criticism over transparency. Microsoft and Google regularly publish figures for their water consumption, but Amazon has never publicly disclosed how much water its server farms consume.

When designing a campaign for water efficiency, the company’s cloud computing division chose to account for only a smaller water usage figure that does not include all the ways its datacentres use water so as to minimise the risk to its reputation, according to a leaked memo seen by SourceMaterial and the Guardian.

Amazon as a whole consumed 105bn gallons of water in total in 2021, as much as 958,000 US households, which would make for a city bigger than San Francisco, according to the memo.

Asked about the leaked document, Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan described it as “obsolete” and said it “completely misrepresents Amazon’s current water usage strategy”.

“A document’s existence doesn’t guarantee its accuracy or finality,” she said. “Meetings often reshape documents or reveal flawed findings or claims.” Callahan would not elaborate on which strategic elements of the document were “obsolete”.

The memo was dated one month before Amazon Web Services (AWS), the company’s cloud computing division, debuted a new sustainability campaign in November 2022 called “Water Positive”, with a commitment to “return more water than it uses” by 2030.

In the memo, ahead of the campaign’s launch, executives grappled with whether to include public disclosures about “secondary” use – water used in generating the electricity to power its datacentres.

They warned that full transparency was “a one-way door” and advised keeping AWS’s projections confidential, even as they feared that their advice could invite accusations of a cover-up. “Amazon hides its water consumption” was one negative headline the authors anticipated.

Callaghan said efficiency savings have already been achieved and pointed out that other companies also don’t count secondary water use.

Executives opted to use only the relatively smaller figure of primary use, 7.7bn gallons per year, roughly equivalent to 11,600 Olympic swimming pools, when calculating progress towards internal targets because of “reputational risk”, fearing bad publicity if the full scale of Amazon’s consumption was revealed, the document shows. Ultimately as part of the campaign for water efficiency, Amazon aimed to cut its estimated 7.7bn gallon primary consumption to 4.9bn by 2030 – without addressing secondary use.

Using the higher of two water usage estimates, the one that would include secondary use, “would double the size and budget” of the campaign “without addressing meaningful operational, regulatory or reputational risks”, they warned, adding that there was “no focus from customers or media” on water used for electricity.

“We may decide to release water volumes in the future,” the document said. “But … we should only do so if the lack of data undermines the programme or is required by regulators.”

Scientists balked at the selective disclosure and the choice not to include secondary use of water in the total.

“In environmental science, it is standard practice to include both to more accurately capture the true water cost of datacentres,” said Shaolei Ren, associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of California, Riverside.

Amazon’s Water Positive campaign is still active and does not take into account secondary use, while the company continues to keep its current overall water consumption confidential.

As US tech companies ride the wave of AI investment and pursue greater heights of computational power, the $2.4tn corporation is building new datacentres in some of the world’s driest areas, SourceMaterial and the Guardian revealed in April.

In November 2022, AWS debuted its new Water Positive sustainability campaign, with a commitment to “return more water than it uses by 2030”. The campaign only applies to AWS. The wider Amazon group, including the world’s biggest online retail business, has an overall water consumption that is far higher, 105bn gallons per year.

“The models referenced in this document were preliminary and unvetted,” said Amazon’s Callahan, who declined to provide any alternative figures.

The document’s authors advised the company not to release data about the wider company, but they also warned that selective disclosure could lead to accusations of a cover-up. There was “reputational risk of publicly committing to a goal for only a portion of Amazon’s direct water footprint”, they wrote. They even suggested negative headlines that might result including “Amazon disappoints, failing to take full responsibility for water”.

“It would be better if they could own up to it,” said a current Amazon software developer, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. “Even if they said it was a low priority, at least that would be honest.”

In a sustainability report in August, AWS claimed it had achieved 53% of its Water Positive goal. The division’s plan for reaching the target relies mostly on “water replenishment” projects, some in partnership with Water.org, a non-profit organisation co-founded by actor Matt Damon. The strategy document refers to these projects as “offsets”, describing initiatives like using Amazon computer technology to help utilities prioritise which pipes to fix in order to minimise leaks.

A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you ontheguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

But of the $109m AWS planned to spend on offsets, around half would have been spent anyway, either to meet regulatory requirements or because the projects would help AWS operations by making water more available, the document shows. Experts said this amounted to incomplete accounting.

“Regardless of what sort of offsetting or replenishment you do, it doesn’t necessarily nullify the water footprints of your own operations,” said Tyler Farrow, standards manager at the Alliance for Water Stewardship. “Calling your operations water positive or water neutral is misleading.”

Amazon’s Callahan said that the “replenishment spending”, which other tech companies also undertake, is a voluntary, not a regulatory, requirement.

“We’ve expanded well beyond what was imagined in the document because it’s the right thing to do for the world and for the communities in which we operate,” she said.

Amazon is also engineering industry standards to downplay its water use and avert scrutiny, said Nathan Wangusi, a former water sustainability manager at the company.

The corporation has funded efforts by the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute non-profits, alongside LimnoTech, a consultancy, “to create a globally accepted methodology for quantifying the benefit of watershed restoration projects”.

Responding to questions from SourceMaterial, all three organisations defended their integrity and independence, insisting that Amazon had no undue influence on any methodologies they had created.

“They spend a lot of time creating methodologies that are used to obfuscate the water footprint,” Wangusi said, referring to Amazon.

Callahan said Wangusi’s claim was “contradicted by facts”. “Amazon’s water use reporting is based on third-party assured data from actual utility bills, not estimates or self-reporting,” she said. Wangusi’s claim, though, was not about Amazon’s water-use reporting, but about measuring the effects of water offsets.

Callahan said these efforts were “standard practice” and that Amazon’s “customers expect us to hold ourselves accountable to credible guidance and best practices”.

As well as choosing not to disclose water use from electricity generation, Amazon has estimated its larger “indirect” water footprint, the document shows. This extra usage, which falls under a classification known as “scope 3”, includes water for production and construction – in Amazon’s case, mostly irrigation of cotton plantations supplying its fashion brands, and vegetables for its grocery arm, Amazon Fresh.

Here, too, Amazon decided to keep its consumption confidential, even though “indirect water use represents roughly 90% of Amazon’s total water footprint”, according to the document.

AWS avoided establishing targets for indirect water use because that figure would be “much more significant for the rest of Amazon, especially in the agricultural supply chain, and the team does not want to establish a standard for addressing scope 3 water use that the rest of Amazon would need to follow, given the larger resource implications”, the authors wrote.

“You don’t need to obscure or obfuscate,” said Wangusi, who believes he was “hounded out” of Amazon for criticising the company’s approach. (Amazon declined to comment on his departure.)

“It doesn’t make you more profitable,” he said. “It makes you less trustworthy.”

====================================================================

Progress on Community Protection and Benefit Agreement for Hermosa Project

Santa Cruz County, AZ, October 22, 2025 - Representatives from Santa Cruz County, Nogales, Patagonia, and South32 are continuing to work together to develop a Community Protection and Benefit Agreement (CPBA) for the Hermosa project. Through regular working sessions, the group is focused on creating an agreement that facilitates transparency between South32 and the communities, ensures that the project protects the local communities and environment and provides for financial benefits of the mine to be dispersed to the communities. The agreement also looks to ensure the mine is developed, operated, and closed with sustainable protections and benefits for the community.

The signatories are considering supplemental protections in a number of key areas in the CPBA, including but not limited to groundwater, air quality, biodiversity, soil and public health.  

The signatories are considering the following in the CPBA

• Governance
• Protections, including monitoring and mitigations
• Benefits
• Data and third-party input
• Community feedback mechanisms
• Dispute resolution
• Evolving changes and updates to community needs

The CPBA is designed to complement—rather than duplicate —existing regulatory requirements.

Progress since our last press release (May 2025) includes:

• Completion of a Community Needs and Capacity Study by the University of Arizona (U of A) to guide CPBA priorities. This study included an assessment of current assets, infrastructure, service capacity, and existing gaps at both the county and community levels. It provided recommendations on short-term needs that warrant more immediate investment considerations to guide decisions on which benefits should be prioritized under the CPBA.
• Formation of an Engagement Team, with representation from each of the four signatories, to develop and lead an Engagement Strategy. This included updates to the CPBA website and FAQ page available at: https://cpba-hermosa.org/. The purpose of the Engagement Strategy is to guide the signatories and their representative Engagement Team to plan and execute opportunities for sharing and obtaining feedback on the CPBA development process and contents. 
• Ongoing community engagement, including the launch of Topic-Specific Feedback Groups in late September / early October to review and provide recommendations on the draft early action benefits.
• Drafting of prioritized “early action” benefits to be funded – based on signatory input, findings from the U of A Capacity Study, and community feedback and focus groups. Specifically, the Capacity Study identifies early action, needs-based benefits in the following key areas:
  • Education - Support and resources that ensure accessible, high-quality care and early education for children.
  • Emergency Management - Actions and programs that strengthen response times, decrease fragmentation of systems, and improve or replace outdated equipment.
• Health Care - Initiatives that improve limited access to health services. The development of commitments for enhancing local employment and workforce development, as well as local business development.
• The adoption of a phased approach to the CPBA. This allows for the initiation of certain actions (benefits) that will help address immediate and significant needs in the region while the current Federal permitting processes are underway. Phase 1 also commits all parties to continue developing additional protections and benefits through further planning, discussion among signatories, and incorporation of community feedback. At the conclusion of Federal Permitting, supplemental environmental protections can be identified and included in Phase 2.
• Appointment of independent technical environmental experts, Spheros Environmental (https://spherosenvironmental.com/), to assist with the definition of Phase 1 protections and help develop a protections roadmap. This roadmap will be a step plan and timeline for developing commitments for monitoring requirements and other protections needed for definition in Phase 2.
• A draft of the Phase 1 agreement is now under review by attorneys from all four signatories.

We are preparing for broader public engagement, which will be announced via additional press releases and updates on the CPBA website: https://cpba-hermosa.org/.

The CPBA group is working toward finalizing and signing a Phase 1 CPBA following these engagement opportunities.

Residents of the County are encouraged to visit the CPBA website to take the survey or leave a comment. The survey asks which Hermosa project protection and benefit topics people feel should be explored, and what types of engagement (e.g. public notices, listening sessions, focus groups) they prefer. Your input will help CPBA group representatives ensure community feedback is fully considered in further development of the agreement.

###

====================================================================

The Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is a vital framework designed to reduce wildfire risks within Santa Cruz County. Established under the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the CWPP encourages communities to develop comprehensive plans that facilitate state and federal funding for fuel reduction and fire mitigation projects. The primary goal is to foster collaboration among local and state agencies, residents, and stakeholders to implement effective wildfire prevention strategies. 

Santa Cruz County Emergency Management is leading this effort under a grant from the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management, funded by the United States Department of Agriculture.

For get on the email list for updates send your name and email address to
Dave Richins - with this note:

Please ad me to the email list - name and city
dave@southwestpolicyadvocates.com 

Facebook page :SEARCH  -Santa Cruz AZ wildfire planning-

====================================================================

Nogales, AZ - The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is reaffirming its unwavering commitment to election integrity and voter privacy following a multi-year legal effort to protect sensitive voting data from public disclosure.

In 2022, the County received a Public Records Request from Audit USA, a nonprofit group led by John Brakey, seeking access to Cast Vote Records (CVRs)—digital data derived from ballots cast on Election Day. Concerned that releasing CVRs could compromise voter anonymity, especially in a small county like Santa Cruz, the Board sought legal guidance by filing a Declaratory Judgment action in Pima County Superior Court (Case No. C20223426).

The County’s position is rooted in the Arizona Constitution, which guarantees a voter’s right to cast a ballot free from identification, harassment, or retribution. With the rise of advanced digital tools and artificial intelligence, the risk of linking CVRs to individual voters has grown significantly.

While the County initially denied the Public Record Request for CVR’s, the County pursued a legal ruling to clarify whether CVRs must be disclosed under public records law in hopes of resolving the issue with an early decision by a court and avoid potential significant penalties from other litigation. The Superior Court dismissed the case on technical grounds, and the Court of Appeals later upheld the dismissal, citing a lack of legal controversy.

Despite these procedural outcomes, both courts acknowledged the County’s good faith efforts to seek clarity on a complex and evolving legal matter.

More recently, in Maricopa County, a Superior Court ruling in Hudson v. Heap (CV2025-000118) affirmed that CVRs are protected under Arizona election law. The Court of Appeals also referenced a 2023 case in which Audit USA was denied access to digital ballot copies, reinforcing the legal precedent.  (AUDIT-USA v. Maricopa County, 254 Ariz. 536, ¶ 7 )

Still, Audit USA continues to pursue CVR access through public and media channels. The Board notes with concern that misinformation has been circulated in the press, further complicating public understanding of the issue.

Board of Supervisors’ Position

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors believes that voter privacy is a constitutional right that must be protected. The Board maintains that CVRs, particularly in small counties, pose a real and growing risk of voter identification due to the increasing sophistication of digital tools and artificial intelligence. Based on current case law, including the recent ruling in Hudson v. Heap, the County will continue to deny all requests for CVRs. While the Board supports transparency in government, it does not believe that transparency should come at the expense of voter anonymity. The Board remains committed to defending the right of every voter to cast a ballot freely and privately, in accordance with the principles of the Arizona Constitution and the democratic values on which the County and the nation were founded.

###

====================================================================

Nogales, AZ - Actions initiated by a previous Board of Supervisors have concluded with the court-appointed receiver transferring the Lochiel chapel and cemetery property to the De La Ossa Family Foundation. The current Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors has formally accepted the completion of this process.