Summary

  • Governor Greg Abbott's 14 September directive asks TWDB to pursue past and future water-reporting failures, including referrals to prosecutors and notification to TCEQ about possible permit disqualification.
  • This is a separate compliance track from the earlier ERCOT connection audit. It is not a finding that a named operator broke the law, a water-use cap or an order to close existing data centres.

A data-centre developer can have a cooling design and still lack the record an authority needs. Texas's latest intervention makes that distinction commercially consequential: an unanswered or incomplete water-use survey can become an approval issue, not merely a gap in the state's statistics.

On 14 September, Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to use its existing powers over reporting failures by major water users, including data centres. His signed letter covers past as well as future noncompliance. It also instructs TWDB to work with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) on the data-centre audit already ordered in August.

The new element is not another estimate of how much electricity the project queue might consume. It is a named enforcement route for missing water information.

A referral is not a verdict

The letter cites Texas Water Code section 16.012(m), under which recipients must complete and return TWDB's survey. It describes criminal consequences for failure to return a completed survey and ineligibility for permits, amendments or renewals issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) under Chapter 11 after failure to respond on time.

Abbott directs TWDB to refer violations to the appropriate county or district attorney and notify TCEQ of possible permit disqualification. These are distinct institutional steps. A direction to make referrals is not a prosecution, conviction or published penalty.

The governor says major users “appear” to have violated reporting requirements. Neither the release nor the letter identifies an offending facility, a fine or a completed case. They also do not establish that a particular data centre used too much water or took it unlawfully. Reporting failure and excessive consumption are different claims.

The permit reference has a boundary, too: Chapter 11. It should not be expanded into automatic loss of every construction or environmental approval. The letter does not order existing permits revoked or operating sites disconnected. A developer's exposure depends on the relevant application and the authority's determination, not simply on the label “data centre”.

Sending a form is not the same as completing it

TWDB's current guidance makes the documentary problem more precise. Every entity receiving the Water Use Survey must respond; its industrial survey categories expressly include data centres. Reporting withdrawals to another authority, local district or water wholesaler does not replace the TWDB return. The agency needs a statewide account covering different water sources for planning.

The guidance also distinguishes receipt from completeness. Unexplained blanks can leave a survey administratively incomplete. Until missing information is supplied, TWDB says it is not complete for its financial-assistance and water-right application requirements. Where a question does not apply or information is unavailable because of billing limitations, the guidance directs respondents to contact survey staff.

That is why a low-water cooling description cannot stand in for a reporting record. The relevant evidence is what was requested, what was returned and whether the authority considers it complete. The public materials do not provide a new common template merging the annual survey with the grid audit.

TWDB's guidance permits late returns and revisions, including paper or PDF submissions after the online window closes. That is evidence that incomplete and corrected records are different states. It is not a promise that a late correction eliminates past liability or guarantees a permit. Those outcomes cannot be inferred from the existence of a submission channel.

The older grid audit remains a separate track

The 3 August directive already required projects advancing through ERCOT's connection process to provide water-consumption forecasts, supply sources and cooling information, alongside other project details. The September letter reiterates that a project failing to complete the audit must be denied interconnection and says nonresponse to its water-information request would trigger TWDB's independent enforcement authority.

One record concerns a water user's return; the other tests a proposed project's information before connection. The figures and periods need to be intelligible across both, but they are not interchangeable obligations.

The next dated checkpoint is 14 October: TWDB's initial progress update to the governor. It is not a newly announced universal filing deadline for data centres, nor the promised completion date of the audit.

Sources