Newsom vetoed a data center water bill last year. Will he sign it this time?

California data centers guzzle billions of gallons of water to cool AI servers — and the public still doesn't know how much. Lawmakers want that to change. An aerial view of the Digital Realty SFO12 Data Center in the Rincon Hill neighborhood of San Francisco, on Dec. 16, 2025. As fights about data centers erupt nationwide, California lawmakers have approved a pair of bills to make data center developers disclose how much water they really use. The bills are a new test of whether California will set limits on an industry that's becoming a flashpoint over water, electricity and the environmental consequences of artificial intelligence. , a Democrat from San Mateo. The bill bars local governments from approving new or expanded data centers unless the developer discloses its water plans and covers the full cost of any new water pipes, treatment or storage for the facility. If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less. The museum, which opens to the public Sept. 22, unites the Star Wars universe with all kinds of illustration and classic art. LAUSD students barred from AI use, in a surprise to school board and parentsvote, approved the measure requiring data center operators to report their estimated or actual water sources and use — under penalty of perjury — when seeking and renewing a business license or permit. Newsom said at the time he was 'reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements … without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology. ''To which I say, the opportunity for leadership has not gone away. If anything, it has been amplified,' Papan told CalMatters. Since Newsom's veto last year, public sentiment has shifted, with bipartisan backlash building against facilities that have become the ganglia of artificial intelligence. 'We currently are seeing a phase of heightened concern because of the rapid evolution of the industry — and the lack of transparency,' said'I think that's where these bills can really make some progress in getting the sides back to the table and conversation,' Stewart-Frey said, 'and also recreate some of this public trust. ' With little oversight and even less state direction, local governments are saying no to data centers, citing concerns about environmental issues, electricity rates, and often, water. A fight over a data center in the city of Gilroy, in Santa Clara County, recently made national news, which Stewart-Frey attributed to growing public awareness and distrust of the secretive industry. 'It's also emblematic of the fact that the data center industry in California has not been releasing actual water use data, right? ' said Stewart-Frey. 'This lack of transparency is also biting them in the back here. ''I don't think we should be eliminating anything without sufficient knowledge about what their needs are, and then how can we meet those needs,' Papan said. 'Help us help you,' she said, to data center developers, 'because if you go into an area that doesn't have sufficient water supply for you, it's not going to work. 'The usual coalitions have lined up. Environmental and community groups back the bills, seeking more transparency over how much water these facilities really use. On the other side are the heavy-hitting and big-spending tech industry and business groups. , a Western government affairs director for the Data Center Coalition, said the trade association is concerned that these bills single out data centers from other Reporting tied to receiving a business license or permit 'should apply to other similar commercial and industrial users, as that would provide context and a holistic view of water demands,' Boender told CalMatters. A few wildcards have also entered the fight. As of mid-August, the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the Rural County Representatives of California opposed Papan's bill requiring developers to disclose water plans and pay for upgrades. In a July letter the groups said the measure — which would bar local governments from approving data centers that fail to disclose required information about their water plans — 'undermines local governments' ability to protect and represent their communities through established permitting mechanisms and community engagement processes. ' Water agencies have mostly stayed quiet, raising only technical issues, with one exception: Santa Clara Valley Water District, a water wholesaler in a data center hotspot, supported both bills. 'Despite local efforts to mitigate the impact of data center water demand, more information on water use could help local water agencies, such as Valley Water, plan for actual needs,' Joshua Golka, head of state government relations for Valley Water, said in a letter to Papan Friday. , director of the Wheeler Water Institute at the UC Berkeley Center for Law, Energy, & the Environment, called Papan's bills 'necessary, but not sufficient. ' He expects that even with more data, small communities with limited resources and staff will still struggle to assess the benefits and risks. The version of AB 2619 that senators approved last week cut an earlier provision requiring California agencies to develop guidance for local governments. Papan said that guidance would have been nice to have, but that there were state costs associated with developing it. An Assembly analysis estimated that developing water-use and emerging technology guidelines would cost $2 million the first year, and $1 million annually after that. 'The main goal has been transparency. Let me give you the data, and let's go from there,' Papan told CalMatters. 'I just didn't want anything to divert from that main goal. ' Kiparsky called for the state to establish a strike team to help small communities analyze the data that would be produced under the legislation. He also thinks the state should post this information in one place so officials and academics can assess the impacts of data centers and the policies regulating them. 'To be really clear, data centers are not bad or good … we use them every day for just about everything we do involving technology,' Kiparsky said. The real question, he said, is whether a given community — and its specific mix of land, water, and energy resources — is the right spot for one. 'You can't answer those questions just with what's required from this bill — you need to have the understanding that comes from experts looking at it,' Kiparsky said. 'The state, in my opinion, can and should provide that. 'eliminating a critical $1.7 million from our budget every year going forward. But they couldn't silence us, and we're not going anywhere. LAist is now 100% community funded and that means we're taking our future into our own hands and turning to you to keep local reporting strong. You come to LAist because you want independent reporting and trustworthy local information. Our nonprofit newsroom doesn't answer to shareholders looking to turn a profit. Instead,We are free to follow facts wherever they lead and to hold power to account without fear or favor. Our only loyalty is to our readers and listeners and our mission: to inform, engage, and strengthen Southern California's communities. Later school start time