AB 93 makes data center water use a regulated input to local licensing in California. The bill requires owners or operators to give their water supplier an estimate of expected water consumption before seeking an initial city or county business license and to certify on license applications and renewals that they have provided those estimates or an annual water‑use report.
The measure also directs the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to consider categorizing data centers into tiers and recommending appropriate efficiency standards for each tier.
This is a compliance shift for the sector: operators face new pre‑licensing and renewal paperwork that the bill ties to criminal penalties for false statements, while water suppliers and DWR gain clearer statutory authority to gather, analyze, and potentially regulate water use by the industry. The language treats data‑center water use as a statewide concern and applies to all cities, including charter cities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires data center owners or operators to deliver an estimated water‑use figure to their water supplier before applying for an initial city or county business license, and to attest on initial and renewal license applications that they have provided either that estimate or an annual water‑use report. Separately, DWR may adopt tiered efficiency standards for data centers as part of its existing rulemaking on urban water use.
Who It Affects
Facilities that meet the bill’s technical definition of data center (see statute) — plus urban water suppliers and community water systems defined by existing code — as well as city and county business licensing offices that process certifications and renewals. Operators who make inaccurate submissions risk criminal exposure under perjury law.
Why It Matters
The measure creates a statutory channel for water suppliers and DWR to collect facility‑level water information that can influence conservation planning and standards. For operators and local regulators, it imports water resource management into the licensing process and raises questions about confidentiality, enforcement, and operational impacts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 93 defines a "data center" by its equipment load and conditioned floor‑area intensity, and then ties water‑use reporting to local business licensing. Before a data center applies for an initial business license in a city or county, the operator must give its water supplier an estimate of expected water use, submitted under penalty of perjury.
The bill also requires operators to certify on initial license applications that the estimate has been provided, and to certify on renewal applications that the water supplier received the data center’s annual water‑use report.
The bill reuses existing statutory definitions to identify who counts as a "water supplier" — an urban water supplier under Water Code Section 10617 or a community water system under Health and Safety Code Section 116275 — so the reporting obligation plugs into current supplier responsibilities and data channels. At the state level, the Department of Water Resources may — but is not required to — create different tiers of data centers when it adopts efficiency standards under the state’s urban water planning rules, allowing DWR to recommend different expectations for facilities of differing scale or technology.The Legislature explicitly characterizes data‑center water reporting as a matter of statewide concern, which brings the rules to all California cities, including charter cities.
The statutory text attaches the phrase "under penalty of perjury" to the estimate and self‑certification requirements, meaning that false statements could expose a signer to criminal penalties under California perjury law. The bill does not appropriate funding for enforcement, and it states that no reimbursement to local agencies is required under the state constitution because the added costs fall within an exemption tied to changes in criminal definitions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute defines a data center as a space primarily housing IT equipment with a total IT equipment load above 10 kilowatts and at least 20 watts per square foot of conditioned floor area.
Before submitting an initial city or county business license application, a data center operator must send its water supplier an estimate of expected water use and sign that estimate under penalty of perjury.
Applicants must self‑certify on initial license forms that they provided the water‑use estimate, and on renewal forms that they provided the water supplier a report of the facility’s annual water use.
The bill identifies a water supplier as either an "urban water supplier" (Water Code Section 10617) or a "community water system" (Health & Safety Code Section 116275).
As part of adopting efficiency standards under state urban water law, the Department of Water Resources may establish different data center tiers based on factors affecting water consumption and set appropriate standards for each tier.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative intent and scope for data center water efficiency
This section states the Legislature’s intent that data centers be treated as commercial/industrial water users under California’s urban water conservation framework and directs DWR to examine efficiency measures. Practically, it signals policy alignment between water planning and the data center sector and invites DWR to balance operational reliability with conservation when it develops any guidance or standards.
City‑level pre‑license reporting and definition
Section 16000.4 sets the city‑side compliance steps: it provides the operative definition of "data center," defines "water supplier" by reference to existing statutes, requires an estimate to the water supplier prior to applying for an initial city business license, and requires self‑certification on initial and renewal city license applications. The practical implication is that municipal licensing officers will receive applications with an attached criminal‑penalty certification and must rely on operators and suppliers to exchange the underlying estimate or usage report.
County‑level mirror of city reporting requirements
Section 16100.4 mirrors the city provisions for county licensing processes, using the same definitions and timing. By duplicating the mechanism for both cities and counties, the bill standardizes reporting duties across local licensing authorities, reducing the potential for jurisdictional gaps but also imposing the same administrative and legal consequences statewide.
DWR authority to tier data centers in efficiency rules
This new Water Code provision gives DWR discretion to identify tiers of data centers when it adopts efficiency standards under the state’s urban water planning statutes. The section does not mandate tiering or set any technical criteria itself; instead, it authorizes DWR to consider facility‑scale, technology, cooling method, or other factors that affect water consumption and to tailor standards accordingly.
Statewide applicability — charter cities included
The Legislature explicitly declares that the reporting and certification provisions are a matter of statewide concern, making Sections 2 and 3 applicable to all cities, including charter cities. That statement closes a common legal question in California law about whether statewide statutes preempt charter city autonomy in municipal affairs.
Fiscal and criminal‑law framing
This section explains that no state reimbursement is required because the act creates or changes a crime or infraction (by expanding the circumstances where false certifications could constitute perjury). It therefore frames the new certification language as carrying criminal law implications rather than as a simple administrative requirement, with potential fiscal and legal consequences for local agencies and applicants.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Urban water suppliers and community water systems — they receive facility‑level estimates and annual reports that improve planning, allocation decisions, and drought response for areas hosting data centers.
- Department of Water Resources — gains explicit statutory authority to develop tiered, tailored efficiency expectations for data centers, enhancing its ability to integrate the sector into statewide conservation strategies.
- Local planning and permitting offices — obtain earlier visibility into anticipated water demand for new data centers, helping coordinate infrastructure, entitlement, and environmental review requirements.
- Statewide water planning and conservation advocates — benefit from better data and a legal pathway to apply differentiated efficiency measures to a rapidly growing, water‑intensive sector.
Who Bears the Cost
- Data center owners and operators — must prepare and submit water‑use estimates and annual reports, update application processes, and face criminal exposure for inaccurate certifications, raising legal and compliance costs.
- Smaller or specialty facilities near but below the thresholds — may face compliance uncertainty or administrative burdens if their configurations change and push them over the defined limits.
- City and county licensing departments — must process new certifications and may need to verify compliance or respond to disputes without allocated state funding, increasing administrative load.
- Water suppliers — must accept, store, and potentially analyze additional facility‑level data, which creates operational workload and potential confidentiality obligations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between the state’s legitimate need for consistent, facility‑level water information to manage scarce resources and the risk that criminalizing misstatements and requiring potentially sensitive disclosures will deter investment, create legal exposure for routine estimation errors, and strain local and supplier administrative capacity without clear funding or confidentiality safeguards.
The bill attaches "under penalty of perjury" language to estimates and certifications, which brings criminal law into what is otherwise an administrative reporting regime. That raises compliance risk: honest estimation errors, unit conversions, or disputes about measurement methodology could expose a signer to significant legal jeopardy without clear guidance on acceptable estimation practices or an administrative cure process.
The statute sets an equipment‑load and watts‑per‑square‑foot threshold but does not provide measurement protocols or guidance on cooling system water accounting, nor does it guarantee confidentiality protections for potentially sensitive facility‑level water data. DWR’s authority to tier facilities is discretionary — it "may" identify tiers — creating regulatory uncertainty for operators who want to predict whether they will face differential standards.
Finally, the bill does not appropriate funds to local agencies for processing or enforcement, nor does it outline penalties for failing to deliver an estimate aside from the perjury language, leaving open questions about practical enforcement and the administrative burden on suppliers and licensing bodies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.