“Surely, we need data centres, as this is the engine of the future economy? So, we want this future.” – Alan Winde, the premier of the Western Cape.
If you have sent a text, searched for something online or stored photographs on the cloud, you have used a data centre. The facilities have become the invisible infrastructure behind much of modern life. But as governments compete to attract them, we should ask a more fundamental question: What does the pursuit of the digital economy cost communities that are struggling for water?
Consider Querétaro, Mexico.
The region has a long history of water scarcity, with droughts recorded as far back as 1785. In recent years, it has endured severe drought. In the village of Cilliat Tera, the Solidaridad reservoir has been steadily disappearing. Families have received water only one day a week, while bottled water has become increasingly expensive.
Yet alongside communities struggling to secure enough water, data-centre development continues.
Querétaro has become an important destination for data-centre investment, with companies such as Equinix establishing facilities in the region. The contrast is difficult to ignore: communities are being asked to live with water scarcity while an industry with significant water requirements continues to expand.
This is not simply a Mexican problem. It is a warning for Cape Town.
Data centres require enormous amounts of energy but they also generate enormous amounts of heat. Cooling systems are therefore essential to their operation and some cooling technologies require substantial quantities of water. The problem is that the public often has limited information about exactly how much water individual facilities consume.
Research from the University of California, Riverside has estimated that between 20 and 50 questions posed to an AI chatbot can consume approximately 500ml of water, depending on where and how the system is operated. That may sound insignificant until multiplied across millions of users and increasingly powerful AI systems.
The issue is therefore not the single question asked of an AI system. It is the scale of the infrastructure required to support an increasingly data-dependent economy.
Mexico's ambitions to establish Querétaro as a major data-centre hub should cause us to pause. The Western Cape is pursuing a similar vision. Premier Alan Winde has described data centres as an “engine of the future economy”. But what kind of future are we building if economic growth comes at the expense of one of our most basic necessities?
Cape Town should know better.
In 2018, the city came dangerously close to Day Zero, when dam levels fell below 25% and residents were forced to confront the possibility that municipal water supplies could run out. That crisis demonstrated just how vulnerable Cape Town is to prolonged drought and water scarcity. We cannot simply assume that the next crisis will not come.
The government should therefore not allow data centres with an unquenchable thirst to place further pressure on Cape Town's vulnerable water resources.
This is not merely an environmental concern. It is a constitutional and legal one.
Section 24 of the Constitution requires the state to protect the environment for the benefit of present and future generations and to secure ecologically sustainable development while promoting justifiable economic and social development. Section 27 recognises everyone's right to have access to sufficient food and water.
The National Water Act reinforces the principles by requiring South Africa's water resources to be managed with consideration for the basic human needs of present and future generations, equitable access to water and the sustainable and beneficial use of water in the public interest.
Economic investment cannot therefore be viewed in isolation from the resources upon which communities depend.
Odata Delta Cube has stated that new, water-efficient technology will be used to reduce water consumption. But where is the data demonstrating how much water the technologies will save?
Assurances are not enough.
If government is prepared to approve major data-centre developments in a water-stressed city, the public deserves transparency about their projected water consumption, the source of that water, their peak demand and the effectiveness of their proposed water-saving measures.
And this is where I disagree with the idea that Cape Town should become a major data-centre hub.
We should not be treating water as an input into an investment strategy when communities depend on that same water for their homes, food, health and livelihoods.
Data centres are often located in areas where water stress exists. Across the United States, a significant proportion of data centres are located in areas experiencing high levels of water stress. Cape Town itself remains vulnerable to water scarcity, particularly as climate change increases the likelihood of drought and unpredictable rainfall.
Why should we deliberately invite an industry with significant water and energy demands into such an environment?
The answer cannot simply be jobs. It cannot simply be investment. And it cannot simply be that this is “the future”.
Not every investment is an investment worth making.
There are limits to economic development, particularly when development places pressure on resources that people cannot live without. Water is not a luxury and it is not a commodity that should be sacrificed for the promise of technological growth.
Prioritising investment over people is cruel.
Cape Town does not need to become the next global data-centre hub. It needs to become a city that protects its water resources, prepares for climate uncertainty and places the basic needs of its people before the demands of an industry that can locate elsewhere.
Water is an artery of life.
And if the Western Cape is preparing for four new data centres, the question government must answer is simple: Why should Cape Town sacrifice its water security to build someone else's digital future?
Sõzarn Barday is a lawyer who writes on human rights, international law and political developments. The views expressed are her own.