Water supply & consumptive use
How much water the project consumes, against the receiving water's own cited low flows.
- a metered, contracted or permit-grounded water quantity — the cooling method is disclosed here, but no quantity is.
A real impact study states how much water Urbana Technology Hub consumes at buildout. It sets that figure against the the receiving water's own cited design low flows, which are the drought floors a permit writer screens every discharge against. This chapter reports as much of that comparison as the record supports. It names what it cannot compute.
Cooling methodclosed-loop dry / air-cooled (“closed loop”) [reference] an operator claim — a claim is not an instrument
Claim vs record · the cooling-cycling reconciliation
Urbana Technology Hub claims closed-loop dry / air-cooled (“closed loop”) [reference] Out of instrument reach pin kept: closed-loop dry / air-cooled (“closed loop”)
The closed_loop_dry claim for Urbana Technology Hub (source=reference) cannot be tested by this harness at all — the facility is outside the reach of the instruments it reads on makeup (purchased municipal supply — outside the A1 withdrawal registry); blowdown (to a POTW sanitary sewer — outside the A2 NPDES/DMR record). Their ~0 is an absence of jurisdiction, NOT a documented ~0, so it can neither corroborate nor contradict the claim and must never upgrade the source. The supplying system's own withdrawal IS on record (1.7623 MGD) — that is the scale the campus's draw will sit inside, not a measurement of the campus. The record that would answer it is City-held — metered water-service consumption + the industrial pretreatment / IU permit (→ C2 records request #1688). Neither corroborator is on record for Urbana Technology Hub (air permit + Tier II) — both are C2 records-request items, not read as confirming the claim.
Instrument reach[verified] Both sides of the Urbana Technology Hub's water account are outside the instruments this harness reads, on the CITY'S OWN legislative record. MAKEUP: Ordinance 4612-24 (passed 5-0, 2024-12-17) authorized a Pre-Annexation Agreement with Urbana0624C, LLC — which the City's own public notice identifies as 'Highland' — under which the City must 'provide water and sewer' to the property, and whose section 3(c) makes the failure to make 'water and sewer capacity ... available to satisfy the Developer's schedule' a trigger for de-annexing the entire property on demand; the companion statement-of-services ordinance 4613-24 (R.C. 709.023) passed 5-0 the same night, and the territory was annexed by Ord. 4619-25. A campus supplied by the City withdraws nothing itself, and the Ohio DNR WWFRP registers withdrawals FROM WATERS OF THE STATE (R.C. 1521.16) — so A1 can never meter it. The registry bears that out as a SEARCHED absence: none of the 31 WWFRP registrations in Champaign County is the campus, Thor Equities, Highland55, or Urbana Owner (data/reference/ohio-water-withdrawal/champaign.yaml). DISCHARGE: the same City duty routes wastewater to the City of Urbana Water Reclamation Facility (NPDES OH0027880 / Ohio EPA 1PD00011, 4.5 MGD design, outfall 001 to the Mad River), so the campus has no outfall of its own and files no DMR — ECHO's 21-facility Champaign County CWA inventory carries no permit at the SR-55/US-68 site. What WOULD record a cooling discharge is the City's OEPA-audited industrial pretreatment program (an IU permit; the program's own 2025-09-09 Pretreatment Compliance Inspection and 2025-10-07 pretreatment SNC Notice of Violation are in corpus at data/documents/oepa/urbana/), and ECHO never carries those. NB the campus is also NOT BUILT — its Feb-2026 site plan was denied as 'incomplete', a 12-month emergency moratorium (Res. 2727-26) is in force, and the zoning is in federal litigation (Thor v. City of Urbana, S.D. Ohio 3:26-cv-00196) — so what the request seeks is the service and capacity record that exists now (will-serve, capacity analysis, IU pre-application), not a historical meter. Sources: data/documents/urbana/council/2024-11-19_regular_meeting_packet.pdf (Ord. 4612-24 Exh. A); data/extracted/urbana/incentive-instruments.yaml.
The records that would test it [open]
- metered municipal water-service consumption for the campus (the meter that records the makeup the withdrawal registry cannot see)
- industrial pretreatment / indirect-discharge (IU) permit + its reported flow
- sewer-use agreement / capacity reservation for the campus
- water-service agreement or will-serve letter (the contracted supply the campus draws on)
- the water system's capacity / supply-adequacy analysis for the campus — what draw the supplier planned for (the figure the operator's claim never states)
- facility air permit (PTI/PTIO) — cooling-tower emission-unit list + PM drift limits
- Tier II / EPCRA-312 chemical inventory — cooling-water treatment (biocide, scale / corrosion inhibitor)
Holder: City of Urbana — Water Division (205 S Main St; the metered water-service consumption and any will-serve / capacity analysis for the campus) and the City's Industrial Pretreatment Program coordinator at the Water Reclamation Facility (the IU permit + sewer-use agreement that would carry cooling blowdown; the program is OEPA-audited annually); Ohio EPA (INDIVIDUAL NPDES — OHD000001 withdrawn 2026-07-21, no general permit to seek); Ohio EPA / regional air agency (DAPC); SERC / LEPC
Corroborators · secondary, never the outcome air permit · silent · Tier II chemistry · silentNeither corroborator is on record for Urbana Technology Hub (air permit + Tier II) — both are C2 records-request items, not read as confirming the claim.
[reference] Closed-loop cooling disclosed at the Feb-2026 City of Urbana meeting — developer stated water use 'comparable to a standard office building' (Urbana Daily Citizen 2026-02-18). Undercuts the buried-valley water-abstraction thesis. Not a document extraction; refine to [verified] on an ingested mechanical/plumbing permit. B4 (#1684) reviewed it against the record and the pin is KEPT unchanged, because neither instrument the reconciliation harness reads can reach this campus: the City's own Pre-Annexation Agreement (Ord. 4612-24) obliges it to 'provide water and sewer', so the campus buys City water (invisible to the Ohio DNR withdrawal registry — it is absent from all 31 Champaign County registrations) and discharges to the City WPCF's sewer (no NPDES outfall, so no DMR). Outcome route_blind, NOT 'confirmed dry'. The claim also states no figure at all, and its two readings are three orders of magnitude apart: an evaporative read at this facility's own screening IT-load bracket implies 0.49-1.64 MGD against the City's entire reported 1.76 MGD municipal withdrawal (2024). See data/reference/oepa/cooling-reconciliation.yaml + data/extracted/urbana/cooling-water-account.md.
- The harness recommends; it never mutates the pinned cooling model — re-archetyping is a reviewed edit with the instrument cited.
- A back-solved cycles-of-concentration is an [inference] bracket, never a headline scalar.
- A gap (no documented makeup or blowdown) is an [open] records-request lead — never read as 'confirmed dry'.
- A reservation ceiling (a will-serve / water-agreement figure) is not a discharge/withdrawal instrument — it keeps the archetype pin and is never collapsed into a headline consumptive figure.
- A reservation conflict survives a blind route: a negotiated ceiling is not something the withdrawal or discharge instruments could ever have metered, so blinding them cannot erase it — and where the operator's own figure conflicts with that reservation, the two are separated by provenance and not by size, with the conflict reported rather than resolved.
- An operator self-report lands on its own disclosed_* slot, never on documented_*, and cannot upgrade the claim's source.
- An instrument that cannot reach a facility returns an absence of jurisdiction, not a measurement — a municipally-supplied, sewer-discharging campus reads ~0 in the withdrawal registry and the discharge record by construction, and that ~0 never corroborates a claim.
- A documented withdrawal that is not the cooling account (construction-phase water) is kept on its own slot, and a prediction the harness could not derive is shown as refused, never as zero.
- Where the facility is invisible to the withdrawal registry but its municipal supplier is not, the system's reported withdrawal is the supplier's account — a total across every customer, carried as the denominator the claim has to be read against, never as the facility's own water.
- The corroborators (air-permit PM, Tier II chemistry) are secondary — recorded and reconciled against the claim, never the sole basis for a re-archetype and never changing the outcome.
data/reference/oepa/cooling-reconciliation.yaml — regenerate: watermark cooling-reconcile --write · reconciled as of 2026-07-21
No water-balance scenario exists for this site — the panels below name the records that would let this chapter compute one. The hydrology annex holds whatever partial record exists.
The reconciliation above is this site’s water story in miniature — and the rare case where
the operator’s claim undercuts the water-abstraction thesis instead of feeding it. A
closed-loop disclosure made at a city meeting gets no special treatment for being
convenient to either side: it is an operator’s own characterization, held at the
[reference] register until an instrument can test it, and the predicted near-zero draw
it implies stays a screening figure, not a finding.
Two things make this particular claim harder to test than the others in the network. It states no quantity at all — “comparable to a standard office building” is a comparison, and its two readings are three orders of magnitude apart. And the instruments that would settle it cannot reach this campus: the City’s own pre-annexation agreement obliges it to provide water and sewer, so the campus buys City water and discharges to the City sewer, where neither the state withdrawal registry nor the federal discharge record looks. That is why the outcome reads out of instrument reach rather than gap — the difference between a lookup that is unfinished and one that cannot be finished from these sources.
What the registry does reach is the supplier. The City of Urbana’s own reported withdrawal is not the campus’s water, and it is never read as such — but it is the scale the campus’s draw would sit inside, which is what turns an untestable claim into a material one. The record that would settle it is City-held and ordinary: a meter reading, an industrial-user permit, and the capacity analysis the utility did before it agreed to serve. When one of those is produced, this chapter changes because the record did.
The record behind this chapter
What this chapter stands on: the records it reads, the inputs its modeled figures rest
on, and the reference data behind its baselines — the same pages the record screens
serve, not a second copy. A figure the record does not support stays [open] and links nothing.
- Permits1 record