# Data-Center Environmental Ramifications — Scholarly and Planning Bibliography

## Scope and use

This bibliography supports campaign research about possible data-center development in the eastern portion of Lake County Council District 6 and the proposed Town of Deep River. It is a research aid, not a finding that a data center is proposed, permitted, or environmentally harmful at a particular site. The literature supports a site-specific review of water, electricity, emissions, land conversion, stormwater, noise, air quality, waste, infrastructure cost, and community governance.

Sources are grouped by evidentiary role. Peer-reviewed scholarship is separated from government, university, and regional-planning sources. Preprints and proposals are labeled accordingly. The relevant local question is not “what is the average data center footprint?” but “what would this project draw from this watershed, utility system, grid, road network, and land base, under its actual cooling design and operating schedule?”

## A. Peer-reviewed scholarship and academic research

1. Ristic, Bora, Kaveh Madani, and Zen Makuch. “The Water Footprint of Data Centers.” *Sustainability* 7, no. 8 (2015): 11260–11284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70811260
   - Foundational water-footprint review. Separates direct cooling water from indirect water associated with electricity generation and emphasizes that the result depends on energy source, cooling technology, and system boundary.
   - Campaign use: require project disclosures for direct withdrawal, consumptive loss, wastewater, and electricity-related water assumptions rather than accepting a single “gallons per day” figure.

2. Shehabi, Arman, et al. “The Environmental Footprint of Data Centers in the United States.” *Environmental Research Letters* 16 (2021): 064017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfba1
   - Spatially detailed U.S. estimates of operational carbon and water footprints. The study reports strong geographic variation and finds that indirect water associated with electricity is a major part of the footprint.
   - Campaign use: evaluate the local grid mix and upstream water dependencies, not only on-site cooling water.

3. Lei, Nuoa, Jun Lu, Arman Shehabi, and Eric Masanet. “The Water Use of Data Center Workloads: A Review and Assessment of Key Determinants.” *Resources, Conservation and Recycling* 219 (2025): 108310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108310
   - Reviews the determinants of workload water use, including server efficiency, utilization, cooling systems, climate, and electricity supply.
   - Campaign use: request scenario analysis for peak summer conditions, average operation, and high-utilization AI workloads; do not rely on an annual average alone.

4. Mytton, David. “Data Centre Water Consumption.” *npj Clean Water* 4 (2021): 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-021-00101-w
   - Explains direct and indirect water use, cooling choices, and the difficulty of comparing facilities because disclosure and accounting practices differ.
   - Campaign use: make water accounting definitions explicit: withdrawal, consumption, discharge, reclaimed water, and watershed stress.

5. Ristic, Bora, et al. “Environmental Footprints of the Data Center Service Sector in Sweden.” *Heliyon* 10 (2024): e31290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31290
   - Develops a spatial suitability approach using energy, water, emissions, and heat-reuse variables.
   - Campaign use: adapt the method into a Lake County screening matrix that overlays parcels, utilities, floodplain/wetland constraints, water supply, and potential heat users.

6. Borisová, S., et al. “Assessing the Environmental Impact of Operating a Swedish Data Centre in Subarctic Climate.” *Journal of Cleaner Production* (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.146819
   - Life-cycle assessment across climate change, acidification, particulate matter, resource use, water, and land use; identifies server manufacturing and equipment life as important contributors.
   - Campaign use: include embodied impacts, equipment replacement cycles, construction materials, and end-of-life—not just operational electricity.

7. “The Relationship Between Data Centers and the Climate Is a Systems Challenge: A Spatial Analysis of United States Data Centers.” *Environmental Research Communications* (2026). https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ae193a
   - Examines more than 2,400 U.S. data centers through location-specific water, heat, and emissions risk and shows the tradeoffs involved in siting.
   - Campaign use: treat siting as a combined water-energy-heat problem and use local risk layers rather than a one-dimensional jobs narrative.

8. Lei, Nuoa, et al. “Climate- and Technology-Specific PUE and WUE Estimations for U.S. Data Centers Using a Hybrid Statistical and Thermodynamics-Based Approach.” *Resources, Conservation and Recycling* (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106566
   - Estimates how climate and cooling technology shape power and water-use effectiveness.
   - Campaign use: require the applicant to identify its cooling architecture and provide PUE/WUE under local weather conditions.

9. Gupta, Udit, et al. “Chasing Carbon: The Elusive Environmental Footprint of Computing.” *IEEE Micro* 42, no. 6 (2022): 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/MM.2022.3204142
   - Examines computing’s broader carbon footprint, including operational energy and embodied hardware impacts.
   - Campaign use: avoid counting renewable-energy certificates as equivalent to eliminating local peak load, backup generation, or construction emissions.

10. Li, Pengfei, et al. “Making AI Less ‘Thirsty’: Uncovering and Addressing the Secret Water Footprint of AI Models.” arXiv preprint (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.03271
    - Preprint, not a final peer-reviewed source. Models direct and indirect water associated with AI training and inference and emphasizes temporal and geographic variation.
    - Campaign use: useful for questions about AI-heavy facilities, but figures must be treated as estimates and checked against the proposed operator’s actual design.

11. Kaack, Lynn H., et al. “Aligning Artificial Intelligence with Climate Change Mitigation.” *Nature Climate Change* 12 (2022): 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01377-7
    - Broader scholarly framework for evaluating AI’s climate impacts and benefits, including rebound effects and energy demand.
    - Campaign use: separate claimed social/economic benefits from measurable local environmental performance.

## B. Indiana, Northwest Indiana, and public-sector sources

12. Indiana University Environmental Resilience Institute. “Data Centers: An Overview for Hoosier Communities.” https://eri.iu.edu/resources/fact-sheets/data-centers.html
    - Indiana-specific planning explainer covering electricity, cooling water, IDEM permits, emergency generators, wastewater/stormwater, local zoning, and evolving county approaches.
    - Campaign use: build a permit and disclosure checklist before any local approval.

13. State Utility Forecasting Group, Purdue University. *Indiana Electricity Projections: The 2025 Forecast.* December 2025. https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/sufg/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-SUFG-forecast.pdf
    - Indiana electricity forecast with a dedicated data-center scenario. It notes that Northwest Indiana is an emerging data-center market and that large additions may not be captured by ordinary commercial/industrial forecasting.
    - Campaign use: ask who pays for new generation, transmission, substations, and capacity; examine rate and reliability effects separately from tax revenue.

14. Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission. *From Opposition to Opportunity: Data Centers & Brownfield Redevelopment in NW Indiana.* May 7, 2026. https://www.in.gov/nirpc/files/5.7.2026-From-Opposition-to-Opportunity.pdf
    - Regional planning presentation recommending site inventories, brownfield/power/fiber/water overlays, public standards, PUE/WUE targets, stormwater controls, independent reporting, infrastructure-cost allocation, and clawbacks.
    - Campaign use: use as a governance template. The presentation is not a site-specific environmental impact statement and its numerical claims should be independently verified.

15. Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission. *NWI 2050 Plan Strategies for Public Comment.* https://www.in.gov/nirpc/files/Draft-NWI-2050-Plan-Strategies-for-Public-Comment.pdf
    - Regional framework for land use, brownfields, stormwater, environmental-quality monitoring, transportation, and integration of environmental data with parcel data.
    - Campaign use: test a data-center proposal against adopted or proposed regional planning objectives rather than reviewing it in isolation.

16. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission / Legislative Services Agency. *SB 135 — Data Center Development, Fiscal Note.* 2025. https://iga.in.gov/pdf-documents/124/2025/senate/bills/SB0135/fiscal-notes/SB0135.01.INTR.FN001.pdf
    - Legislative fiscal analysis describing proposed disclosures and site assessments for projected power and water use and potential grid, carbon, and agricultural impacts.
    - Campaign use: useful policy context; verify whether requirements became law and what current Indiana code requires before citing it as operative law.

17. Indiana General Assembly. *HB 1043 — Data Center Water Consumption* and fiscal materials. 2026. https://iga.in.gov/pdf-documents/124/2026/house/bills/HB1043/HB1043.01.INTR.pdf
    - Proposed legislation concerning water-consumption permits for qualifying data centers. This is legislative material, not proof that a permit is currently required; status must be checked before public use.
    - Campaign use: track water-permitting thresholds and disclosure rules, especially for facilities that obtain water through a utility rather than direct withdrawal.

18. Spencer County, Indiana. *Ordinance 2026-07 — Data Centers.* https://www.in.gov/counties/spencer/files/commissioners/Ordinance-2026-07-Data-Centers.pdf
    - Example Indiana county ordinance addressing siting, water, noise, setbacks, appearance, operating standards, and infrastructure proximity.
    - Campaign use: compare possible Lake County standards with another Indiana county’s explicit performance requirements.

19. Lake County, Indiana. “2023 Council District 6 Map.” https://lakecountyin.gov/departments/council/Council-District-Map/2023_DistrictMap_6.pdf
    - Official district map used to define the political geography. It is not a municipal boundary, parcel map, zoning map, or environmental assessment.
    - Campaign use: every claim about “within District 6” should be verified against the official precinct boundary and, where possible, parcel-level GIS—not inferred from a nearby municipality label.

## C. Additional frameworks and technical standards to consult

20. ISO/IEC 30134 series. *Information technology — Data centres — Key performance indicators.* International Organization for Standardization.
    - Standard family covering metrics such as PUE and WUE. Obtain the current editions through an authorized standards source.

21. U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR. “Data Center Energy Performance.” https://www.energystar.gov/industrial-plants/data-centers
    - Benchmarking and energy-management reference. Use alongside actual utility and facility data, not as a substitute for them.

22. U.S. Green Building Council. *LEED v4.1 — Data Centers.* https://www.usgbc.org/leed/v41
    - Building and site-performance framework. Certification is not an environmental impact assessment and should not be treated as one.

23. Green Building Initiative. *Green Globes for New Construction / Existing Buildings.* https://thegbi.org/green-globes-certification/
    - Alternative building-performance framework referenced by NIRPC’s 2026 presentation.

## D. Research questions for eastern District 6

1. Which parcels are actually inside the official District 6 boundary, and which are merely near it?
2. What watershed, aquifer, wellhead, floodplain, wetland, drainage, and stormwater systems would serve or receive impacts from a candidate site?
3. Would water be withdrawn directly, purchased from a municipal utility, reclaimed, or discharged as industrial wastewater? What is the maximum-day and maximum-month demand?
4. What is the facility’s expected IT load, total load, PUE, WUE, cooling technology, backup-generator inventory, fuel storage, and emergency-test schedule?
5. Which utility pays for substations, transmission, water mains, sewer capacity, roads, and emergency services—and can those costs reach existing ratepayers or taxpayers?
6. What land would be converted, how much impervious surface would be added, and what stormwater detention, infiltration, and wetland mitigation would be required?
7. What noise levels would be produced continuously and during generator testing, including low-frequency tonal components at the nearest homes?
8. What air permits, water-discharge permits, stormwater permits, significant-water-withdrawal registrations, wetlands approvals, and hazardous-material approvals apply?
9. What public reporting, independent monitoring, decommissioning security, and incentive clawbacks would be legally enforceable?
10. Are there lower-impact alternatives—brownfields, adaptive reuse, smaller edge/colocation facilities, closed-loop cooling, reclaimed water, or heat-reuse partnerships—that fit the region better than a greenfield hyperscale campus?

## Bottom line

The strongest scholarly conclusion is not that every data center is environmentally unacceptable. It is that impacts are highly site- and design-dependent, that indirect electricity-related water and emissions can be substantial, and that local governments need project-specific disclosures and enforceable standards before approving land-use or incentive decisions. For eastern District 6, the first defensible deliverable is a GIS suitability and risk screen built from official parcel, utility, watershed, floodplain, wetland, land-use, and district-boundary data.

## Downloaded source pack

Openly accessible PDFs and primary planning documents from this bibliography are available in `sources/`. The pack is curated rather than exhaustive: it includes the most directly useful items for water-energy analysis, Indiana load forecasting, Northwest Indiana planning, local regulatory design, and the District 6 geographic reference. Publisher landing pages and DOI links remain the citation record for works that could not be downloaded directly.

## Research-use warning

Downloaded papers and public documents are evidence for questions to investigate, not proof that a particular eastern District 6 site has a stated impact. Local claims still require parcel-level siting, utility, watershed, groundwater, traffic, noise, air-quality, and permitting records.
