Watermark.
Lima BOSC
Switch site 38 sites · 11 basins 8 open

Each site is one Watermark investigation. The page color says what opens; the campus line is the build on the ground — two different clocks.

MAU Maumee Basin 9 sites
2MI The Two Miamis 9 sites
SE Southeastern Basins 12 sites
NE Northeast Basins 8 sites
The page — what opens on Watermark Open · Draftfull record Queued · Watchingpreview page Restrictedrequest access
The campus — the build on the ground Investigating Confirmed Under construction Operational
All 38 sites — the network index →
Building

Water supply & consumptive use

How much water the project consumes, against the receiving water's own cited low flows.

On the record

A real impact study states how much water Project BOSC consumes at buildout. It sets that figure against the Ottawa River'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 methodevaporative cooling tower (“open loop”) [inference]

The headline screen · draw vs design low flow At the 7Q10 design low flow, the buildout cooling draw is ~24× the Ottawa River
scale · cubic feet per second
Consumptive draw · buildout
[inference]
4.85 cfs
Ottawa River 7Q10 design low flow
[verified]
0.2 cfs
The modeled buildout draw (4.85 cfs) against the cited 7Q10 (0.2 cfs) is a basin-scale worst-case bound, not a withdrawal claim — the full derivation, the site's supply arrangement, and the live gauge sit in the hydrology annex below.

baseline

Current municipal loop, no data-center cooling draw.

Cooling demand
0 MGD
baseline: no campus cooling load
Consumptive loss
0 cfs
0 MGD x 0 consumptive (scenario baseline)
Ottawa River 7Q10
0.2 cfs
Ohio EPA NPDES fact sheet 2IG00001 (Lima Refining Co.), Stream Flows table — Ottawa River at Lima, USGS gage 04187100, 1989-2021

buildout

Data-center campus cooling draw (evaporative_tower) on the municipal supply.

Cooling demand
3.92 MGD
275 MW x 1.8 L/kWh / evap fraction
Consumptive loss
4.85 cfs
3.92 MGD x 0.8 consumptive (scenario buildout)
Ottawa River 7Q10
0.2 cfs
Ohio EPA NPDES fact sheet 2IG00001 (Lima Refining Co.), Stream Flows table — Ottawa River at Lima, USGS gage 04187100, 1989-2021
  • The draw is set against the receiving water's cited design low flow as a worst-case, basin-scale bound — a screening comparison, not a withdrawal claim.
Reading this chapter · Lima · updated 2026-08-02

The screen above sets the modeled draw against the Ottawa River’s cited 7Q10. That is the drought floor a permit writer screens every discharge against. But Lima’s water does not come out of the river in real time. Read the comparison as a bound, not as a withdrawal claim.

The city holds its raw water in 5 upground reservoirs, off the river channel. Together they store about 14.4 billion gallons. Of that, 10.1 billion is filled from the Auglaize River to the west and 4.3 billion from the Ottawa to the east. Four pump stations fill them, and run only when the rivers are high. Lima therefore never withdraws at the 7Q10. It lives off stored water.

That changes the question this chapter must answer. The binding constraint is not what the river holds on its worst day. It is how far the campus draws the reservoirs down across a dry season, and whether the rivers can refill them afterward.

The number that survives the reframe

The campus buys treated municipal water like any other large customer. Its modeled makeupinput of 3.92 million gallons per day (MGD) is 20.7 % of the 18.92 MGD the plant would then produce. The plant makes about 15 MGD today and is rated for 30 MGD. One customer would take a fifth of the city’s water production.

The consumptive part is harder still. About 3.14 MGD leaves as water vapor from the cooling towers and never returns to the basin. What does return goes downstream to the Ottawa through the treatment plantsrec . None of it goes back into the reservoirs, so the full makeup draws storage down.

Run that against the stored volume and the zero-refill drought reserve falls from 960.9 days to 761.8 days. The campus costs the city 199.1 days of drought reserve.

The refill side is the open question, and it is seasonal. The rivers yield least in the months when the draw is highest, and the seasonal-withdrawal annex maps that month by month. The metered answer sits in two records the study still asks for. One is the campus’s water-service contract. The other is its allocated share into the City of Lima treatment plant. Both are tracked on the leads board.

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.

Record groups this chapter reads