STAGING / COMPARATOR CONTRACT
A facility should be compared with other users of the same physical resource system—not simply with users in the same county or state.
Evidence rule: authorized capacity, design demand, reported use, measured withdrawal, consumptive use and modeled depletion are different quantities. Ratios must disclose which type appears on each side.
| Flagship | Current comparator state | Why |
|---|---|---|
| AWS PHL100, PA | Source-system eligible | Named SRBC source set supports source-context comparisons; actual facility consumption remains UNKNOWN. |
| Port Washington Lighthouse, WI | Source-system eligible | City utility traces to Lake Michigan; facility demand remains design rather than measured use. |
| QTS Aurora, CO | Regional portfolio eligible | Aurora uses a multi-basin surface-water, groundwater and reuse portfolio; marginal QTS source is unresolved. |
| Project Raspberry, VA | HUC8/regional eligible | Upper Roanoke HUC 03010101 is documented; exact HUC12 and actual project use remain open. |
| Microsoft West Des Moines, IA | Partial | Regulatory coordinate and well identity are strong; exact HUC12/aquifer and pumping remain open. |
| Matador, TX | Not yet eligible | Groundwater access does not establish pumping, consumption or resource effect. |
| Project Leo, AR | Not yet eligible | Supplier/source chain and exact HUC12 remain open. |
| Farmington, MN | Not yet eligible | No specific development application; caps and prior irrigation permits are not operating data-center use. |
| Google Storey County, NV | Blocked | Competing site coordinates prevent safe physical-system attachment. |
The next analytical layer will add quantities only when their evidence class, period, unit and physical geography are compatible.