Account for
every gallon.
Build a defensible cooling-water balance, find measurement gaps and screen practical improvements before committing to equipment or water-recovery research.
Readiness · Measurement · EvidenceAI-GENERATED CONCEPT ART · NO DEPLOYMENT SHOWN
Where does the water go, what is constrained, and which improvement is worth testing at this site?
Campus facilities and sustainability teams, data-center operators, federal energy managers, energy-service companies and water-treatment partners.
Cooling demand creates an operating question that can be investigated with existing meters, bills and specialist knowledge. Before proposing atmospheric water capture, establish makeup, blowdown, evaporation, drift and other losses. Check which values are measured and which are assumptions. Water chemistry, heat rejection and reliability constrain any change.
GSA reports an average 26% water saving across historical alternative cooling-water treatment evaluations. That finding belongs to those evaluated systems and sites. It is not a Weatherhill performance claim. The immediate offer is an independent baseline and decision package, delivered with a qualified cooling or water-treatment specialist.
Cooling Water Baseline & Opportunity Review
Start with remote bill/data triage. Move to a multi-tower or site-level study only when material spend or a resilience problem justifies it. Treatment selection, chemistry changes, hygiene controls, engineering design and physical installation require the appropriate specialists.
What you receive
- A water balance with measured and estimated quantities identified
- A meter, sampling and data-quality gap register
- A practical options screen including operating constraints
- A savings model with assumptions and full incremental cost
- A test and measurement plan for the most promising next step
How we know it is useful
The customer receives a reconcilable baseline, explicit uncertainties and a decision on whether a larger study or field test is justified. Null or modest savings are valid results. An unattributed industry average is not substituted for the site’s own economics.
Planning duration: 1–2 weeks for triage; 3–5 for a site study. Confirmed in the statement of work.
Review the scopeThe evidence behind the offer.
Cooling Tower Water Balance & Cycles of Concentration
Understand the simplified balance used in a first screen and the measurements needed before an operating change.
Read the guide ↗Federal Cooling Water Projects & ESCO Partnerships
Connect a measured water opportunity to the contracting and specialist capabilities already serving the facility.
Read the guide ↗Data Center Cooling Water & Continuity
Review cooling-water demand, supply dependencies and recovery requirements without assuming every data center uses the same cooling system.
Read the guide ↗Exposure remains unchanged
Make readiness a maintained record.
Show the evidence behind the score, the critical gaps and the next action. Keep external hazard observations distinct from confirmed impacts. The functional score workbench supports local records and exports; connected account synchronization is a separate implementation step.
Explore the scoreSource-linked. Scope-specific.
- AWT: GSA Evaluations ↗Page updated 2026-09-14; underlying evaluations historical. The web page also contains old forward-looking evaluation dates. Prefer the dated underlying report when describing results. Does not predict another site's savings.
- Best Management Practice #10: Cooling Tower Management ↗Current guidance checked 2026-10-14. The cycles example assumes suitable water chemistry and operation. Never recommend a higher setpoint solely from a calculator; water-treatment specialists must establish safe operating conditions.
- Energy and Project Procurement Development Services ↗Current page checked 2026-10-14. A procurement channel, not a funding commitment. The recommendation to sell a bounded subcontract to an incumbent is Weatherhill's commercial inference.
- GSA Guidance—Alternative Water Treatment Systems for Cooling Towers ↗January 2020. Historical study costs, not current vendor quotes or generic market prices. Test-site metering differed; some baseline measures and most chiller-energy savings were not measured. Chemistry, maintenance, energy consumption, rates and location affect economics.
Start with a decision.
Build the evidence around it.
Where does the water go, what is constrained, and which improvement is worth testing at this site?