Navigating AI’s water footprint under France’s legal and environmental framework

Marie-Bénédicte Desvallon

Wat & Law, Paris

contact@watalaw.com 

This article aims to present legal insight on the prioritisation of artificial intelligence (AI) and the extent to which we are on the brink of a new systemic conflict over water.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), nine countries share 60 per cent of the world’s water reserves, while 25 countries, which are home to one-quarter of the world’s population, experience severe water stress. Less than three per cent of water is fresh and 3.5 billion people drink water that is dangerous or of questionable quality. The United Nations (UN) forecast a 40 per cent global freshwater supply shortfall by 2030 if the current situation regarding water consumption and production does not change.[1]

To face this challenge, the UN Sustainable Development Goals contain priorities on water supply through SDG 6 – clean water and sanitation. SDG 6.A aims to expand international cooperation and the provision of capacity-building support to emerging economies by 2030 in regard to water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies.

AI is being touted as a valuable tool to improve water stewardship. AI can help to detect leaks,[2] improve irrigation efficiency, predict floods, monitor pollution and optimise water distribution. However, throughout the lifecycle of AI systems in this space, the main natural resource needed is water, which presents a paradox.

But the conversation around AI use is not limited to its water footprint. New risks have arisen in regard to the control of information and data management in the context of AI systems. Thus, AI has become a national security concern, in particular regarding the need to safeguard digital sovereignty. In the race to AI supremacy, can governments regulate not only the development of AI, but also its use, in a way that does not infringe upon one of our fundamental human rights: the right to water?

The AI paradox: a thirsty but valuable tool for water stewardship

Approximately 70 per cent of global freshwater consumption occurs in the agricultural sector, and the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) forecasts that by 2050 global water requirements within agriculture will increase by 50 per cent in order to meet the increased demand for food presented by a growing population.

In France, 61 per cent of freshwater resources are consumed by the agricultural sector.

Along with the expansion of AI, the figures and conflicts over water use are changing. By 2027, AI is projected to require between 4.2 and 6.6 billion cubic meters of water, roughly the equivalent of 1.7 to 2.6 million Olympic-sized swimming pools or roughly equivalent to the total annual water use of New Zealand. AI, therefore, exacerbates the environmental footprint of digital technology, across its three physical components (devices, networks and data centres (DCs)) and at every stage of the lifecycle (manufacture, operation, distribution, use and waste management).[3] Water use by DCs includes the water used in cooling towers on site (direct use), as well as the water used throughout the supply chain and lifecycle of the DC, from the work to extract raw materials and minerals required for the manufacture of the components that make up the DC to the water needed for electricity generation to operate the DC, without interruption (indirect use). It is worth noting that DCs rely on potable water, which is water that has been treated so it is safe to drink by humans, in order to prevent corrosion of the equipment and extend the lifecycle of DCs. This places a strain on freshwater resources that are already vulnerable to climate change.

In 2026, France is the third-largest European market for DCs, with 300 facilities representing 715 MW of installed capacity, after the United Kingdom and Germany. With 52 projects in progress, France aims to reach 700 DCs, with an installed capacity of around 2.3 GW, by 2035. This has led to an increase in the direct water volume used by operators of the largest DCs in France by about 20 per cent per year since 2021.

AI: a threat to the human right to water?

The right to water

The 1999 Protocol on Water and Health,[4] produced by the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO-Europe), is a legally binding instrument that requires governments to protect water resources used as sources of drinking water and their ecosystems. In 2010, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution recognising ‘the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights’ (A/RES/64/292).[5]

But, by January 2026, the human right to water had been challenged due to the state of water resources. UN scientists state that we have entered an era of ‘global water bankruptcy’[6]and that irreversible damage has been done to water systems. The report introduces water bankruptcy as a condition defined by both its insolvency and irreversibility. This situation calls for a strategic shift away from the heavy dependence on water intensive primary production, such as thirsty DCs.

Surprisingly, the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) does not expressly include a right to water. Nonetheless, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment in Hudorovič et al v. Slovenia[7] whereby ‘the Court makes clear that access to safe drinking water is not, as such, a right protected by Article 8[8] of the Convention. However, the Court must be mindful of the fact that without water, human beings cannot survive.’

In France, since 1992, water has been part of the country’s national heritage. Article L. 210-1 of the French Environmental Code (Code de l’environment[9]) provides that ‘every individual, for their food and hygiene, has the right to access drinking water under economically acceptable conditions for all.’ But its enforcement has been challenged by other interests, such as its obvious links with AI.

France hosted the first One Health summit recently, in the midst of national debates on the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and the reintroduction of pesticides as part of agricultural sovereignty, with several members of parliament advocating for the inclusion of a right to water in the country’s Environmental Charter.[10] It is worth emphasising that the Charter includes a precautionary principle and the right to live in a safe environment.

Whatever soft law exists or whatever laws are in force in regard to water, the fact is that the human right to water cannot be taken for granted.

Institutional governance of environment-related risks in the AI ​​sector: a lack of alignment with EU and national legal instruments relating to water protection

Europe is the fastest-warming continent[11] globally. One of the direct consequences of this is the EU’s increasing exposure to water-related risks. Potentially more disruptive than climate change itself, water risk is emerging as a key constraint for the AI sector.

The dilution of EU ecological ambitions and fragmented AI legal instruments

One by one, the EU’s environmental legal instruments are undergoing a review that appears to be prioritising AI over water protection. The following examples are meaningful in this regard.

In 2000, the EU adopted the Water Framework Directive (WFD),[12] which was designed to be the cornerstone of EU water policy.

Twenty years later it has been challenged by sectorial regulations relating to AI. To achieve independence in the EU in regard to AI, stakeholders must run their entire supply chain on the EU continent, including extractive activities related to critical raw metals. For this purpose, some key EU acts have been ‘adapted’ for AI, as follows.

The Critical Raw Materials Act,[13] as amended in 2024, provides that strategic projects that have an adverse impact on the environment, to the extent that they fall within the scope of the WFD or legislative acts regarding the restoration of freshwater ecosystems where the permitting authority responsible concludes, on the basis of a case-by-case assessment, that the public interest served by the project overrides those impacts, provided that relevant conditions set out in those legal acts are met. But these conditions are not crystal clear. However, what is clear is that AI project environmental assessments and authorisations are streamlined and shortened.

Likewise, the review of the WFD provisions designed to halt the deterioration of bodies of water may dilute the no deterioration principle despite the critical state of water, as highlighted by the CNRS (the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique).[14]

The Energy Efficiency Directive (2023)[15] mandates the reporting of water consumption by DCs. Delegated Regulation EU/2024/1364[16] sets out the information and key performance indicators for this reporting obligation, including water input, potable water usage and methodologies to assess the effectiveness of water usage.

In the meantime, the Union’s Digital Strategy calls for transparency measures on the environmental footprint of the ICT[17] sector, notably due to the need for large quantities of cooling water. To promote the sustainable development of DCs, Member States ‘should require the collection and publication of data which are relevant for the energy performance and water footprint’.

The 2024 AI[18] Act applies a risk-based approach to AI systems,[19] but disregards the impacts relating to water consumption. The recitals of the Act provide that the purpose of the Regulation is to lay down a uniform EU legal framework to be applied ‘in accordance with the values [not obligations] of the Union enshrined in the Charter’,[20] which includes environmental protection. But values are not binding commitments. The Act missed the opportunity to address the use of water in the AI sector.

The foregoing analysis highlights the lack of coherence of the legal instruments, policies and the gaps in regard to water use, whereas the links between water consumption and DCs require a strong and efficient legal framework. Ultimately, without water, the world’s AI ambitions will be curtailed.

France : an (un)conscious AI political ambition lacking a holistic vision of the water footprint

According to the ADEME[21], a DC can consume up to 5 million litres of water per day, which is equivalent to the daily water needs of a French city with 30,000 inhabitants.

But in regard to the tumultuous global geopolitical context, the word ‘sovereignty’ is everywhere. Within the industrial, agricultural and defence sectors, the race to AI supremacy has become part of digital sovereignty. To accelerate the development of AI in France, DCs will be labelled PINMs[22] (ie, major projects of national interest). Pursuant to Article L.306-2 of the Planning Code, DCs, given their purpose and scale, particularly in terms of the investment and employment opportunities involved, with particular importance for the digital shift, the ecological transition and national sovereignty, can be qualified by decree as a PINM. Therefore, DCs will benefit from fast-track procedures, with closer oversight by the government.

Some notable features of this process include:

• challenging the decentralised management of water and related governance: the water law, dated 1964, established water management based on watersheds under the purview of local water agencies. One of the impacts of the PNIM system may be that such projects become unacceptable to local communities, which may lead to systemic litigation;
• if planning permission for DCs can be rejected in situations where the territory suffers from water scarcity, it is to be noted that the planning code is unclear as to the conditions of appraisal in regard to water scarcity;
• if labelled a PINM, the developer will be entitled to derogate from other planning conditions, such as the protection of endangered species, causing additional environmental harm and damage; and
• the deletion of the proposal to add a new tax on water consumption by these types of projects in order not to deter investors is not a good sign for water stewardship.

The acceleration and simplification of the approval process for such projects should not be confused with rushing. As outlined by Anastasis Yiapanis: ‘Water is no longer just an environmental concern — it is a question of Europe’s security, stability and future prosperity.’[23] Europe risks solving one problem (digital sovereignty), while deepening another (water scarcity).

The average French person uses 150 litres of water a day for domestic purposes. According to Google’s figures about its Gemini AI, the water cost for a prompt is ‘just’ 0.003 g of CO₂ and five drops of water per ‘prompt’. But, in parallel, OpenAI has announced that ChatGPT (only) receives 18 billion ‘prompts’ (instructions written by users) per week, from 700 million users, which equivalent to ten per cent of the world’s population.

Conclusion

The large water footprint of DCs calls for integrated and cross-sectoral action and a shift away from thirsty DCs to manufacturing options with a low-water footprint, as well as water-friendly renewable energy technologies. Water issues impact every single sector. Water resilience is not a choice, it is a condition for the continuation of a viable planet for human beings.[24]