Data company urged to be 'good' after water plan slip reveals intentions

A Tasmanian farmer has urged artificial intelligence company Firmus Technologies to act as a "good corporate citizen" after the firm "inadvertently" revealed plans to divert water intended for agriculture to cool its data centers. The company, which is developing three data centers across northern Tasmania, published an internal note on its FAQ page detailing plans to use water from the Tasmanian Irrigation scheme for its proposed Wesley Vale center. The note was later deleted.

“

Be a good corporate citizen, Firmus.

Firmus Technologies asserts that the majority of water required for cooling at the Wesley Vale data center will be captured rainwater stored on-site. Any use of external water sources is described as being for "contingency and resilience planning." Previously, the company stated the Wesley Vale center would consume an amount of water comparable to a "restaurant" annually. Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff has visited Firmus sites and met with its co-CEOs.

“

In the scheme of farming, [it's] not a lot of water.

Nathan Richardson, chair of the Sassafras Wesley Vale portion of the irrigation scheme, noted that he had been assured Firmus would seek only a "minimal" amount of water. However, he expressed concern, stating that farmers had agreed to the irrigation infrastructure on their land with the understanding it was solely for agricultural benefit. "We didn't know about Firmus or the data centre when we sat down with TI years ago," Richardson said, emphasizing his expectation that Tasmanian Irrigation and the government would negotiate "very handsomely on the side of our district and our community."

“

Farmers have been very obliging by letting this pipeline go through, make a hell of a mess in their farms, for the betterment of agriculture and the district.

Another local farmer, Matt Ryan, indicated that the volume of water Firmus proposed to use was not inherently problematic. However, he acknowledged past discussions about potentially opening the irrigation scheme to industrial users. Ryan suggested that if such use makes the scheme financially viable, it warrants consideration. Conversely, he cautioned that if it significantly alters the scheme's scope or impacts irrigators, it would necessitate a different conversation. He echoed Richardson's sentiment, encouraging Firmus to consider the interests of existing landholders.

“

If that makes the scheme viable, then that's worth considering.