A different methodology track, not a bigger Kill Test.

If the site relies on its own water right (not a municipal tap), what is its priority date and decreed use, and is industrial/cooling use included?

Colorado's prior-appropriation system means a junior right can be curtailed entirely during a call from a senior right — the priority date determines reliability, not just the paper right's existence.

Is the source basin over-appropriated, and if so, does the site have (or need) a court-approved augmentation plan to use water out of priority?

An augmentation plan requires replacing out-of-priority depletions and is adjudicated through Water Court — a multi-month-to-multi-year process, not a permit issued on request.

Is the intended source groundwater (well permit, Division of Water Resources) or surface water (decreed right, Water Court)? Each has a distinct process and timeline.

These are administered differently and are not interchangeable — a site plan assuming one path when the other applies can add months to the schedule.

If served by a municipal/district provider instead of owning water rights directly, does that provider's own water-rights portfolio have confirmed firm yield for this load, independent of drought-year curtailment?

A municipal tap is only as reliable as the provider's own underlying water rights and storage — this pushes the same prior-appropriation risk one level up, it doesn't eliminate it.

What is the historical frequency of curtailment or restriction for this water source, and what is the current basin's snowpack/supply outlook?

Statewide snowpack was at 62% of median as of mid-March 2026 — the second-lowest in 46 years of record — a live, current risk factor for any Colorado water-dependent design, not a hypothetical.

If an existing agricultural or other water right is being converted to industrial/cooling use, has a change-of-use proceeding been filed, and what objections (if any) have been raised?

Changing a water right's decreed use requires Water Court approval and can be contested by other water users on the same stream — this is a real schedule and cost risk, not a formality.

Has a dry-cooling or hybrid-cooling design been evaluated as a fallback if water-rights acquisition proves infeasible or too slow?

At gigawatt scale, water-rights acquisition is frequently the longest pole in the tent — worth pricing the design alternative early rather than discovering it's needed after land is under contract.

Are all parcels in the assembly under common ownership, or does the plan require closing with multiple separate sellers?

Multiple sellers means multiple negotiations, multiple closing timelines, and the real risk that one holdout parcel blocks or fragments the whole assembly — this is the single biggest schedule risk in a multi-parcel deal.

Do the assembled parcels form a single contiguous footprint, or are there gaps, non-adjacent inholdings, or a third party's parcel inside the intended boundary?

A non-contiguous assembly can affect buildable layout, access, and utility/fiber routing across the site — verify actual parcel boundaries against the intended site plan, not just acreage totals.

Has a title commitment been obtained for each individual parcel, not just a summary for the assembly as a whole?

Liens, easements, mineral-rights severances, or clouded title on any one parcel can delay or kill that piece of the assembly independent of the others — each parcel carries its own title risk.

What easements (utility, access, irrigation ditch, pipeline, conservation) encumber each parcel, and do any restrict the intended use or cross into the buildable area?

An assembly aggregates every existing easement across every parcel — a ditch or pipeline easement that was a minor issue on one small parcel can become a major site-planning constraint across a 2,000-acre campus.

Do the parcels span more than one zoning district, or more than one jurisdiction (e.g., unincorporated county plus an adjacent municipality)?

A split assembly may need entitlement approval from more than one authority under different codes and timelines — treat each jurisdiction's process as independent, not a single combined approval.

Are the individual parcel option/purchase agreements contingent on successfully assembling the full footprint, or can a seller be bound independent of whether the rest of the assembly closes?

Without an assembly-wide contingency, a sponsor can end up owning an unusable partial footprint if even one other parcel falls through — this is a real commercial-structuring risk, not just a legal formality.

Are mineral/subsurface rights severed from the surface estate on any parcel, and if so, what surface-use protections exist?

A severed mineral estate can carry a legal right to enter and disturb the surface for extraction — a real risk to a permanent, capital-intensive facility that a single-parcel Kill Test wouldn't necessarily surface.