After reading INDIANAPOLIS is the largest US city not on navigatable water (apparently there is a river that runs thru it but can’t be navigated), I was wondering what is the largest US city (city limits not metro area) that isn’t on any water or have a river running beside it or thru it at all?
I don’t think there’s any navigable river in Atlanta (it was originally a railroad junction) and, while it has a lower population within city limits, it has a much larger metro population.
That would apparently be a city that doesn’t feel the need to drink water.
Even Los Angeles has rivers. The smallest cities are likely to have a wash or a gully of some kind. When it rains, the water has to go somewhere.
My guess would be Dallas/Ft. Worth. Or Bespin. 
I think the Chatahoochee River would disqualify Atlanta.
The Trinity River flows through Dallas AND Fort Worth.
I’d cast a vote for Phoenix.Well over a million and dry as a bone.I’d guess their only navigable rivers would be city streets during a monsoon rain.
My bet would be on Las Vegas.
But the OP just said ANY water. It didn’t say navigable.
The Salt River, which isn’t small, goes through Phoenix.
Las Vegas has seasonal creeks and washes.
Orlando Florida
Here’s a list of the top 100 cities in 1990.
Dallas, Phoenix, or maybe San Jose, depending on the definition of “navigable.”
The OP specifically said ANY water, not just navigable. San Jose has the Guadalupe River, and adjoins the mud flats of the South Bay. Hell, they’re even a “seaport”. They incorporated Alviso for that express purpose.
This is going to be very tough if you’re allowed to get ridiculous - practically everyplace has some dissapointed little trickle flowing through it or a pond somewhere.
Orlando is full of lakes, which presumably drain somewhere - of course, this is Florida, which is a giant sponge. They probably just sink into the ground.
Orlando’s population is smaller than you think – a bit shy of 200,000. The St. Johns River skirts the northern end of the
Orlando metro (~1,500,000 residents). The St. Johns is navigable to the Atlantic Ocean. There’s even a port – the Port of Sanford, with a 4m deep channel.
Aurora, Colorado has about 280,000 residents, and the only bodies of water running through it are irrigation ditches.
When the Salt floods, it can wash out its bridges and also trap motorists who idiotically tried to drive across it. This affords much amusement to those of us watching the shenanigans on TV. The damming of the Salt provided water for agriculture, power, etc., making Phoenix possible.
Therefore, it’s my opinion that Phoenix is out of the running.
Cherry Creek runs through the edge of Aurora, IIRC, and borders on the reservoir. Cherry Creek State Park lists its address as Aurora. Of course, you could be excused for mistaking Cherry Creek for an irrigation ditch.
However, the Salt “River” only has water in it during major floods, which happen quite rarely. (I’m thinking the last one was in 1993, at any rate I’m rather certain there has not been one in the past 5 years.) Given that the Phoenix area has no natural body of water running through it well over 90% of the time, I’d be inclined to put Phoenix back in the running. At the very least, it has no navigable body of water and has a largercity population and metro area population than Indianapolis.
Even if we take Phoenix out of the running, I’d suggest that Tucson, Arizona, with a 2000 city population of 486,999, contains no body of water, although there are some dry washes that fill during monsoon season.
Las Vegas has the washes like Tuscon that definitely aren’t navigable-and really aren’t bodies of water except for some hours-sometimes days after the abt 1/2 doz.tops rains of any signifigance falls.
The LV population compares to Tuscon,but if you factor in NLV,Henderson,and unincorporated county figures this grows to abt. 1 1/2 mil-and by most measures except political is one large city.
The strip’s in unincorporated territory and most visitors consider that Las Vegas.
I think the site with the Indianapolis info is stretching it a bit.
Maybe Cecil can take a whack at it.
I still vote for taking Phoenix out of the running as it really wouldn’t exist–would never have existed–without the Salt.
As for Tucson, I know that it does have a river, but as I’m not a Baja Pimerian 
I can’t remember the name of it right off hand.
Native Las Vegan checking in. We definitely don’t have any water running through the city or unincorporated areas that Lure mentioned besides the washes. And this year, those sure won’t be seeing any use.
Still, the Colorado is relatively close by (within 90 minutes), so I’m not sure if we count for the OP’s purpose. Especially using the “never would have existed without it” argument. I think a pretty good one could be made that the dam was instrumental to getting people out here, and the water was instrumental to the dam.
But like has been said, in Henderson, Las Vegas, and the unincorporated county lands around us? Nada.
Will Charlotte finally win one of these threads? 540k people and not a drop of water. Just ask this happy orthodox jewish man ;j
Charlotte has Sugar Creek. Lakes Wylie and Norman, if not in the city limits, are tantalizingly close. And the Catawba River is close enough for government work.