1. The amount of water consumed in agriculture was 400 billion cubic meters in India in 2010.
2. In 2010, water consumption for agricultural use in India amounted to 400 billion cubic meters.

I think amount to is used properly in sentence 2, and it seems that I can always paraphrase the amount of something is with amount to.

However, I'm afraid that the amount to structure might carry some specific nuance that is hidden to non-native speakers like me, which makes it different from the the amount of structure. So, can I use the two structures interchangeably?

1. The amount of water consumed in agriculture was 400 billion cubic meters in India in 2010.
2. In 2010, water consumption for agricultural use in India amounted to 400 billion cubic meters.

I think amount to is used properly in sentence 2, and it seems that I can always paraphrase the amount of something is with amount to.

However, I'm afraid that the amount to structure might carry some specific nuance that is hidden to non-native speakers like me, which makes it different from the the amount of structure. So, can I use the two structures interchangeably?

P.S. I felt that there might be a difference because "amounts to" makes the total amount sound big to me. So maybe we don't use "amount to" when the amount is small or not impressive?