Residents urge Pima County supervisors to halt ‘Project Blue’; board holds executive session, takes no immediate action

At a Pima County Board of Supervisors meeting, dozens of residents urged the board to stop Project Blue, a proposed hyperscale data center that opponents say would consume large amounts of water and electricity and harm local climate resilience.

The meeting included an executive session called by the county attorney to provide legal advice about Project Blue; Chair Scott told the public no board action on the project would occur that day. The board returned from executive session and indicated staff had received direction to proceed as discussed in closed session but did not announce any substantive decision on the land sale or contract terms.

Why it matters: Project Blue — and more broadly the prospect of large data centers — has prompted repeated public objections in Pima County because speakers said the facilities would place “unsustainable” demands on scarce desert water and boost electric demand at a time of grid stress and rising rates. Many speakers also raised procedural complaints about nondisclosure agreements, transparency and whether representations from the developer would be honored.

Public comments and concerns

Speakers during the call to the public uniformly urged the board to stop the land sale or otherwise prevent Project Blue from moving forward while concerns remain unresolved.

- “Project Blue and all data centers are not only a step in the wrong direction, they take a sledgehammer to building climate resilience in Pima County,” said Betsy Wilkening, a fifth‑generation Tucsonan who called for cancellation of the project.

- Jordan Walker, a lifelong unincorporated Pima County resident, noted the city of Tucson’s unanimous rejection of annexation and said that vote reflected community opposition: “They heard the concerns about water scarcity, secrecy, and long term sustainability.”

- Kylie Lewis, a District 2 resident, cited figures she attributed to analyses and press reports and warned of very large water and energy demands if the project used air‑cooling with supplemental evaporation during very hot days.

Other speakers emphasized environmental justice, threats to local jobs, noise and heat impacts, risks to species and groundwater, and distrust of the developer’s claims. Several public commenters asked the board to terminate the acquisition agreement or bring a public vote to prevent the sale from closing if the annexation condition was not met.

Board response and context

Chair Scott opened the meeting by reminding the public that the board could go into executive session under state law to receive legal advice and that the planned executive session was only for that purpose. He also explained that the executive session item on Project Blue arose from the county attorney’s request and that no immediate action on the project would be taken in open session that day.

Supervisors and staff noted related policy work underway: Supervisor Allen said two separate agenda items on the meeting — a policy for nondisclosure agreements and a policy requiring environmental impact review for economic development projects — were responses to lessons learned from the Project Blue discussion and were meant to improve transparency and the county’s ability to evaluate large water/energy projects.

Votes at a glance (actions referenced by speakers and in public materials)

- Item 10 (foreign direct investment plan funding): motion to expend $100,000 from contingency to begin a Mexico‑focused economic outreach program — FAILED, vote 2–3 (Chair Scott and Supervisor Hines in favor; Supervisors Allen, Cano and Christie opposed). (Source: public roll call recorded during the motion.)

- Executive session on Project Blue: the board convened in executive session for legal advice and later reported they had provided direction to staff; no formal open‑session action to approve or close any sale was recorded. (Source: Chair Scott’s introductory remarks and the post‑session announcement.)

What the public said they want

Speakers asked the board to: cancel the proposed land sale for Project Blue; require new, public environmental and energy analyses before any decision; declare stricter nondisclosure limits so the public and elected officials can see relevant data; and, in some remarks, pursue public power or other measures to reduce utility profit transfers and protect ratepayers.

Ending

Chair Scott closed the public comment period after confirming the board would consider staff follow‑ups and that the clerk’s office would relay constituent communications to all supervisors. No vote to approve Project Blue occurred at the meeting; the board held an executive session for legal advice and returned to public session without adopting any sale‑closing motion.