Residents raise water-quality and property concerns about Busby effluent recharge project at Cochise County meeting

At the Cochise County Flood Control District meeting on June 10, 2025, two members of the public raised objections to a proposed effluent recharge project variously referred to in testimony as the “Busby” or “Visby” effluent recharge project and urged the board to investigate potential impacts on the San Pedro River and local wells.

Jack Ricky Veal, identified in the meeting as a speaker during public comment, said he had documents and references and asked the board to review them. "What I wanna talk about is the Busby Effluent Project," Veal said, and later warned, "we're gonna be drinking cancer product causing, products if y'all allow this project to happen and pump into our river." He said ranchers with long family ties to the San Pedro watershed, including a rancher he named as John Isaacson, could explain historical flows and that treated wastewater could percolate to wells.

Lloyd Trachtenberg, the second public speaker, said local residents had not been adequately informed and questioned whether county staff had done hydrology or geology studies to show whether subsurface fissures would filter or carry effluent into the aquifer. He described local costs he said would be associated with the plan — a $2,000,000 filter in Bisbee, about $2,000,000 per mile to lay 14 miles of 10-inch sewer pipe along the border — and opposed using county funds to buy land he said the county would need to site facilities. "I don't wanna drink sewage water," Trachtenberg said, and described economic harm to his organic farm in Hereford if effluent recharge affected local water quality.

Supervisor Crosby responded that he was not in favor of locating a sewer facility ‘‘over by Mister Beal's property’’ and said he wants a follow-up work session; he also suggested holding public comment after work sessions so residents hear staff reasoning and can respond. Supervisor Gomez said she wanted more information and recommended staff and the board continue work sessions. Deputy County Administrator Joe Casey told the board that work sessions are scheduled to provide additional detail and that the county has not finalized rate-setting; he also reminded the board that the tentative budget discussion that followed was not the same as final rate setting.

No formal action or vote on the effluent recharge project was taken at the June 10 meeting. Comments on the project were recorded only as part of the public comment period and during board discussion about scheduling additional work sessions and public engagement.

The public commenters referenced the Clean Water Act and concerns about so-called "forever chemicals" in wastewater; county staff did not present or cite a technical study, hydrology report or permitting record for the project during the meeting. Members of the public were told they could email their full statements and links to the supervisors.

What happens next: board members said staff will present more detail in scheduled flood-control work sessions, after which the board may decide whether to pursue formal hearings, project approvals, or other actions. The June 10 record shows only public comment and direction to gather more information.