Cochise supervisors approve $300,000 for parcel tied to proposed Bisbee effluent recharge project over public objections

Cochise County supervisors voted 2–1 on Aug. 19 to approve warrants to purchase a parcel tied to a proposed Bisbee effluent recharge project, clearing roughly $300,000 for the sale and a roughly $2,000 title payment despite sustained public opposition.

The vote follows more than a dozen public speakers who alternately urged the board to stop the land purchase and to allow it so technical studies could proceed. Supporters said treated effluent has been tested and that recharge projects along the San Pedro River have increased groundwater; opponents warned of possible contamination of shallow wells, unstudied contaminants such as PFAS, archaeological resources on the parcel and loss of property value.

The land purchase approved by the warrants is intended to allow the county to perform site-specific studies required before any recharge facility could be sited. "The recharge project is not being approved now, only the land acquisition," said Holly Richter, a PhD hydrologist who has led the San Pedro wet/dry mapping project, adding that foundation funding is in place to pay for subsequent studies and that Bisbee effluent previously tested by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality met proposed PFAS benchmarks in 2022.

County Engineer Jackie Watkins said staff has studied the issue since 2019 and that preliminary design work completed in 2024 identifies required next steps: a biological evaluation, cultural‑resources inventory, Clean Water Act compliance, NEPA clearance and Arizona Discharge Elimination System review. "We have to have the property to do those studies," Watkins said, noting the parcel was a willing sale and has been evaluated as a suitable location but is not the only potential site.

Opponents at the hearing said outreach was inadequate and urged delay. "We demand public inclusion, a task force to investigate other options…not just pump sewage into the river," Lloyd Trachtenberg told the board. Several residents said they rely on shallow wells that draw from the river subflow aquifer and asked the county to commission independent, third‑party hydrological and environmental testing before any project proceeds. Leslie and Clement Mentzer (appearing as residents) and other speakers raised concerns about possible archaeological resources on or adjacent to the parcel.

Supporters said the county and partner agencies have used managed recharge projects on the San Pedro for years and that those projects have recharged tens of thousands of acre‑feet. "This will be the eighth groundwater recharge project in the Cochise Conservation and Recharge Network," said Steven Marlatt, referencing the county and municipal collaborations that staff said have recharged more than 30,100 acre‑feet to date. Marlatt and other proponents said proposed designs call for infiltration basins out of the active floodplain and not direct discharge to the river.

Board members repeatedly emphasized that buying the land would not itself authorize construction of a recharge facility. "There is no project going forward as of right now because we are still gathering information," the board chair said during discussion, adding the county would not approve a plan that intentionally put hazardous contaminants directly into the aquifer. Supervisors also said purchasing the parcel would preserve options and prevent other private buyers from acquiring the land for unknown uses.

After procedural votes to remove the warrants from the consent agenda, the board approved the two warrants authorizing payment for the parcel and title insurance. The motion passed 2–1; the transcript does not record individual supervisors' roll‑call votes for the two nay votes and ayes beyond the tally. The board then approved the remainder of consent agenda item No. 2 by a separate vote.

What happens next: staff said site‑specific technical studies and permitting steps remain. Watkins and other staff told the board those studies—and required state and federal clearances—must be completed before any construction or discharge could be permitted. Foundation funding has been identified for the studies, the county administrator said, but no construction permits or final project approvals are before the board.

Votes at a glance

- Warrant 12598 (land purchase for potential Bisbee effluent recharge project): approved (motion passed 2–1). Warrant details not specified in transcript beyond connection to the parcel and purchase amount discussed in public comment ($300,000).

- Warrant 12602 (title insurance/payment to Pioneer Title tied to same purchase): approved (motion passed 2–1). The title payment amount was described in discussion as approximately $2,000.

The flood control district adjourned after the vote; the board indicated it will pursue additional open work sessions and a public hearing and discussed forming a task force to bring stakeholders and technical experts together before any decision on constructing a recharge facility.