Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Blue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Pima supervisors to halt "Project Blue"; board declines immediate intervention
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Pima County Board of Supervisors to stop a proposed large data center project, citing water, energy and health risks; the board heard lengthy public comment but did not reverse course and defeated a Board of Health's recommendation for retroactive due-diligence review.
A packed public-comment period at the Pima County Board of Supervisors' meeting turned into a sustained protest Tuesday, as residents and activists urged supervisors to block or further scrutinize a proposed large data center project often called “Project Blue.”
Speakers from neighborhoods and advocacy groups told the board the development would strain local water supplies, raise utility rates and worsen air and public-health outcomes. “They're going to drink our milkshake,” said resident John Ralston, paraphrasing a widely quoted line used in several comments to describe cumulative stress on water and power systems.
The board did not take immediate action to halt the land sale or the broader project. Supervisors Allen and Cano supported additional review; a motion tied to a Board of Health recommendation to pursue a retroactive due-diligence public-health review was defeated 3–2, with Chair Scott, Supervisor Christie and Supervisor Hines voting no.
Residents referenced a series of specific worries in testimony and submitted materials: claims that developer Beal Infrastructure misled local review bodies about annexation and commitments; concerns that Tucson Electric Power's proposed agreement would permit rate increases to cover megawatts for large data centers; and allegations that planning processes lacked transparent disclosure about the intended sale and use of rezoned lands. Attorney Adrienne Hoffmeyer, speaking for Coalition No Desert Data Center, argued there were legal flaws in prior Planning and Zoning Commission actions and asked staff to investigate.
Supporters of the project and industry representatives also appeared at the hearing (see separate coverage of mining and mining-adjacent hearings), and county staff repeatedly told the board that additional legal and administrative guidance was expected before final agreements would close. County officials noted timing constraints and practical limits on what reviews can be completed before scheduled closings.
What's next: Several speakers urged supervisors to act at upcoming hearings, and the board signaled staff will continue to brief members. No formal vote to stop the land sale or development closed the meeting; several item-specific hearings and regulatory reviews connected to the project remain pending.
