Desert Logic: Water Theft Is Fine, If You’re Local

If you thought Arizona had learned anything from our state’s last water scandal, think again. Pima County just sold off 290 acres of public land near the Fairgrounds for a $3.6 billion data center project. Yep, in a 3–2 vote on June 17, the Board of Supervisors approved a deal with Project Blue, a San Francisco–based infrastructure firm that swears it’ll use 100% reclaimed water. Sure, Jan. (KOLD News)(Arizona Daily Star)

And yes, “Project Blue” is the actual name. Nothing says “trust us with your water” like a name reminiscent of an alien cover-up by the government.

Anyway, on the public land sell-off, Supervisors Scott, Heinz, and Christy said “yes, please.” Supervisors Allen and Cano said, “Are you kidding me?” And for that, they deserve a standing ovation. (Water Education)

Our leaders love bold plans, as long as they don’t have to read past the first bullet point. Say the word “jobs,” and suddenly details, like water modeling and infrastructure timelines, get memory-holed. Their attention span stops right around “economic development.” It’s fingers in the ears and the sing-song sound of “La La La La.”

The developers say the campus will run on reclaimed water, piped in from 18 miles away and stored in a 30-acre recharge basin. It all sounds very eco-responsible in writing (Pima County FAQ), until you wonder how many other data centers across the country move to operate on groundwater once reality hits.

And just when you thought it was over, Supervisor Heinz (who voted yes) decided later that same afternoon, after a TEP rate hike hit the wires, that maybe, possibly, we should reconsider the whole thing. (Arizona Daily Star)

That’s not leadership. That’s trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Thirsty Nonetheless

This isn’t a data center built for Google, Meta, or OpenAI. Project Blew…er…Blue is pitched as a private‑equity-owned campus renting out generic server space for industries like aerospace, healthcare, and government, not ultra-dense AI operations. Not yet, anyway.

Yes, it’s private equity. Think charming corporate vultures who specialize in bleeding assets dry, cutting corners, dodging accountability, and ghosting communities once the damage is done.

To be honest, there are zero mentions of AI-grade infrastructure. No ultra-high power density designs typical of AI-specific facilities.

Could that change? Sure. If so, the water demand would spike dramatically. And without legal safeguards, we’ll be too late.

Water Double Standard

Remember the headlines when Governor Hobbs revoked leases for Saudi-owned alfalfa farms pumping Arizona groundwater to grow hay for export? She was widely praised for protecting our water. (Associated Press) (KJZZ)

Those farms were in western Arizona, drawing from a different aquifer than what sits beneath this new Project Blue site. So no, it’s not the same literal aquifer.

Fondomonte was shut down because the optics were terrible: a foreign company, shipping hay overseas, using unregulated groundwater on state trust land. Everyone from ranchers to policy wonks to suburban HOA dads cried foul.

But now? A U.S.-based infrastructure firm gets to buy public land, propose a water-intensive mega project, and hand-wave it all away with promises of 100% reclaimed water. And somehow, that’s fine?

Here’s the part that really ought to make people flinch.

This wasn’t a lease. It was a sale.

When you lease land, you keep leverage. When you sell it, you give it away. Permanently. If those reclaimed water plans fall apart later, there’s no public recourse. The county can’t yank the land back. We can’t even slap a “no groundwater” clause on it after the fact.

Groundwater might not be tapped today. But if that pipeline project hits delays or cost overruns, we all know where this story ends.

The difference isn’t in the hydrology. It’s in the branding.

Foreign hay = scandal. Domestic server farm = opportunity

Let’s be clear: reclaimed water should be the standard. And if Project Blue truly builds the pipeline, the recharge basin, and stays off the aquifer for good, that’s worth supporting.

But that kind of restraint doesn’t happen by accident. It happens because the public demands binding agreements, independent oversight, and real consequences for breaking the deal.

So until those safeguards are in place, this isn’t a win. It’s a risk disguised as progress.

Final Take

Now the baton passes to Tucson City Council, which has to decide whether to annex the land and hand over the water hookup. You’d think this would trigger some deeper analysis, what with the whole desert + megadrought + data center thing.

But if recent history is any guide, we’re in for another round of PowerPoint-level decision-making. Skim the title slide, ignore the tradeoffs, and vote like it’s all upside. Because again, who needs guardrails when you’ve got growth in the headline?