ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

Project Blue. What a catchy name. Evokes images of clear skies. And water. Which, in the desert, are mutually exclusive.

So far, this project, if “blue� at all, seems to be colored deep indigo — the shade of shadows.

Non-disclosure agreements have kept key information in the dark. Like whom the operator of the sprawling data center will be. And what they will pay for their enormous, hundreds-of-megawatts power consumption (compared to long-suffering residential customers who just got hit with a 14% rate-increase proposal).

The doubletalk of replenishing “all consumptive water losses� is just that. In our perennially thirsty environment, no matter how much lipstick goes on the pig, a water-guzzling industry deserves close scrutiny.

According to a “fact sheet� released by the city last week, if the two centers envisioned within the city limits as part of Project Blue are built out, the combined water usage would total 1,910 acre-feet per year.

In slightly more comprehensible terms, that’s a shade over 1.7 million gallons of water per day.

There’s also nothing stopping Project Blue from using even more than that staggering projection. Of course, the mystery operator would pay a premium for the overuse of water, but there’s no evident contractual limit on how much they could draw.

Also worth factoring into this is that some very good reporting from elsewhere has made the point that promises made to governmental bodies by data-center developers around the world frequently have not been kept.

ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ans have a right to know who the operator of this massive plant will be. That should be non-negotiable. The stakes are too high to greenlight this project without being able to assess how it might be managed.

Second, the terms of its private deal with TEP should be disclosed.

Some business deals get done in private because negotiations work better away from the glare of public opinion. But government business — the people’s business — should never value non-disclosure over the people’s right to know.

The people’s land and water, the people’s power, the people’s money must be handled in transparent, public fashion. Not only are we, the voters and taxpayers, entitled to know the decisions our governments make on these matters — but we are also entitled to understand the information upon which the decisions are based.

Some of our most respected officeholders and business leaders are foursquare in favor of this project — people like Rex Scott, Pima County Board of Supervisors chair, who has not minced words about his support.

“The boost it could provide to our local economy may well be transformative,� Scott says.

On the Opinion pages of the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, Pat DeConcini, another well-respected community leader, wrote that “the benefits will be profound — our police, fire and public safety can be properly funded and thousands of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ans most in need can receive the help they deserve.â€�

But significant doubts and questions remain.

The New York Times, in a hard-hitting story last week about data centers’ water use, said big tech’s data-center owners often want to build where power can be bought relatively cheaply, because of the prodigious amount of power they use — even if those locales are in drought-stricken places.

In the New York Times story, ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ha Alami, a hydrologist and director of urban water policy at Stanford, said, “Data center companies often demand as much water as they can get, using the tax revenue they pay as leverage.â€�

She added that tech companies’ priority to build where power is cheap and dependable has exacerbated water shortages across the world.

“Water is an afterthought� for tech companies, she said. “The thinking is, ‘Someone will figure that out later.’�

And, as Pima County Supervisor Jen Allen pointed out last week, “data centers beget data centers,� because once power and water infrastructure is built, other projects follow.

All of these facts, including the industry’s spotty track record on keeping pre-project promises, must be taken into account before the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ City Council greenlights this huge project. We must know who the operator will be, how much power the project will use and how much they will pay for it. And we need to do some hard math to determine whether it really makes any kind of sense to invite in an industry to use 1.7 million gallons of our precious water every day of the year.

Every step of the way, local officials must demand transparency and carefully fact-check the promises made. And the public must be kept in the loop.

It was recently said that if Project Blue’s prospective operator is outed, “they will walk.�

Maybe that’s not the worst thing that could happen.