Local opinion: Project Blue controversy is democracy in action

We have seen healthy democracy in action this summer after the announcement of the proposed Project Blue development proposal to host data centers in our Southern Arizona community. More than 800 people reportedly attended the first public meeting the city organized last week.

After the Pima County Board of Supervisors approved the land sale last month, things began moving quickly. Local journalists are adeptly investigating the story — most recently revealing that Amazon Web Services will occupy the space — proving the value of local, independent media. Citizens and local organizations are organizing to raise concerns and ask questions. Researchers from the University of Arizona are sharing their relevant scientific studies. In response, local elected officials are holding public meetings — like the one last week — and responding to their constituents.

There is an intimate connection between democracy and how we manage our shared water resources. On the one hand, our processes for making collective choices over how to allocate, fund, and protect water supplies can create opportunities for information sharing, collaboration, and meaningful civic engagement. This can support democratic goals like transparency, legitimacy, and accountability in government. But when our methods for managing water fail to inform and involve citizens, people may feel alienated from political systems or lose their faith in government, which can threaten democracy.

My research studies the relationship between democracy and how we manage water. It shows how the decline in democracy, marked by the rise of authoritarianism and how a disproportionate increase in the influence of private capital around the world, hinders community participation in policymaking.

Here in the US, as we learn from high profile cases of failed water management in cities like Flint, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi we can begin to see some common threats, including imbalanced power in decision-making and the explicit exclusion of marginalized voices in policy conversations. In democratic societies, decision-making around water should reflect public involvement, include processes for negotiation and deliberation, and work toward fair outcomes.

In response to the proposed Project Blue, many in our local community are demanding dialogue, and rightfully so. We are being told that Project Blue is the biggest economic development project for our community — and our city’s largest proposed water user. It is no surprise that community members want to learn from the experiences of other communities where data centers were built, and to engage with local elected leaders further on the subject of potential data center development.

From a public policy perspective, we need to consider this proposed development in the context of the larger 20+ year drought we face that has no predictable ending, our finite supply of groundwater, and the near certain cuts we face in our allocation of Colorado River water. We also need to understand the energy demand, emissions impacts, and costs for ratepayers. And, finally, we need to examine the trade-offs between the promise of economic development and our community’s long-term water security.

To answer these questions fully, we need more democracy, not less. And, critically, we need to remember that democracy is realized by providing avenues for the public to engage in policymaking, but also by the sustainability and fairness of the decisions made.

Fortunately, there are two more public sessions planned — a virtual meeting this Thursday, July 31st from 5-7pm and an in-person meeting Monday, August 4th from 5-7pm at the Tucson Convention Center.

Andrea K. Gerlak a Tucson Public Voices fellow with the OpEd Project and a member of the City of Tucson’s Water Advisory Committee. She is Director at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy and Professor in the School of Geography, Development and Environment at the University of Arizona.

This guest opinion does not reflect the views of the University of Arizona or its affiliates.