Local opinion: Project Blue’s water plan in historical perspective

Before any of us, our parents, our grandparents or our great-grandparents were born, the small Santa Cruz River ran continuously through what is now the Tucson metro area. It flowed through a verdant, mile-wide floodplain.

That floodplain would have had mesquite forests, giant sacaton grasslands, riparian shrubs, and trees like cottonwoods, willows, ashes, hackberries, soapberries, and screwbeans. It supported abundant wildlife.

Over millennia, as re-enacted at Mission Garden, the surface water was used to irrigate crops by Native American farmers, Spanish farmers, Mexican-period farmers, Anglo farmers and others. The floodplain remained a vital and verdant place.

Early in the 20th century, groundwater began to be pumped for agricultural and urban use. Eventually, the river dried up as the aquifer went down. Floodplain wildlife, highly dependent on surface water, perished. Gradually, residential and commercial development filled the historic floodplain.

So, even before we were born, and long before Project Blue, our region was deeply in the hole when it came to our once-amazing wildlife heritage. Some Western bird species were first described scientifically in our area. The “grand mesquite forest” just south of town was a major focus of scientific research on Southwestern birds and other wildlife in the first half of the 20th century, until it was cut down and dried up.

Today, Sweetwater Wetlands and the parts of the river that have effluent flow are a small echo of what was once here. Important, but not a replacement.

This is the context in which we should examine Project Blue. Water officials assure us that reclaimed water that currently goes into Sweetwater Wetlands and the Santa Cruz River won’t be affected by Project Blue. That’s likely to be true, at least in the near term. And Project Blue says it will be “water positive” by returning the reclaimed water it uses to the water system, by helping to recharge more water to the aquifer, by pumping additional water from polluted wells and treating it, and by funding leak identification and repair in our water system.

But none of those actions will contribute to re-establishing riparian health or the viability of wildlife populations. A big concern is that the reclaimed water currently pledged to, and released to, Sweetwater Wetlands and the Santa Cruz River does not belong to wildlife. It belongs to people, specifically the local governments that provide and manage water in our region. There is absolutely nothing to stop those government agencies, in the future, from diverting that water from wildlife to future data centers, other new industries, and potable reuse. In fact, they plan to do the latter.

Taking a portion of our reclaimed water now for Project Blue decreases our reclaimed water availability and flexibility. We should already be doing the things that Project Blue claims it will do for water positivity. We should be recharging more water through both large recharge projects and small-scale rainwater harvesting—like green streets infrastructure and dry wells. We should be pumping polluted groundwater and treating it. We should be fixing leaks. We should not need a data center to take our water away, so that it can give us these things back.

Over the decades, we’ve been told that we need to “balance environment and development.” But every time there’s a compromise between the two, we lose environment and gain development. We’re out of balance.

Proponents note the economic effect of the proposed data centers. But southeastern Arizona wildlife has been pumping money into our economy for over a century. In August, almost 900 people will be participating in the Southeast Arizona Birding Festival here in Tucson. This includes people from six countries, 41 states, and Guam.

Project Blue’s water pledges are like a retailer advertising a discount. The ad makes it sound like you will save money. But it is really designed to get you to spend money. Project Blue’s “water positive” promises are not really a savings— they are designed to get us to give up water.

We should instead dedicate this water to renewing floodplain health and wildlife sustainability.