📊 Project Blue's Billion-Dollar Secrecy: County Supervisors Admit They Don't Have All the Facts | BUCKMASTER
Rex Scott's uncomfortable defense of Project Blue exposes the tension between economic opportunity and democratic transparency
Based on the Buckmaster Show for 7/10/25, a daily radio show in Tucson, AZ, interviewing local newsmakers. Analysis and opinions are my own.
😽 Keepin’ It Simple Summary for Younger Readers
👧🏾✊🏾👦🏾
🏢💼 Pima County officials approved selling land for a massive $3.6 billion 💰 data center project called Project Blue, but they can't tell the public who's really behind it because of secret 🤫 business agreements. County Chairman Rex Scott spent most of a radio 📻 show trying to explain why this secrecy is okay and how the project will create jobs 💼 and bring in tax money 💸.
Meanwhile, the Arizona Historical Society is preparing to celebrate 🎉 Tucson's 250th anniversary, reminding everyone that this land has been home 🏠 to people for thousands of years before European colonizers arrived 🌎🔙. The whole situation raises important questions ❓ about whether communities should have to accept secret deals 🔍 from corporations just to get economic benefits.
🗝️ Takeaways
🤐 County supervisors voted on a $3.6 billion deal while admitting they lacked complete information due to corporate NDAs
💰 Project Blue promises 3,000 construction jobs and $250 million in tax revenue, but at the cost of democratic transparency
🚰 Water usage details remain secret despite Arizona's ongoing drought crisis and rising utility costs for working families
🎯 Councilwoman Nikki Lee's technical expertise offers the best hope for substantive oversight of this complex proposal
📚 Tucson's 250th anniversary celebrations provide historical context for understanding patterns of development and displacement
⚖️ The controversy establishes crucial precedents for whether billion-dollar deals can proceed in democratic darkness
Data Center Secrecy and Desert History: When Corporate NDAs Meet Community Transparency
Another day, another data center deal shrouded in more mystery than a CIA black site operation.
Bill Buckmaster's Thursday edition served up a fascinating study in contrasts—corporate opacity colliding with historical transparency, economic promises wrestling with democratic accountability, and the eternal tension between progress and preservation that defines modern Arizona politics.
The Project Blue Controversy: When Democracy Goes Dark
Pima County Board Chairman Rex Scott spent three uncomfortable segments defending what may be the most secretive public deal in recent Tucson history. Project Blue—a proposed $3.6 billion data center campus—represents the largest capital investment in Pima County's existence, yet operates under non-disclosure agreements so restrictive that even county supervisors admit they lack complete information.
Because nothing says "public trust" quite like elected officials voting on billion-dollar deals while admitting they don't know all the details.
The 290-acre development, proposed for the Southeast Employment and Logistics Center near the fairgrounds, has transformed into Tucson's most polarizing political puzzle. Scott's explanation reveals a troubling procedural sequence: the county approved land sales and rezoning before securing city annexation guarantees, creating a $20.8 million gamble that is entirely dependent on the Tucson City Council's cooperation.
"Unless the city of Tucson agrees to annex the property into the city, it will not be able to tap into Tucson Water. And that will void the acquisition agreement," Scott explained, essentially admitting the county placed its economic eggs in a basket it doesn't control.
The NDA Smokescreen
Scott's defense of the non-disclosure agreements betrays fundamental misunderstandings about democratic governance.
"The non-disclosure agreements that are in place with both the county and the city are not designed to keep information away from the public. They're not designed to keep information away from decision makers," he claimed, apparently missing the irony that these agreements literally prevent public disclosure and limit decision-maker information.
Oh, well that clears everything up. NDAs aren't designed to hide information—they just happen to hide information. Classic political doublespeak.
The chairman's assertion that "all five of us wish we had had more information to consider and to weigh" represents a damning admission that county supervisors proceeded with incomplete intelligence on a generational economic decision. For Indigenous and Chicano communities who've experienced centuries of land deals negotiated without their input or full disclosure, this secretive approach feels disturbingly familiar.
Water Promises and Purple Pipe Dreams
Scott's water explanations deserve particular scrutiny given Arizona's ongoing drought crisis and the disproportionate impact water scarcity has on working-class communities of color. The developer promises to be "water positive" by replenishing any potable water used during the first two to three years of operation through contributions to Tucson Water's recharge projects.
"Any potable water that they use, they're going to make that up by contributing to water replenishment recharge projects that Tucson Water has planned moving forward all around the county," Scott assured listeners.
Translation: Trust us, we'll pay back the water we use. No need to verify or enforce these promises—just take our word for it.
But a sharp-eyed listener named cut through the corporate water wordplay with a devastatingly simple question sent via Facebook: "If this project were water positive, then why would they need this purple pipeline? The potable water they are going to use for two to three years, just reuse that."
Now THAT'S the kind of question that pierces through buzzword bingo and exposes the logical loopholes in corporate climate theater.
This astute observation perfectly illustrates the contradictory nature of Scott's water narrative. If they're truly "water positive" and replenishing every drop of potable water they consume, why simultaneously demand an expensive 18-mile purple pipeline for reclaimed water?
It's like claiming you're paying back every dollar you borrow while simultaneously applying for a separate credit line.
Scott's response attempted to thread this needle by explaining that "water positive means that any potable water that they use in those first two to three years is going to be replenished through the contributions that they're going to make to other replenishment and recharge projects" while the purple pipeline would be for "long-term use" and would be "oversized so that other users can tap into it."
Translation: We'll pay back the water we pillage in the short term, but we still need permanent access to reclaimed water for the long haul. Because apparently being "water positive" doesn't actually mean using less water—it just means promising to pay for the water you appropriate.
The proposed 18-mile purple pipeline for reclaimed water sounds impressive until you realize this represents classic privatized-profit, socialized-infrastructure economics.
The "oversized" pipeline, designed to serve other users, could become another corporate welfare project where taxpayers fund infrastructure that primarily serves private interests, while communities bear the ongoing costs and risks.
Economic Arguments vs. Democratic Values
Scott repeatedly emphasized the economic benefits of Project Blue, including 3,000 construction jobs, 180 permanent positions averaging $64,000 annually, and $250 million in additional tax revenue over the next ten years. These figures matter enormously for working families struggling with inflation and housing costs.
However, the chairman's economic arguments highlight a troubling trend in which corporate secrecy becomes the price of economic development. "We're talking about the potential to attract similar new projects, effects on ancillary industries," Scott noted, essentially arguing that accommodating one secretive deal will attract more secretive deals.
Because what every democracy needs is more billion-dollar decisions made in corporate boardrooms rather than public forums.
Councilwoman Lee: A Voice of Expertise
Scott's praise for Councilwoman Nikki Lee offered the segment's most encouraging moments. Lee's technical background in data centers, gained from her experience at Raytheon, positions her as the most qualified elected official to evaluate the merits and risks of this proposal.
"More than any of the seven members of the City Council, certainly more than any of the five members of the Board of Supervisors. Councilmember Lee is uniquely equipped because of her professional experience and knowledge to ask serious and substantive questions," Scott acknowledged.
Lee's detailed fact sheet and substantive questioning represent exactly the kind of expertise-based leadership communities need when evaluating complex technical proposals. Her willingness to challenge the secrecy while asking informed questions demonstrates how elected officials should approach major development decisions.
Finally, someone who actually knows what they're talking about instead of just nodding along with corporate presentations.
Historical Perspective with Jaynie Adams
Arizona Historical Society's Jaynie Adams provided a refreshing contrast to the Project Blue controversy, highlighting preparations for Tucson's 250th anniversary celebration. Her enthusiasm for the institution's vast archives—spanning from thousand-year-old archaeological artifacts to Buffalo soldier sewing kits—underscored the rich historical tapestry that makes Tucson unique.
"So museums are like icebergs, right? So about 10 percent... About 10 percent of the collection is on display at any one point in time," Adams explained, revealing the massive scope of historical preservation work occurring behind the scenes.
The upcoming issue of the Journal of Arizona History, focusing on pre-1820 Arizona, provides crucial context for contemporary development debates. Adams' description of Spanish missions and presidios sheds light on how colonial powers utilized infrastructure development to control Indigenous lands and peoples—a dynamic worth considering when evaluating modern development proposals.
"The missions appear to do their missionizing work, which of course is unpopular with indigenous people in the area, and so the Presidios are established to kind of literally reinforce a lot of the times with violence the mission of the missionizing priests," Adams noted, providing historical context for understanding how development and displacement intersect.
Celebrating Heritage Amid Development Pressure
The August 23rd anniversary celebration promises free museum admission and evening Presidio festivities, offering community members opportunities to connect with regional heritage.
For Indigenous and Chicano families whose ancestors experienced Spanish colonization, Mexican rule, and American territorial expansion, these historical commemorations carry complex and multifaceted meanings.
It's worth remembering that Tucson's "founding" represents just one layer in thousands of years of continuous Indigenous presence—a perspective often missing from official celebrations.
Implications for Working Families
Project Blue's secretive nature particularly concerns working-class communities who bear the costs when development promises fail to materialize. The county's procedural approach—approving land sales before securing annexation—creates risks that ultimately fall on taxpayers if the deal fails to materialize.
The water usage promises require robust enforcement mechanisms, especially given the accelerating impact of climate change on desert communities. Working families can't afford to subsidize corporate water consumption while facing rising utility bills and potential rationing.
Because nothing says "public-private partnership" quite like privatizing the profits while socializing the risks.
The Broader Context
This controversy occurs within broader patterns of corporate influence over public decision-making that have accelerated during and after the Trump era. Non-disclosure agreements increasingly shield development deals from public scrutiny, while communities struggle to balance economic opportunities with democratic accountability.
For Indigenous and Chicano communities, secretive land deals evoke painful historical parallels. The pattern of excluding affected communities from major decisions about their homelands persists in modern development processes, which prioritize corporate confidentiality over community consent.
Moving Forward with Transparency
Tucson's ability to navigate the Project Blue controversy will establish important precedents for future development decisions. The community's response will determine whether billion-dollar deals can proceed in democratic darkness or must meet higher standards of public accountability.
Councilwoman Lee's technical expertise and commitment to substantive questioning offer hope that elected officials can strike a balance between economic opportunities and democratic values. Her approach demonstrates how technical competence and public accountability can coexist.
What Do You Think?
This intersection of economic ambition and democratic values continues to shape Tucson's trajectory. The Project Blue controversy raises fundamental questions about how communities balance corporate secrecy with public accountability, especially when dealing with critical resources such as water and land.
How can working families ensure their voices are heard in major development decisions dominated by corporate NDAs and technical complexity?
What lessons from Tucson's colonial history should inform contemporary debates about development, displacement, and community consent?
Your engagement matters enormously in these ongoing conversations. Democracy thrives through informed participation, and these issues deserve robust community discussion rather than boardroom negotiations.
Take Action and Stay Informed
Despite current controversies, Tucson's enduring strength lies in its engaged citizenry's willingness to demand accountability from elected officials. Whether Project Blue ultimately proceeds or falters, the community's response will establish crucial precedents for future development decisions.
Contact your city council members before they vote on annexation. Attend public hearings. Ask tough questions about water usage, infrastructure costs, and democratic accountability. Support organizations like the Arizona Historical Society that help communities understand their heritage and rights.
Most importantly, stay informed through independent journalism that follows these stories beyond corporate press releases and political spin. Support Three Sonorans Substack to help maintain this essential coverage of local politics, development deals, and community impact. Independent media remains crucial for holding powerful interests accountable to working families and marginalized communities.
The Buck Moon may have illuminated Thursday night's sky, but Tucson's future brightness depends on maintaining transparency, honoring its heritage, and ensuring that economic development serves community needs rather than just corporate profits.
Together, we can build a future that balances prosperity with democracy, progress with preservation, and economic opportunity with environmental justice.
Have a scoop or a story you want us to follow up on? Send us a message!