Loading
Data Center Entitlement Research23 cases, $64B+ in project value analyzed
See all 23 case filesCase File · Tucson / Pima County, Arizona
Tucson said no. Unanimously. The county said yes, 3-2.
Project Blue — a $3.6 billion Beale Infrastructure data center campus — was unanimously killed by the Tucson City Council after “intense community pressure” over transparency. Beale shifted to Pima County, which approved 3-2 in December 2025. Now opponents are pursuing a voter referendum in Marana. Jurisdiction shopping works — until direct democracy catches up.
Cited Tucson annexation read: 18/100 and the Pima County path 42/100.
Tucson, AZ — data center permit denied after community raised concerns about water consumption in a desert city
Wikimedia Commons
$3.6B
Project Value
Unanimous No
Tucson Vote
3-2 Yes
Pima Vote
290 ac
Acreage
Pending
Referendum
42/100
RealClear Score
Tucson / Pima County, AZ · 2024 — 2026
The complete timeline.
From unanimous city rejection to narrow county approval to voter referendum. The full arc of jurisdiction shopping.
Pre-Filing
Regulatory Process
Community Opposition
Current Status
2024–2025
Project Blue proposed for Tucson annexation
Beale Infrastructure proposes 'Project Blue' — a $3.6 billion data center campus on approximately 290 acres south of Tucson near the Southeast Employment and Logistics Center on South Houghton Road. The initial pathway: annexation into the City of Tucson. Negotiations proceed with limited public transparency.
Summer 2025
Community pressure builds over lack of transparency
Tucson residents and advocacy groups begin raising concerns about Project Blue's lack of public information. The 'intense community pressure' — as local media describes it — centers on water use in the desert, energy consumption, and the perception that the deal was being negotiated behind closed doors.
August 6, 2025
Tucson City Council unanimously kills the project
The Tucson City Council votes unanimously to end negotiations and remove the annexation and development agreement from the upcoming council agenda. The unanimous vote — not a single dissent — signals total political collapse. The council directs all staff to stop work on the project.
Late 2025
Beale shifts to Pima County — jurisdiction shopping
After Tucson's unanimous rejection, Beale Infrastructure pivots to Pima County jurisdiction. The developer approaches the Pima County Board of Supervisors with a modified proposal for the same general area but under county (not city) authority. The jurisdiction shopping strategy mirrors patterns seen in Google Palo Iowa and other cases.
June 2025
Pima County approves land deal for Project Blue
The Pima County Board of Supervisors approves a land deal for the Project Blue data center near the county fairgrounds. The deal closes despite ongoing community opposition. The approval shows that the county is more receptive than the city — but the margin is narrow.
December 16, 2025
Pima County approves development agreement 3-2
In a 3-2 vote, the Pima County Board of Supervisors approves a binding agreement with Humphrey's Peak Properties (the Project Blue buyer). Supervisors Rex Scott, Steve Christy, and Matt Heinz vote yes. Supervisors Andrés Cano and Jen Allen vote no. The agreement outlines 180 permanent jobs and thousands of construction positions.
February 2026
Opponents submit referendum signatures in Marana
Data center opponents submit petition signatures for a voter referendum in Marana, challenging aspects of the Project Blue approval. The referendum effort signals that opposition has shifted from public hearings to direct democracy — a more potent and harder-to-defeat mechanism.
2026 — Ongoing
Project Blue proceeds under Pima County — referendum pending
As of early 2026, Project Blue is proceeding under Pima County jurisdiction with a 3-2 approval. The Marana referendum effort adds uncertainty. The project that was unanimously killed in Tucson is being built in the county — a textbook case of jurisdiction shopping in action.
The People Who Decided This Case
Key officials and community leaders.
A unanimous city council. A split county board. And voters who may override both.
Tucson City Council (Unanimous)
City of Tucson
Documented Record
Voted unanimously on August 6, 2025 to end negotiations and directed all city staff to cease work on the Project Blue annexation.
The unanimous vote to kill Project Blue was the most decisive rejection possible. Not a single council member was willing to defend the project — indicating the community opposition had reached a level that made support politically impossible.
Rex Scott
Pima County Supervisor
Documented Record
Voted yes in the 3-2 December 2025 approval, citing projected thousands of jobs and significant economic development for southern Arizona.
Part of the 3-2 majority that approved the development agreement. His support was essential to the narrow approval. His focus on jobs and economic development contrasted with opponents' water and transparency concerns.
Steve Christy
Pima County Supervisor
Documented Record
Cast the second yes vote in the 3-2 approval, maintaining that economic benefits outweighed community concerns raised during hearings.
Second vote in the 3-2 majority. His conservative, pro-business orientation was predictable from his voting record. His support was the most ideologically consistent on the board.
Matt Heinz
Pima County Supervisor
Documented Record
Cast the decisive third yes vote after negotiating community protections into the binding development agreement with Humphrey's Peak Properties.
The swing vote in the 3-2 approval. His willingness to support the project despite being more moderate than Christy was the critical factor. His vote suggests the development agreement's community protections were sufficient for his political calculus.
Andrés Cano
Pima County Supervisor
Documented Record
Voted no, citing inadequately addressed water implications of a data center campus in the desert environment.
One of two no votes. His water concerns echoed the arguments that killed the project in Tucson. His district's demographics and environmental justice concerns drove his opposition.
Jen Allen
Pima County Supervisor
Documented Record
Voted no, citing insufficient transparency about the project's water and energy impacts on surrounding communities.
Second no vote. Her transparency concerns mirrored the criticism that killed the Tucson annexation. The 3-2 margin means her position represents nearly half the board.
Beale Infrastructure
Developer
Documented Record
Pivoted from Tucson to Pima County jurisdiction after the unanimous city rejection. Secured 3-2 county approval for 180 permanent jobs and thousands of construction positions.
Successfully pivoted from Tucson to Pima County after the unanimous city rejection. The jurisdiction shopping strategy succeeded but at the cost of political capital and community trust — the Marana referendum suggests the fight is not over.
The Key Differentiator
Source records that existed before Project Blue was announced.
Desert Water Scarcity — Automatic Opposition
Any water-intensive facility proposed in the Arizona desert faces automatic opposition. Tucson's water sensitivity is well-documented in municipal planning documents. The 'intense community pressure' was predictable from the region's water politics.
Transparency Deficit — The Fatal Error
The Tucson annexation was negotiated with limited public transparency. When communities perceive deals are being made behind closed doors, the backlash is exponentially worse than opposition to the project itself. Transparency was the issue that killed the project, not the project's merits.
Tucson Council — Zero Tolerance for Opacity
The Tucson City Council's voting records show zero tolerance for perceived lack of public process. A cited political-record review surfaces the council as unanimously hostile to behind-closed-doors development negotiations.
Pima County — 3-2 Board Composition
The Pima County Board of Supervisors' political composition — three members sympathetic to economic development, two focused on environmental concerns — was visible in their voting records. The 3-2 outcome was predictable.
Referendum Risk in Arizona
Arizona's referendum process allows voters to challenge government decisions through petition. The Marana referendum effort was predictable from Arizona's history of ballot initiatives on development issues.
Jurisdiction Shopping Pattern = Backlash
When a developer is rejected by one jurisdiction and immediately moves to another, the original community's opposition often follows. The Tucson-to-Pima-County shift was framed as regulatory avoidance — exactly the narrative that energizes referendum campaigns.
The Pre-Filing Research
What RealClear finds at Project Blue, Tucson/Pima County.
Before the annexation attempt. Before the unanimous rejection. Before the jurisdiction shift.
realclear.ai/analysis/project-blue-tucson-pima-county-az
Site Analysis
Project Blue (Beale Infrastructure)
Tucson / Pima County, AZ — 290 acres, $3.6B data center campus
Active — jurisdiction shifted
Feasibility Score42/100
High-Risk Factors
- Tucson City Council unanimously killed the annexation — total political failure
- Lack of transparency triggered 'intense community pressure'
- Pima County approved 3-2 — politically fragile
- Marana referendum petition submitted by opponents
- Arizona desert water concerns amplify opposition to water-intensive uses
Recommendation
MODERATE-HIGH RISK. Jurisdiction shopping from Tucson to Pima County succeeded 3-2 but faces referendum challenge in Marana. Desert water concerns create persistent opposition. Lack of transparency in the initial Tucson approach was the fatal error — correctable but requiring fundamentally different community engagement.
Tucson City Council Minutes Aug 2025 · Pima County BOS Minutes Dec 2025 · Marana Referendum Filing Feb 2026
Primary Source Documents
12 DocumentsEvery finding cited to the source. Click any document to preview it directly. Source-record patterns visible to experienced entitlement analysts months before the hearing.
Cited Brief
How RealClear built this assessment.
This source review is backed by a traceable source trail — real articles, real officials, real patterns.
8
News records reviewed
4
Officials identified
1/2
Comparable approvals reviewed
1
Opposition groups in record
Event Timeline
Key milestones in the entitlement journey
Approval
Denial / Termination
Hearing / Filing
Election
2025
Beale Infrastructure proposes Project Blue in Tucson city limits
2025
1,000+ residents pack the City Council meeting
2025
Tucson City Council rejects unanimously
2025
Developer moves to unincorporated Pima County — different jurisdiction
Dec 2025
Pima County approves the project
2026
Tucson passes new water ordinance targeting large industrial users
2025
Beale Infrastructure proposes Project Blue in Tucson city limits
2025
1,000+ residents pack the City Council meeting
2025
Tucson City Council rejects unanimously
2025
Developer moves to unincorporated Pima County — different jurisdiction
Dec 2025
Pima County approves the project
2026
Tucson passes new water ordinance targeting large industrial users
Key Actors
Decision-makers and their positions
Tucson City Council
Decision Body
Unanimous rejection — water consumption objection proved insurmountable in a desert city
Pima County Board of Supervisors
Alternative Jurisdiction
Approved the same project Tucson rejected — different water policy, different political environment
Opposition Record
Organized opposition groups
Tucson Water Conservation Coalition
1,000+ residents at a single hearing — citywide reach
Documented
Tactics
Mass hearing attendance, water consumption documentation, desert sustainability framing
Track Record
Produced a unanimous rejection and triggered a new water ordinance targeting large industrial users
Jurisdiction Pattern
What history tells us about this jurisdiction
Approval history
1 of 2 — same project, different jurisdictions. City: denied. County: approved.
Recent Shifts
Tucson passed new water ordinance post-denial — the window for future similar projects has narrowed further
Source read
Jurisdiction matters more than the project. The same facility was unanimously rejected in Tucson and approved in unincorporated Pima County. The cited approval-path review identifies the county alternative before the city application was filed.
Cited research compiled from 8 news articles, Tucson City Council records, Pima County hearing records, and comparable desert-region data center water policy analysis
Community Record · Source ReviewLinked source records — sourced case file
Jurisdiction matters more than the project
Jurisdiction matters more than the project. The same facility was unanimously rejected in Tucson and approved in unincorporated Pima County. The cited approval-path review identifies the county alternative before the city application was filed. Cited research compiled from 8 news articles, Tucson City Council records, Pima County hearing records, and comparable desert-region data center water policy analysis
Historical record: Blocking patternSource support: strong·6 linked source records·5 source outlets
How this was assembled: Every source record ties to a public source you can verify yourself — news coverage, hearing records, court filings, public testimony. No scraped gated platforms, no invented engagement numbers, no attributions that aren’t on the page. RealClear surfaces source records; your team decides. See our methodology for the full sourcing standard.
This Is Entitlement Research
Request cited research for your next project.
RealClear maps jurisdiction shopping risks, referendum exposure, and community transparency expectations — before you file.
Cited research summary · Not legal advice · Verify independently before making investment decisions
Keep reading
More like this
Data centers vertical
36 hyperscale + colocation fights documented across 16 states.
All case files
222 entitlement fights
Every fight in the case-file library, across every vertical.
Market level
Q1 2026 Risk Index
Jurisdiction-level scoring. Triage before site screening.
Start here
Submit for 24-hour research
Send a property and get a cited brief before you file.