Friday Homestead Dispatch

Week Number Twenty-Six

1.
I was not familiar with the poet Andrea Gibson until a video was released of a poem they wrote for their fiancée, Megan Falley. Gibson died from Ovarian cancer on July 14 and the video was made in April. The poem is "Dying is the opposite of leaving."

According to their Substack, Gibson was the Poet Laureate of Colorado, and they have published seven books and recorded seven albums.

Too young to die so soon. Fuck cancer.

2.
As most of you know, Adelita Grijalva, daughter of the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), won the Democratic nomination to succeed her father and represent Arizona’s 7th Congressional District this past Tuesday. She said in a statement, “This is a victory not for me, but for our community and the progressive movement my dad started in Southern Arizona more than 50 years ago.”

I also had some enthusiasm for Deja Foxx, the 25-year-old articulate activist who shows promise. It’s worth a read, however, about her behavior after losing the election Tuesday night. Blake Morlock of the Tucson Sentinel writes that after losing a primary, a candidate must do three things that night, not after nursing wounds. Not after throwing a tantrum. If you want a future in the same political arena, do them straight away when results show you're enduring a 40-point pasting.

3.
Democracy Unites Us organized yesterday’s rally and protest in Reid Park, in honor of John Lewis, starting with brief speeches at the band-shell, then hitting Country Club and 22nd Streets. Good trouble! DUU is a collaboration including Tesla and 50501 organizers, Take Action Tucson, Indivisible Tucson Action Alliance, and Veterans for Peace, working to empower Tucsonans, unite communities, and resist erosion of our fundamental rights.

I also was approached by a young woman (yay for the youngsters fighting the fight!) who was representing the women run Arizona List. I looked them up when I got home and decided to contribute to their cause. Supporting local community organizations that are fighting for our rights—guarding reproductive health choices, protecting education, and fighting to strengthen local communities—is more important now than ever before.

4.
I wrote a brief piece on the mysterious proposed Tucson Data Center issue last week but hey, there’s more!

The Tucson Sentinel published a piece this week saying that the project would use more water than four golf courses when fully built out, and be energized with more power than any other TEP customer, according to city documents released Monday.

"I don't like the whole secrecy thing attached to this project from the get-go," Councilmember Paul Cunningham told the Sentinel on Monday after reviewing the new documents. "There's still too much cloak-and-dagger stuff that I'm not comfortable with."

Councilmember Nikki Lee, who represents the Southeast Side, likewise sounded a skeptical note saying "I’ve read every single word. Twice. Of the 21 questions I raised on June 26, only four can clearly and thoroughly be answered in writing based on what’s in this draft."

There are many websites that list the negative impacts of Data Centers for a given community. The Frontier Group warns that expectations of increasing electricity demand have resulted in delaying the retirements of fossil fuel power plants and proposals to resurrect some retired fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, slowing America’s progress toward a clean energy system with less impact on the climate. They also write that not only are data centers energy hogs, but they also consume millions of gallons of water, create noise pollution and could increase prices for utility customers. 

The website TechPolicy published a piece that says that among the locations of all existing and planned data centers in California, the median pollution burden score (https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data) is 7 out of 10, with 10 representing the highest pollution burden. Overall, the median pollution burden score of the data centers placed them in the top 20% of the most environmentally impacted locations in the state.

They also warn that a 2024 paper from researchers at the University of California, Riverside and Caltech found that data centers could contribute to 600,000 asthma-related symptom cases by 2030, with overall public health costs exceeding $20 billion. These findings highlight that the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure poses an emerging public health crisis in the communities where data centers are located and the surrounding areas.

A friend of mine, who is retired from the U of A in Information Technology, writes that he has read the draft agreement for Project Blue, and it certainly appears that it was written by the submitting company (no surprise) and is heavily biased in their favor to an absurd level. As written, their commitments are not really commitments at all, they have the ability to do what they want when they want, including exceeding the already large forecast of water usage. The agreement does NOT set limits, it sets tiered pricing and financial penalties for exceeding objectives.

His summary of concerns are as follows:

— This could unintentionally sabotage conservation and future water usage efforts in Tucson

— The developer can use much more water than planned if they are willing to pay for it as just a cost of doing business

— There is no guarantee as to when, or if, the city will recap any benefits from the agreement since it states they are under no obligation to do anything for up to 30 years

— While they are under no obligation, Tucson is immediately under an obligation to reserve a water supply for them, forgoing other opportunities or needs which could arise during the term of the agreement

— The so-called penalties are totally in their favor and allow them to do whatever they want if they pay for it, but with our limited water resources

— The water positivity plan is really abstract, difficult to measure, and it appears they are not under any real obligation to even do it. There seems to be a lot of abstract smoke and mirrors going on with their 100% water positivity plan. IF this agreement goes forward, the water positivity plan should be much more detailed, with detailed commitments and penalties included.

— Many of the water efficiency projects are programs the city can or should do by itself. This project is trying to justify it's water use by claiming it can make our city residents and users use less and be more efficient. An analogy might be if a company were to come in saying they will have a zero carbon footprint because they are confident they can get city residents to drive less and purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, and adjust their home thermostat.

— Water conservation and usage efficiency projects are much more likely to be embraced by the community if they know they are doing it for the future of city residents, NOT if they are doing it to just to justify a single's company's justification for using all the water the public is "saving".

— Regardless of how the decision to proceed goes, this agreement should not be signed without MUCH more detail.

— With legal agreements, what counts is what’s in the agreement. There are a lot of things being said, promised, or hoped for which are not in the draft agreement.

— If they just want to lock up water rights options, or lock out possible competitors, without ever building their facility, this draft agreement seems to allow them to do that at the City of Tucson’s expense without the city reaping any benefits. For 30 years! As written, all it takes is for there to be an economic downturn, or a change in business direction, and they still have the water rights and the city has nothing to show for it. Even though we could still be recharging the water during that time period, we can't make other long term commitments to use it elsewhere.

— When we are speaking of timeframes of decades for this water commitment, we are certainly moving into the timeframe when the technology and economic feasibility of processing reclaimed water back into potable water will be a reality and may very well be needed. And this water would be off the table for that option.

— If the developer and city are so sure that the developer is going to build out the facility in the near future AND abide to the spirit of the spoken agreement, then the written agreement should reflect that by freeing the city's water commitment if they do not do so in a few years, NOT 30 years. And if the already huge water commitment is legitimate, there is no way the trigger for penalties should be calculated using a 10 year rolling window.

— The excess water consumption penalty being calculated as a 10-year rolling window is pretty absurd. Given the unpredictability of a company’s longevity, that’s pretty much a blank check to consume water in excess of the agreement, especially if you know you are going to use less water in the future due to a facility shutdown or future technology efficiency change.

— Overall, this proposal seems “off”, a bit shady, and highly biased in favor of the Developer while locking up Tucson water resources for decades. The way the county and city handles these NDA's certainly doesn't give the public faith that everyone is acting in our community's best long term interests.

— I’m concerned with the possible adverse impact to Tucson Electric power rates as well as how it may affect customer prioritization during power shortages/outages. I don’t know what the Project Blue data center is going to be supporting, but I do know that not all data centers are alike. The nature of what is being run in the datacenter, and for who, can have external ramifications during resource shortages as to who gets the resource and who doesn’t. An analogy is if one were to approve a generic unspecific local airport in advance, not knowing whether it would be used for small private planes, major airlines, or a military base. This isn't just another manufacturer or call center, the nature of what the data center is actually being used for can be quite relevant to it's impact and priority over resources once built.

The Sentinel writes that if you want to voice your concerns, a public meeting about the project, organized by city officials, will be held Wednesday, July 23, at Mica Mountain High School, 10800 E. Valencia Rd. The 5-7 p.m. information session will also be streamed on the city's Youtube channel. That meeting will include Councilmember Lee. Another meeting will be held July 31, and include Mayor Regina Romero. The location has not yet been released.

And right now you can sign a petition that should make an impact.

5.
A couple of fossils in Republican clothes vote to defund Public Broadcasting and cancel foreign aid…you know, business as usual.

6.
I love David Foster Wallace’s take on perfectionism. “Perfectionism is dangerous because if your fidelity to perfectionism is too high, you never do anything. You sacrifice how gorgeous and perfect it is in your head for what it really is."

7.
I leave you today with a scene from the strange 1950s. RIP, Connie Francis.

And now…