In this issue…

_{Land News}
McNeal feedlot community meeting
An aluminum melter in Benson
Farewell to a wolf pack
_{Water News}
Attorney General Kris Mayes interview
Rep. Alex Kolodin Interview
Arizona’s water cyber security
Where the Colorado River ends
_{Local News}
Scams against the elderly

Howdy!

Thank you to everyone who sent birthday wishes last week — that was a real boost. Much appreciated.

And big thanks, as always, to those of you pitching in $5 a month to keep the Ground Party Papers rolling. That covers my newsletter platform fee and justifies a greasy breakfast burrito and coffee at El Chef now and then — fuel for a writer’s soul.

This year, I’ve been neck-deep in tangled local issues — wolves, feedlots, and now an aluminum melter. It’s work worth doing, no doubt. But it’s heavy. And I like this newsletter being a source of joy and curiosity, too.

So if you come across anything exciting, hopeful, or just plain weird happening up here in the high desert, send it my way. I’m always looking for signs of life.

This summer I’ll also be carving out a little time to start working on my own land — grading roads, clearing space, trying to turn dust into something that resembles a future. That means the newsletters might be a little shorter for a while.

But don’t worry — I’ll still keep the signal strong. You’ll get the updates that matter, and whatever else I can wrangle between shovels of caliche and sips of coffee.

Stay cool this summer, and pray for thundering monsoons.

McNeal feedlot

I attended the community meeting on the proposed McNeal feedlot yesterday. The room was packed and the mood was curious, skeptical, but mostly respectful. A lot of folks just wanted straight answers. Here’s what I found.

Back on May 9, a letter went out from Mr. Ramon Bojorquez to neighbors near the proposed site, declaring plans for a “special use permit” to build a feedlot on 1,052 acres of land south of McNeal. Just a bit of light reading — enough to set half the neighborhood on edge.

Word of the 1,052-acre project hit Facebook like a match to dry grass. Feedlots can legally run up to 100 cows per acre. Do the math and you’re imagining something out of the Riverview playbook — tens of thousands of cows, a sea of methane and flies.

Cue the comment section panic: water contamination, unbearable stench, truck traffic, airborne bugs with teeth. A few folks posted in favor, saying it’d bring jobs. Bojorquez’s sons chimed in to say it’d be more like “10 to 15 acres” of actual feedlot — not the full thousand.

The Friends Southwest Center hosted the community meeting at the old schoolhouse. Organizers said 150 people showed up — ranchers, retirees, concerned neighbors, and one guy who looked like he’d rather be anywhere else.

Bojorquez spoke, but most of the Q&A fell to Diego Suarez, a younger local involved with the project. First it was 60 cows. Then 400 cows. Then an explanation: 60 mating cows roaming outside the 20-acre feedlot zone, and 400 “growing calves” inside the fence.

I shared something I’d heard from a local GOP precinct committeeman — that Bojorquez had pitched 2,000 cows at a prior precinct meeting. Bojorquez didn’t deny it. Suarez said he didn’t know where the number came from. Maybe it fell out of the sky.

There were questions about funding and secretive business partners. Journalist Beau Hodai uncovered that Bojorquez recently formed a cattle-focused LLC with Nicolas Reynoso Carmelo from Hermosillo, Sonora — a man whose business ventures includes cattle, pecans, snack foods, and raising mule deer for hunting ranches.

When asked directly about his partners, Bojorquez said “I’m not even going to go there.” Suarez said big projects like this are usually bankrolled by third parties. No other details emerged.

Someone asked about the smell of cow urine and dung. “The cows already exist,” Suarez said, arguing that relocating them wouldn't create more waste. Which sounds logical, until you remember that moving cows to a concentrated pen is the entire concern of a feedlot. Pile the urine and dung into one spot, and suddenly the air starts to get thick.

Will the feedlot create jobs? They said five. People looked underwhelmed.

Matt Taylor from the county Planning and Zoning fielded a few questions. McNeal farmer and rancher Jackie Watkins asked if the permit would cap the operation at 460 cows. Taylor said probably, with some “reasonable” allowance of expansion. But if it ever jumped to 2,000? That would trigger a new application.

I pressed for specifics: how much “wiggle room” does the county allow? Taylor said they won’t know until they see the permit. I asked Suarez if the permit would say ‘20 acres only’. He said Yes.

After the meeting, some folks seemed at ease with 460 cows. Others worried the number might quietly balloon over time. These things have a way of growing when no one’s looking.

I’ve lived next to cows. Farm smell? No problem. But I’ve also driven past Riverview’s industrial-scale feedlots, and its like sticking your head in the bottom chamber of a porta-potty that’s been used by construction workers for a week straight. So I poked around online to see if there’s a known “smell threshold” — the point when a feedlot stops smelling like cows and starts smelling like death.

Missouri has buffer distance rules for feedlots, based on animal unit equivalents (AUEs). One cow equals one AUE. Depending on placement, this feedlot could easily meet Missouri’s buffer standard, if that counts for anything. Texas, as another example, has no smell mitigation rules for feedlots under 1,000 head.

The other major issue: water.

A lot of folks are asking if the new Douglas AMA (Active Management Area) restricts water use for new feedlots. As an unwitting scholar of the AMA laws, I can answer that question: Yes and No.

Here’s the breakdown: 98% of a cow’s water footprint is in growing feed — like Riverview’s 100+ alfalfa pivots. The AMA restricts that and will reduce it over time. But the remaining 2% — drinking water and washing pens — is considered “industrial” and is still legal, provided they submit a conservation plan and follow basic rules.

For instance, the proposed McNeal feedlot land previously had INA grandfathered irrigation rights, but they lapsed due to non-use. Bojorquez said he asked ADWR for permission to irrigate again. So far, they’ve said no.

So how much water will they use at the feedlot?

Suarez said beef calves like the ones they’ll raise drink about 3 gallons a day, according to the USDA. That’s not quite right. The most recent edition of Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle provides estimates based on weight and air temperature. The table below shows daily water use, in gallons.

These figures don’t include the other 1% used for site operations — cleaning pens, spraying dust — so I’ll tack on a conservative 10 gallons per cow, per day.

Don’t take this as gospel, but assuming a range of weight sizes from young calves to finishing steers, my rough ballpark puts daily water use at around 20 gallons per cow, average. Give or take a few depending on summer temps and whether the hose gets left running.

460 cows × 20 gallons × 365 days
=
3,358,000 gallons per year

That’s about 10.4 acre-feet, or the annual water use of six Arizona households.

If this really is a 400-500 head operation, the smell and water use may not be catastrophic. But neighbors are right to stay vigilant. It’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission — and a quiet 400 cows can turn into 2,000 with the right investor and enough look-the-other-way.

Some will say “See? It’s not that bad. Everyone overreacted.” But the only reason we even know what we know is because people kicked up dust.

Raising a fuss is the immune response of a community. That’s how you catch things before they spread.

If you appreciate someone doing all the cow math so you don’t have to, driving around Cochise County asking uncomfortable questions, sifting through state records, and sacrificing a perfectly good Saturday and Sunday to write it all up — consider tipping your local researcher.

Breakfast burritos aren’t free.

Benson aluminum melter

Oh boy — another round of the classic NIMBY vs. YIMBY cage match. They never end out here, do they?

But this one might be more deserving of raised eyebrows.

Last November, Benson’s Planning and Zoning Commission quietly greenlit a height exemption for a towering 88-foot aluminum remelting facility — nearly triple the town’s usual 30-foot limit. Someone tipped me off earlier this week, and I’d wager it’ll hit the local news cycle soon enough.

The facility’s purpose is simple: melt down recycled aluminum into slabs, ship them off, and turn them into more cans, gutters, or whatever else Americans are still packaging in metal these days. It’ll sit just east of Benson — practically hugging the San Pedro River.

The building’s height isn’t winning any fans, sure, but what’s really getting locals agitated is the potential for air pollution.

The company behind it, Aluminum Dynamics, filed an emissions report with ADEQ, and the agency ran the numbers to see if the projected pollution levels fell within mandated guidelines.

I reviewed ADEQ’s final report and pulled together a chart that breaks down the situation: current air contaminant concentrations, projected post-melter concentrations, and the allowed limits.

The results? Technically legal. But in some cases — especially those tiny 2.5 micron particles that dig deep into your lungs — the levels come dangerously close to the legal max. The kind of “close” that might be fine on paper, but starts to feel a little itchy when you think about it long enough. You can review the full report here.

Company reps have started chiming in on Facebook, trying to ease public anxiety with promises of jobs and regulatory compliance. And just like with the McNeal feedlot, public reaction has already started to splinter — enthusiastic supporters of economic growth, loud objections and outrage, and cautious skeptics trying to learn more.

One local reached out to the environmental watchdog group Don’t Waste Arizona, which has a history of successfully shutting down operations like this. The group’s president, Stephen Brittle, reviewed the facility’s air report and fired off a warning letter to city officials.

I'll include Brittle’s full letter at the bottom of this email. But here are a few choice excerpts that give you the general flavor:

I also contacted the project manager — he recently moved to Benson. He said he’d follow up for an interview. I’ll let you know if he does.

Farewell to a wolf pack

This might be the last update on the local Mexican gray wolves for a while — because the wolves are gone.

After months of factional organizing, social media skirmishes, and a three-hour packed-house county meeting, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, working with Arizona Game and Fish, quietly relocated the tagged local wolf pack. Wonder and Llave — the mated pair — and their pups were removed from the area by helicopter.

Supervisor Frank Antenori, never one to miss a soundbite, commented:

The wolves, it seems, were the bud.

Environmentalists didn’t take the news lightly. Western Watersheds Project issued a statement full of teeth:

If you watched the meeting (or survived it in person), you might remember a few wolf advocates trying to make the case that not all local ranchers see the wolves as a menace. Some even argued that coyotes — or stray dogs — were more likely culprits in many livestock attacks. It sounded like a nice theory… but it needed proof.

Well — in the spirit of weird small-town receipts — here’s what surfaced on a local rancher’s Facebook page not long after (scroll past if you don’t like graphic imagery):

So yeah — apparently those ranchers do exist.

I’m taking a break from writing the Water Agenda newsletter this summer — but if you're thirsty for something to read while your swamp cooler rattles and the toad choruses arrive, here’s a few recent dispatches to check out.

—

For my first foray into audio-video journalism, I sat down with Attorney General Kris Mayes. We talked about her lawsuits against the Saudi-backed Fondomonte, the dairy giant Riverview, and an attempted water transfer from rural to urban Arizona. Also: her deep roots in Arizona and public service.

—

In episode two of my video experiment, I interviewed Rep. Alex Kolodin who’s pushing for a statewide “open market” for water. If you’ve ever felt like central Arizona is eyeballing our rural aquifers like a slot machine jackpot, this is worth a watch.

—

Yes, foreign hackers can (and do) breach rural water systems. Yes, it’s a problem. Yes, Congress is behind in addressing it. This edition dives into the strange and neglected world of water utility cybersecurity — and what could go wrong if we keep ignoring it.

—

The Colorado River once carved its way all the way to the Sea of Cortez. Now? It dies somewhere in the dirt. This piece looks at what was, what is, and what might be as our water demands grow and supplies shrink.

Local News

On Tuesday, I made my way to the Douglas Community Center for a presentation from Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes on what the state politely calls “elder scams” — the kind of low-rent fraud that preys on elderly people just trying to answer the phone or check their mail without getting robbed.

A few TV stations showed up, and you might catch a glimpse of your humble correspondent in the clip below, trying to not look over at the camera.

Mayes also dropped a tidbit about her next target for the back half of 2025: healthcare providers using AI to jack around with people’s insurance rates. If your premiums start spiking and the customer service can’t give you a straight explanation — get in touch with with the attorney general.

Appendix

Here’s the full letter from Stephen Brittle on the proposed aluminum melter in Benson:

Dear Benson Mayor and City Council:

Don’t Waste Arizona, Inc. (DWAZ) is a non-profit environmental organization headquartered at 7555 East Navigator Lane, Tucson, AZ 85756. The telephone number to reach DWAZ is 602-881-3305. DWAZ is dedicated to the protection and preservation of the environment in Arizona. DWAZ is especially concerned about environmental justice and air pollution issues. DWAZ has members in the affected area, and submits these comments on behalf of itself and its affected members.

This is a pivotal moment for you and your Benson community, and your decision here will determine if there will be the Benson that exists now or if it becomes a toxic wasteland.

The most serious problem with this proposed facility is the nearly 10 tons of aluminum dust 2.5 microns or less that would be emitted into the local airshed annually. There are no dispersal models for these emissions provided in the air permit, but it can be assumed that much of the aluminum dust would be deposited in the local Benson area. This toxic dust would blow around the local Benson area and accumulate, also dusting down onto adjacent agriculture, livestock and animals, people, home gardens, homes and buildings, etc. After just ten years, that would be about 100 tons of this toxic dust. Aluminum is an element, and will not degrade.

A facility like this, in SIC Code 3411, is required by federal and state law to report its releases of aluminum fume or dust annually to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. For a perspective, the ASARCO-Hayden copper smelter also reports under the same statutes, and its annual emissions of copper into the air are less than 10 tons per year. So, what is proposed in Benson is an enormous toxics-spewing outfit. After DWAZ’s referral, Hayden is now in the EPA’s Superfund program, with one clean-up of 180 homes and the school of the arsenic and lead dust that landed there from smelter emissions already accomplished. The federal agency that investigates Superfund sites found that the children in Hayden have the highest levels of lead in their blood of all the children in America.

The emissions of ten tons annually of aluminum dust 2.5 microns or less constitute an extreme and substantial endangerment to public health and safety, and overall environmental health. The miniscule size of these aluminum dust particles that will be emitted mean that upon inhalation, the aluminum will be immediately transported to the deepest recesses of the lungs and absorbed into the bloodstream, then distributed throughout the body. A review of aluminum dust hazards from the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (https://www.nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0054.pdf)  notes:

Aluminum can affect you when breathed in.
* Contact can irritate the skin and eyes.
* Exposure to Aluminum can cause “metal fume fever.”
This is a flu-like illness with symptoms of metallic taste in the mouth, headache, fever and chills, aches, chest tightness and cough. The symptoms may be delayed for several hours after exposure and usually last for a day or two.
* Exposure to fine dust can cause scarring of the lungs (pulmonary fibrosis) with symptoms of cough and shortness of breath.
* Aluminum powder is a FLAMMABLE SOLID and a DANGEROUS FIRE HAZARD

Please also review the National Institutes of Health study, Chronic exposure to aluminum and risk of Alzheimer's disease: A meta-analysis(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26592479/).Results showed that individuals chronically exposed to Al were 71% more likely to develop AD (OR: 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.35-2.18). The finding suggests that chronic Al exposure is associated with increased risk of AD.

Workers in the aluminum industry also suffer from respiratory system damage due to their chronic exposure to this toxic chemical.  (See Respiratory Disorders in Aluminum Smelter Workers https://journals.lww.com/joem/FullText/2014/05001/Respiratory_Disorders_in_Aluminum_Smelter_Workers.9.aspx

Although the prospect and promise of jobs caused by local manufacturing that pay well are always enticing to smaller towns in Arizona, companies that make these offers are counting on a lack of understanding about the real impacts and hazards to get approval. The air permitting process starts with the potential to emit certain amounts of pollutants, and the facility is required to “control” or reduce these as much is economically viable for the company, but it does not ever mean that the allowed emissions are safe and not harmful. Once these impacts are realized, it is usually too late to reverse the damage or even mitigate the damage. How exactly would one pick up and remove ten tons of aluminum dust from the Benson area? Or 100 tons?

DWAZ urges that you turn down this proposed smelter and save your town.

Sincerely,
Stephen Brittle
President

If you enjoyed this newsletter, forward it to a friend.

And…

Thanks for reading!