On April 23, Energy Transfer held an “open house” in Oracle, with only two days notice. The "open-house" format prevented an open public discussion and left many attendees with unanswered questions. As a result, Cascabel Conservation Association and the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance (LSPWA) have done additional legwork to provide as much insight as possible, provided below. (You can also read LSPWA’s June 26 pre-filing letter to FERC for a broad outline of our concerns about the gas pipeline's potential, future impairment to the Lower San Pedro.)
The Desert Southwest Project is a proposed natural gas pipeline expansion led by Energy Transfer, the same company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, raising broader concerns about environmental oversight, and community plus Tribal engagement practices.The project includes:
Length & Route: The pipeline, with a 150-foot construction right-of-way, is expected to span about 50 miles of the San Pedro watershed, largely paralleling the existing Kinder Morgan (El Paso) pipeline, but with notable deviations, including a route through portions of Oracle State Park and a crossing in northeastern Oracle (see map).
Laterals: A 10-inch, 3.28-mile lateral line into San Manuel is planned.
Purpose: While Energy Transfer is a pipeline operator that transports gas for a fee rather than producing it, the San Manuel lateral is intended to supply an energy generation facility, currently tied to Arizona G&T Cooperatives. AzGT generates and transmits electric power to member cooperatives and other customers in California, Nevada and New Mexico, as well as Arizona, catering to communities in Maricopa, Pima and Cochise Counties.
Timeline: The project is currently in the pre-filing stage with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under docket PF26-9-000, meaning formal environmental review and public scoping are still ahead.
Notably, while approximately 8,000 residents across impacted communities (Cascabel, Oracle, San Manuel, Mammoth, Dudleyville, Aravaipa) were offered only this informal, late-notice open house, a separate, hour-long Q&A session had already been scheduled for April 28 specifically for the ranching community’s Winkelman and Redington Natural Resource Conservation Districts at the San Manuel Elks Club. The Tohono O’odham Nation and the San Carlos Apache Tribe, both of which adopted formal resolutions declaring the San Pedro River a Traditional Cultural Property, were offered neither the same consideration as the local Natural Resource Conservation Districts (NRCDs)—a sit-down Q/A—nor even the separate, ineffectual open houses offered to local communities.
San Manuel community member, Chimene Hawes, attended the April 28 NRCD meeting and recorded the meeting on video.
Minutes from the Winkleman National Conservation District meeting can be viewed here.
The April 29 issue of The Miner includes, as part of an article covering the open house, a cut-and-paste of a substack post about Energy Transfer’s anchor customer being Phoenix-based APS, and the drive for the pipeline being the support of data centers.
The planned lateral into San Manuel is tied to a proposed energy generation facility, raising concerns about water demand in an already water-limited region. Staff were not equipped to answer even general questions about water usage at typical energy facilities.
Representatives acknowledged ongoing uncertainty about the exact siting of this facility as they continue negotiations with landowner, Magma/BHP, noting they are “waiting for information” and may need to reroute accordingly. The response from Energy Transfer at the NRCD meeting was, “We are waiting for information from them [BHP] on where they’re going to spot the location, and then we’ll either have to route to their location, or we’ll try to get it closer to our main lines. Our understanding is that there may be a large scale coming up, so there might be some issues there.” The meaning and implications of large scale in the last sentence are unclear (see meeting video, 46 min. 05 sec.).
The proposed route passes through Oracle State Park and includes a new compressor station in northeastern Oracle, where the pipeline would deviate from the existing Kinder Morgan corridor.
Residents expressed concern about water usage, compressor noise pollution that would result in habitat disruption, visual impacts, and safety risks associated with high-pressure gas infrastructure.
The lack of clear reasoning for route deviations—often attributed vaguely to “constructability”—left many frustrated.
The route avoids co-location with existing infrastructure in some areas, instead cutting through relatively undisturbed land in the Middle San Pedro Valley.
Map 10-5-A shows both routes through the Middle San Pedro. They are largely co-located with the Kinder Morgan line, with two exceptions: 1) a fairly minor deviation on the north side of Soza Mesa; 2) a major deviation on the extreme NW corner of Cochise County. The Preferred Route crosses the San Pedro River close to Redington, whereas the Proposed Route crosses near the Pima/Pinal county lines.
Concerns include:
Increased traffic and road degradation on Cascabel Road
Impacts to sensitive ecological and culturally significant archaeological sites
Uncertainty about construction logistics, including laydown yards and access routes
Benefits to the Preferred Route vs. the Proposed Route include its co-location with Kinder Morgan, where environmental damage has already occurred.
The Preferred Route passes significantly further from the Redfield Canyon Wilderness.
Map 10-6-A shows that the Preferred Route goes around Oracle State Park, whereas the Proposed Route goes through it.
Community members have already indicated a preference for an alternative route—excluding both the Proposed and Preferred Routes—along I-10, which would minimize or eliminate new disturbance in the Valley.
Why are certain segments not co-located with existing pipelines?
What is the full scope and water demand of the proposed energy center in San Manuel?
Where exactly will compressor stations and other infrastructure be located?
How will the pipeline be constructed “under” the river, where it traverses the San Pedro?
How will cumulative impacts—especially to water resources—be assessed?
Can our communities influence the route of this pipeline?
Who determines the Proposed Route and who determines the Preferred Route? And what is the process for the determinations?
How many permanent jobs will really come to the community (varying figures were provided based on which representative was asked. Permanent jobs across the entirety of the project – Texas through Arizona – were quoted as low as 50.)
Attendees consistently reported receiving different answers from different representatives, underscoring the need for transparent, accountable public engagement.
Attend in-person sessions:
These formats involve one-on-one interviews with FERC staff in closed-room settings with a stenographer recording your comments.
Tuesday, July 23 ~ Biosphere 2, Oracle ~ 5-7 p.m. [Lower San Pedro]
Tuesday, July 28 ~ Willcox Community Center, Willcox ~ 5-7 p.m. [Middle San Pedro]
Attend an Info-session & Comment Writing Workshop (Zoom):
Thursday, July 23 ~ Zoom ~ 6-7 PM [Register Here]
A Zoom link will be provided before the event.
Local partners with expertise in the area’s cultural resources, hydrology, and biological diversity will discuss threats and share key talking points, while tri-state partners with pipeline experience will share sample scoping letters and the pipeline’s tie to mining and data centers. We will provide an easy submission form for uploading comments directly to FERC.
Request an alternative route:
Even before formal scoping began, communities started advocating for a route along the I-10 corridor to reduce environmental damage. Energy Transfer opened the pre-filing docket specifically to identify and resolve issues early—making this the right time to propose major changes.
Cascabel Conservation Association filed its letter May 8, representing Middle San Pedro concerns. LSPWA followed with a letter representing the Lower San Pedro, requesting rerouting to the already disturbed I-10 corridor as well.
Community members may write individual letters, as well. Visit https://www.ferc.gov and click the “FERC Online” icon on the left, which will pop up an “eComment” link in the right column. Length restrictions and additional details are provided online.
Engage locally:
Contact Pinal County and Cochise County officials regarding road-use agreements and infrastructure impacts.
Advocate for public, community-wide meetings rather than one-on-one “open house” formats. Write to: Cassidy Lamb, Energy Relations Community Affairs Specialist: cassidy.lamb@energytransfer.com; or Christopher Cantrell, Manager ROW Projects: cell, 713-989-2864, email: christopher.cantrell@energytransfer.com.
Stay informed and connected:
The Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance and Cascabel Conservation Association are actively coordinating with legal teams and regional partners.
See maps in Draft Resource Report #10:
P. 29 map illustrates where the Proposed and Preferred routes diverge in the Redington and San Manuel area.
P. 30 maps shows how the two routes diverge in the Oracle area.
The Proposed Route is in solid bright red and the Preferred Route is a dashed brown line.
Initial correspondence includes the Pre-Filing Request, which contains proposed open houses across various states, and other details; the pre-filing request approval; and the Memorandum of Understanding.
To view all documents on this project, visit the FERC eLibrary and follow these steps: (1) In search bar, enter docket number PF26-9-000; (2) on far right, click “Generate PDF” to download documents; (3) The National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) Public Map Viewer enables users to view existing pipelines (one at a time).
This project has the potential to significantly impact water resources, ecosystems, and community character across the Lower San Pedro watershed. What’s more, Energy Transfer representatives indicated they will have 13 crews coming through each pipeline area (5 “spreads”) each between a week and ten days apart, totaling 800 people at any given time. (Per Energy Transfer: “5 spreads at 800 a piece – that’s a lot of people.”) The inevitable result will be substantially increased traffic, and noise and disruption to pristine areas along the middle and lower San Pedro River. While the process is still in early stages, decisions made now—especially around routing and infrastructure siting—will have long-lasting consequences.
Community voices matter most before routes are finalized. Staying informed, asking questions, and participating early are the most effective ways to shape the outcome.