Our forum in Sahuarita, AZ brought together 31 community members from across southeastern Arizona to discuss nuclear waste management. At these forums, community members shared their priorities for collaboration between communities and the United States Department of Energy about building an interim nuclear waste storage facility. These community members worked individually, in table groups, and as a full group to share their perspectives. Check out some preliminary results below.
Most of the charts below are based on group responses from each of ten tables. However, some survey results are based on individual responses. In late 2025 or early 2026, we’ll publish a more complete results report from the forum in Phoenix and the other forums we host.
What are forums and why are we doing them?
3CAZ’s public forums are day-long discussions where people throughout Arizona are guided through facilitated activities to share their perspectives on nuclear waste management.
Community Values
One of the first activities asked attendees to decide on four core values that guide how their group makes decisions about the future. Below are all the values that each table contributed. Every table included a value related to empathy, compassion, and kindness, making these the most common values across all tables. You’ll notice that three tables included values related to respect as a shared value, which aligns with responses from the forum in Phoenix. Inclusivity, equity, and fairness also figured quite prominently, alongside values like accountability, trust, and responsibility.
Priorities for Collaboration
In their table groups, community members ranked their top priorities for community collaboration. They were provided with priorities generated by the 3CAZ team through earlier consultations with AZ communities, nuclear waste experts, and other stakeholders. Across the five tables in Sahuarita, Transparency was ranked highest by a sizable margin, followed by the Environment. The groups in Sahuarita also ranked Financial Support & Incentives higher than any other previous forum. (The rank of Financial Support & Incentives would be even higher had we included the write priority, which was very similar to the priorities in Financial Support & Incentives). Notably, every table included build measures to protect local ecosystems and water resources, part of the environment category, as one of their twelve chosen priorities; three of five tables listed it as one of their top two priorities. Four of five tables included agree on guidelines and rules for all parties involved. This priority was also ranked high by attendees at the Yuma forum, the youth forum in Tempe, and the Parker forum. Four of five tables in Sahuarita also gave high ranks to ensure access to independent information and expertise, another priority from the transparency category. Attendees in Sahuarita rated decisions made by a citizen or community advisory board higher than attendees at any previous forum. Over the coming weeks, we’ll be sharing results and comparisons from more forums. Check back for more!
Oversight & Involvement
As table groups worked through nuanced discussions about their values and priorities, they were tasked with applying their ideas to concrete choices about who should oversee decisions about nuclear waste management and a collaborative-based process for siting a nuclear waste storage facility at the federal and community levels.
Federal Level Oversight
Facilitators provided their table groups with a set of 6 oversight bodies: the US Department of Energy, Independent Federal Government Organization, Nonprofit Organization, Nuclear Energy Industry, Independent Scientists and Researchers, and Elected Leaders (county, state, tribal, and municipal governments). They then asked their table group members to decide together who, at the national level, they would want to oversee nuclear waste management and a collaborative process for siting a nuclear waste storage facility. While each table’s response was different, all five tables selected Independent Scientists & Researchers, which is similar to the results of the Phoenix forum. Four of five tables included Elected Leaders and three of five tables included the US Department of Energy and a Nonprofit Organization. No table in Sahuarita selected an Independent Federal Government Organization.
Community Level Involvement – Decision Making Board
Later in the day, each table deliberated on who from a community they would want involved in day-to-day decision making within a community about siting an interim waste storage facility. Attendees reviewed 18 potential people as part of this activity. They also had the opportunity to create their own people cards. In the visual below, you can look at who was included in the decision making board most frequently.
There was considerable overlap in all five tables choices. An emergency planner and a neighboring Tribal council leader were selected by all five tables. Tables wrote that the emergency planner would be oriented towards good procedures, prioritizing the needs of the community, and keeping the community safe. For the neighboring Tribal council leader, tables noted that this individual would bring a respect for local authority and Tribal perspectives. The next most common picks for this activity were an environmental scientist and a state environmental regulator. Both were selected by four of five tables at the Sahuarita forum because of their expertise and knowledge. Tables noted the regulator would provide accountability to the group. Three of five tables included the nuclear power plant supervisor and city mayor or council member. Tables referenced a mayor or council member’s accountability to the community and pointed to the nuclear power plant supervisor’s experience and knowledge as reasons to include them on the decision making board.
Community Level Involvement – Community Advisory Council
After deciding on their decision making board, each table group used the remaining people cards to select members of a Community Advisory Council that would oversee the Decision Making Board and a collaborative process for siting an interim nuclear waste storage facility.
Only one person, a community librarian, was selected by four of the five tables in Sahuarita. These tables noted that the librarian had strengths communicating to community, sharing information, and building trust. The other people who were listed on a majority (three of five) of tables’ responses were the leader of a civic organization, CEO of a local power utility, and director of a community non-profit. Tables that the non-profit director would advocate for community needs, especially the needs of children and families. Some tables argued the utility CEO brought critical industry perspectives to the group, as well as leadership skills that may be important to the council’s work. Much like the community librarian, tables stated that the civic organization leader would bring important community connections and the ability to do outreach to the council. Selections for the community advisory council were more divided, with only three of the eighteen people cards being left out of the final tally. The neighboring Tribal council leader and emergency planner were both left off of every tables’ community advisory council because every table assigned them to the decision making board. The community youth card was the only available people card not utilized in any groups’ responses.
Post Survey Results
Just as in our other forums, we asked community members at the Sahuarita forum to complete a few survey questions so we could learn more about their perspectives and evaluate how the forum itself went in the eyes of participants.
Forums are meant to both inform community members about the topic while also providing them an opportunity to share their perspectives and learn from others. To understand if participants felt informed about the topic after the forum, we asked participants if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement, “I know enough about ______ to make an informed opinion about where a nuclear waste storage facility is built and how that decision is made,” where the blank was a five different topics (see chart below). As shown in the charts below, attendees at the Sahuarita forum came into the conversation with a reasonably high level of reported knowledge about topics related to the forum, with more than 50% reporting they at least somewhat agreed with the statement above. That figure was 80% or higher after the forum. Perhaps more importantly, the number of people who disagreed to any degree with the statement above declined from between 23-40% before the forum to between 10-3% after the forum, suggesting that those who came into the forum with little confidence about making an informed opinion left the forum feeling more knowledgeable.
More than 96% of participants agreed to some degree that they were able to share their perspectives, that all participants had the same opportunities to share their perspectives, and that their views were represented in their groups’ responses (see chart below). This suggests participants felt the forum provided an opportunity for them to meaningfully share their views. Further, 80% of responding attendees disagreed to some degree with the statement “I felt pressure to agree with something I wasn’t sure about,” suggesting that most participants felt the compromises or choices their group made did not undermine their own perspectives. These post survey results suggest that our goals for the forums–offering an opportunity to share perspectives while also learning about the topic–were met.
The last chart shown above summarizes responses to the following question: Ho much do you trust the federal government, local government, scientists, and non-profit organizations to respond to public needs? Scientists were by far the most trusted of the four entities listed with about 86% of participants stated they trusted scientists a lot or a great deal. Three quarters of attendees who completed the survey trusted nonprofit organizations a lot or a great deal. The federal government received the lowest ratings, with thirteen participants (~43%) stating they didn’t trust the federal government to respond to public needs at all while twelve (~46%) said they trusted the federal government a little or a moderate amount.
Demographics of Attendees
The charts below provide an overview of attendees’ demographics. On average, participants at the Sahuarita forum were older and more likely to have a college degree or some college than attendees at our previous forums.
