On June 7, 2025, 62 people joined our third forum at Arizona Western College in Yuma. These community members shared their priorities for collaboration between communities and the United States Department of Energy about building an interim nuclear waste storage facility. They expressed their perspectives during informed, facilitated discussions at table groups and as a full group. Each community member also had the opportunity to write their individual responses in a workbook; this helps us capture how each person’s perspective may be similar to or different from their group’s and identify new information that may not have been captured through group discussions.
Many of the charts below are based on group responses from each of the ten tables. However, some survey results show individual responses. In late 2025 or early 2026, we’ll publish a more complete report with results from our Yuma forum and others.
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 would guide their group’s decisions about the future. The Yuma community members identified 26 values in total across the ten table groups. These values are displayed in the word cloud. While each table generated its own values, there were some similarities across the tables. Notably, honesty, accountability, and empathy/compassion were listed by four tables; respect, transparency, collaboration, and integrity by three groups; and equity, unity, and trust by two groups. Importantly, many of the values expressed by the Yuma community were similar to those mentioned by the Flagstaff and Parker communities, such as accountability and collaboration.
Priorities for Collaboration
Each of the ten tables ranked their top priorities for community collaboration. Table facilitators provided each group with priorities generated by the 3CAZ team through earlier consultations with AZ communities, nuclear waste experts, and other stakeholders. Across all ten tables, community members considered the priorities in the categories of Environment, Human Health, and Transparency as most important for a collaborative siting process. Nine tables identified build[ing] measures to protect local ecosystems and water resources as one of their twelve ranked priorities, making it the highest ranking individual priority. Four of those tables listed this priority as one of their top three. Five tables selected protect culturally important lands and resources as one of their priorities. Both of these priorities were part of the environment category. Two priorities from the human health category were also frequently selected. Nine groups selected access to research about radiation and human health as one of their twelve priorities, with three tables ranking it as one of their top two highest priorities. Eight groups selected presence of adequate healthcare professionals and facilities with four groups placing it in their top three choices. Agree on guidelines and rules for all parties involved was the only priority in the transparency category that was ranked by more than two groups, but it was ranked quite high overall; nine tables included it as one of their twelve selected priorities. This priority was also ranked high by attendees at the youth forum in Tempe and the Parker forum. Tables at the Yuma forum ranked state, Tribal, or neighboring government agreement with community decision, part of the Neighboring & Surrounding Communities category fifth highest overall, which is higher than that priority has been ranked at many other forums (attendees at the Parker forum ranked this priority third overall).
Environment and transparency have been consistently ranked as top priority categories across the forums that took place before Yuma’s (Parker and Flagstaff). These priority rankings are also similar to those from forums that happened after Yuma’s (Tempe youth, Phoenix, and Southeast Arizona). Interestingly, the economy has been consistently ranked as one of the lower priority categories across all the forums with the exception of the Parker forum. Over the coming weeks, we’ll be sharing results and comparisons from more forums. Check back for more!
Oversight & Involvement
To build on their discussions about values and priorities, facilitators tasked their table groups to apply their ideas to concrete discussions 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
Each table was provided 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). Facilitators asked their table group members to decide who, at the national level, they would want to oversee a nuclear waste storage facility. While each table selected different oversight bodies and provided different rationals for their choices, some similarities across the tables stood out. Nine of the ten tables in Yuma selected Independent Scientists and Researchers and Elected Leaders to oversee decisions about nuclear waste management at the national level. Four tables selected all six oversight options, explaining that they all have a role to play in overseeing decisions about this issue. Tables cited a variety of reasons for their selections, including balance between perspectives, representing community perspectives, and trust. Importantly, Independent Scientists and Researchers have been one of the most selected key oversight bodies across all previous forums.
Community Level Involvement – Decision Making Board
After thinking about who, at the federal level, they would like to oversee a nuclear waste storage facility, the Yuma forum participants deliberated on who, at the community-level, they would like to be involved in day-to-day decision making about siting an interim nuclear waste storage facility. Yuma community members reviewed 18 potential people as part of this activity, and they had the opportunity to create their own people cards. In the image below, you can look at who was included in the decision making board most frequently across the ten tables.
Nine out of ten tables included a state environmental regulator on their decision making board. Tables explained that they included a state environmental regulator on their decision making board to ensure rules are followed. For example, one table stated that a state environmental regulator “enforces regulations & procedures,” and another table expressed that they “embrace collaboration and are prioritizing following the rules.” Eight tables included a nuclear power plant supervisor on their decision making board because of their experience with a nuclear facility and concern for safety. One group, for example, explained that a nuclear power plant supervisor has “experience in nuclear waste and provides safety measures,” and another group explained that they have “hands on experience w/ power plants – safety focused.”
Interestingly, the make up of who was selected most for the decision making board in Yuma is identical to Flagstaff’s and nearly identical to Parker’s. Further, a nuclear power plant supervisor, a state environmental regulator, and an environmental scientist were also included in the six most selected people for the the decision making boards at all forums (Parker, Flagstaff, Yuma, Tempe (youth), Phoenix and SE-AZ/Sahuarita).
Community Level Involvement – Community Advisory Council
After creating 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. The Yuma community’s Community Advisory Council is in the image below.
Eight out of ten tables included a leader of a civic organization on their Community Advisory Council because of their ability and care to communicate and coordinate with the community. For example, a table explained that a leader of a civic organization “cares about keeping the community together,” and another table explained that they “will communicate to the community so everyone feels like they’re part of the decision.” Six tables also included a doctor and city mayor or council member on their advisory council to further connections between the council and community and to ensure someone with health-related expertise was represented. Notably, Flagstaff and Tempe (Youth) forum community members also included a doctor on their Community Advisory Council.
Post Survey Results
Just as in our other forums, we asked community members at the Yuma 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, about half of participants agreed they knew enough about the topics related to nuclear waste management before the forum, though this figure was higher (~69%) for the topic of “my community’s values.” That figure was about 80% after the forum for all five of the topics listed, suggesting that participants felt more informed after the forum than before. Importantly, the number of people who disagreed to some degree with the statement above was 8% or below after the forum.
More than 90% of participants agreed to some degree that they were able to share their perspectives at the forum, that all participants had the same opportunities to share their perspectives, and that their views were represented in their groups’ responses. This suggests participants felt the forum was an opportunity for them to meaningfully share their views. About 64% 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. This is a somewhat lower percentage than at other forums (though we didn’t analyze this question for all forum locations yet so this may change). Eight people strongly agreed that they felt pressure to agree with something they weren’t sure about, suggesting that a few participants felt overlooked or overruled by others at their table. If you were one of those people, feel free to reach out to us ([email protected]) and let us know why so we can better create a collaborative environment at future forums.
The last chart shown above summarizes responses to the following question: How 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–about 72% of participants stated they trusted scientists a lot or a great deal and no one responded “not at all” in response to scientists. About 45% of attendees who completed the survey trusted nonprofit organizations a lot or a great deal. The federal government received the lowest ratings, with ten participants (16%) stating they didn’t trust the federal government to respond to public needs at all. That said a majority (58%) said they trusted the federal government at least a moderate amount, which was about the same as those who said they trusted local government at least a moderate amount (61%).
Demographics of Attendees
The charts below provide an overview of attendees’ demographics. On average, participants at the Yuma forum were younger, more likely to identify as Hispanic or Latino, and more likely to come from households earning less than $100,000 per year than attendees at our other forums.
