Legislation prompted by concerns over proposed Rosemont mine
WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords today called for most federal land in Pima and Santa Cruz counties to be withdrawn from future mining claims.
“I am not opposed to all mining, and there are mining proposals that I support,” Giffords said in a statement supporting H.R. 2944, the Southern Arizona Public Lands Protection Act. “However, the proposed open-pit mine at Rosemont has raised serious environmental and community concerns. In my view, this is the wrong mine in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Giffords’ remarks were prepared for a hearing on the bill before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. While the bill would not have a direct impact on valid existing mining claims, it would prevent future mining claims in the designated area.
“In Southern Arizona, our economy and our quality of life are increasingly dependent on the preservation of our natural environment,” Giffords said. “The intent of this bill is to spare our community from risks to our health and well-being from mining in the future.”
In today’s hearing, the committee heard testimony from:
• Ned Norris Jr., chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation;
• Chuck Huckelberry, Pima County administrator;
• Nan Stockholm Walden, vice president and counsel of Farmers Investment Co. and the Green Valley Pecan Co.;
• Morris Farr, vice president of Save the Santa Ritas; and
• Manny Armenta of the United Steelworkers of America.
Giffords was an early and consistent opponent of the proposed Rosemont mine. The mine also has been opposed by Pima County and Santa Cruz County supervisors, the city of Tucson, towns of Sahuarita, Marana, Oro Valley and Patagonia and other entities.
The bill was introduced by Giffords’ Southern Arizona colleague, Rep. Raúl Grijalva. The congresswoman is a co-sponsor.
The bill calls for the removal of Pima County-owned preserves and leased lands within the Coronado National Forest from future claims, where the federal mineral estate is managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
The bill was introduced after Augusta Resource Corporation said it planned to develop the two mile-wide Rosemont Copper Mine in the Santa Rita Mountains.
The mine would be largely on land owned by Augusta, but waste rock would be dumped on National Forest Service land. So the mine plan must be approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture which oversees the Forest Service.
In October, Giffords invited Jay Jensen, deputy under secretary in the Agriculture Department, to two public meetings in Southern Arizona to hear from opponents and supporters of the Rosemont proposal.
Several hundred people attended meetings with Jensen in Elgin and Green Valley, with the vast majority of those speaking opposed to the mine. The Forest Service says it will release its environmental analysis of the proposed mine in April.
Rosemont wants to pull about 225 million pounds of copper from the mine each year for about 20 years. To do that, it would dig a 2,000-foot deep, 700-acre pit that would stretch nearly two miles mile one way and half a mile in the other.
In her statement supporting withdrawal of the land from mining, Giffords cited anticipated adverse impacts on the Southern Arizona economy and the area’s quality of life as well as concerns about water use and air pollution.
Giffords’ complete statement is below.
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords
Statement for Hearing on H.R. 2944, Mining Withdrawal Bill
January 20, 2010
The history of Southern Arizona is integrally intertwined with hard rock mining. The region is blessed with rich mineral deposits, and consequently, hard rock mining has formed a critical component of the region’s economy since well before Arizona became a state.
I am not against mining in principle and I support some proposed mine projects. I recognize that hard rock mines provide essential minerals that are incorporated into many of the goods we rely on in modern life, including our vehicles, our electronics, and our computers. To take just one example, copper is a critical component of solar panels, which can produce energy that does not use water and is a net positive for the environment. In addition to essential minerals, mining can also provide good jobs and economic growth for a community.
However, in Southern Arizona we also know very well that mines can leave a troubled legacy. We know from long and intimate experience that mines often have negative impacts on the land, water, and community. These issues must be taken into consideration, and weighed against anticipated benefits, when any new mine is proposed.
The proposed open-pit mine at Rosemont raises serious environmental and community concerns. Because of these concerns, several of which I have enumerated and explained below, I am opposed to this project. My opposition is heightened by my belief that the economic and environmental impacts would be felt region-wide. In my view, this is the wrong mine in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Economic Impact:
The proposed mine raises numerous concerns about potential adverse impacts on the Southern Arizona economy. In addition to possible serious negative effects on area property values, the proposed mine could undermine a valuable tourism and recreation economy that has taken root in the area. According to a 2007 economic study by the non-profit Sonoran Institute, even if the proposed mine displaced just one percent of the travel and tourism-related spending in the region, the economic loss would be greater than the entire annual payroll of the mine.
Water:
Serious concerns have been raised about the effect of mine operations on groundwater levels throughout the region, with potentially serious repercussions for residents. The mine operators have indicated a willingness to replenish groundwater, but it is not clear this commitment can actually be fulfilled for the duration of mine operations, that replenishment can be guaranteed in the location of withdrawal, or that recharged water would match withdrawn water in terms of quality. The mine could also result in pollution of groundwater from mine runoff. A report just last Sunday (January 17, 2010) in the Arizona Daily Star raised concerns that when the mine is closed it may well leave behind a toxic lake where the excavation took place.
Air Pollution:
There are deep concerns about the affect of an open-pit mine on air quality. Mine operations 24 hours a day, 7 days a week could negatively affect air quality not only in and around the mine site, but also throughout the valley when winds are high. In addition, the scores of trucks that are planned for the transport of ore would increase air pollution levels in this pristine rural area.
General Quality of Life:
Finally, many of the citizens who live closest to the site of the proposed mine (particularly in Elgin, Sonoita, and Patagonia) were drawn to the area because of its scenic beauty. That the mine would necessarily alter their quality of life seems unavoidable.
In recent decades, a new way of life has taken hold in Southern Arizona, one based on attracting retirees, providing a high quality of life, and attracting tourists and recreational facilities. All of these activities, and the value they create, would be undermined by the proposed Rosemont mine. In these areas, hard rock mining is simply no longer the “highest and best use” of the land and open-pit mining operations are no longer appropriate.
I am pleased to join with my Southern Arizona colleague, Representative Grijalva, as a cosponsor of H.R. 2944, a bill to withdraw certain Federal lands and interests in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties from the mining and mineral leasing laws of the United States. While this bill would not affect valid existing mining claims, it would prevent future claims on these lands, thereby helping to spare the community from risks to its health and well-being from mining operations in the future.