A federal judge stopped the planned Rosemont Mine in a ruling Wednesday evening, halting plans to start building the $1.9 billion project in August.
U.S. District Judge James Soto’s ruling in Tucson overturned the U.S. Forest Service’s 2017 decision approving the mine and its 2013 final environmental impact statement clearing the way for that approval.
His ruling, if it survives appeals to higher courts, would drive a stake into longstanding federal policies that say the Forest Service virtually can never say “no” to a mine if it would otherwise meet federal laws. It calls into legal question how the Forest Service has used the 1872 Mining Law to justify its approval of Rosemont — and by extension other mines on its land.
Soto’s decision called the Forest Service approval “arbitrary and capricious.” He sided with environmentalists and tribes that sued to stop the Hudbay Minerals Inc. project. Specifically, he essentially ruled that the mining company can't put its waste rock and mine tailings on Forest Service land even though it has mining claims on it because it has failed to prove the claims are valid.
People are also reading…
In a news release Thursday morning, Hudbay said it will appeal the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The company believes that the district judge has misinterpreted federal mining laws and Forest Service regulations as they apply to Rosemont, the company said. The statement didn't elaborate on that point, and company spokeswoman Jan Howard said it would have no additional comments right now beyond what was in the release.
“We are extremely disappointed with the Court’s decision. We strongly believe that the project conforms to federal laws and regulations that have been in place for decades,” said Peter Kukielski, Hudbay's interim President and Chief Executive Officer, in the release.
The Forest Service's Rosemont decision followed a thorough process of ten years involving 17 co-operating agencies at various levels of government, 16 hearings, over 1,000 studies, and 245 days of public comment resulting in more than 36,000 comments, Hudbay's statement noted.
But the Rosemont opposition group Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, in its statement, took note of Soto's criticism of what he called the Forest Service's "inherently flawed analysis from the inception of the proposed Rosemont Mine."
Gayle Hartmann, the group's president, said its members are heartened that the judge recognized that the Forest Service fell short in its duty to protect public lands and resources.
"Our public lands are a public trust, and we must not allow them to be illegally used to enrich a foreign mining company," Hartmann said.
Heidi Schewel, a Coronado National Forest spokeswoman, declined to comment Thursday morning on the ruling, saying, "We do not comment on litigation."
Two lawsuits challenging the Forest Service's approval were filed separately by four environmental groups and by three Indian tribes. A decision in a related lawsuit, challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's approval of a biological opinion for the project, is pending.
The ruling caps a 12-year, polarizing debate on the proposed mine. It comes five months after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved a separate, Clean Water Act permit for the project — an approval that now has no immediate legal bearing as long as the judge's ruling against the Forest Service stands.
The open pit mine, which would cover more than 4,500 acres of private and public lands in the Santa Rita Mountains southeast of Tucson, would be the third largest copper mine in the U.S.
In his 37-page decision, Soto hammered almost exclusively at the Forest Service’s approval of Hudbay’s plan to dump mine waste rock and tailings from its 955-acre pit onto 2,447 acres of nearby public land on the Santa Ritas’ eastern slopes.
Opponents’ lawsuits argued that only public lands directly above valuable mineral deposits are covered by the federal 1872 mining law’s definition of mining rights.
Soto wrote in his decision that for Hudbay to gain access to valuable copper, molybdenum and silver from the pit, the company would need to extract about 1.2 billion tons of economically worthless waste rock and about 700 million tons of mine tailings.
The Forest Service's primary error in this case was to accept, without question, that Hudbay's unpatented mining claims on those 2,447 acres were valid, thereby allowing them to be used for placement of the waste rock and tailings, he wrote.
"This was a crucial error, as it tainted the Forest Service's evaluation of the Rosemont Mine from the start," Soto wrote.
He wrote that the 1872 Mining Law grants exclusive property rights to miners having valid, unpatented mining claims. To have one, "there must be a valuable mineral deposit underlying the claim," he wrote.
"If there is a valuable deposit underlying the claim, the miner has the exclusive right to extract and profit from those minerals, and the right to use the surface above those minerals for purposes of mining," even when on federal lands, Soto wrote.
Historically, obtaining unpatented mining claims has been a "low bar," he wrote. A miner could simply enter federal land, put up stakes marking a claim and record a notice with local authorities setting out the parameters of the purported mineral deposit, Soto wrote.
But without a valuable mineral deposit beneath the purported mining claims, the claims are invalid under the 1872 law, "and no property rights attach to those invalid unpatented mining claims," Soto wrote.
The Forest Service's formal, administrative record for Rosemont shows that this test for the 2,447 acres having valuable mineral deposits wasn't carried out, he said.
"As such, the record reflected that the mining claims were invalid," Soto wrote.
Defendants in the case argued that the Forest Service lacked jurisdiction under the law to determine the validity of the Rosemont unpatented mining claims, and said that jurisdiction belongs to another federal agency, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Soto wrote.
While that's true regarding who has jurisdiction over that issue, "that does not mean that the Forest Service had no obligation to assess Rosemont's surface rights," Soto wrote.
"The Forest Service had no factual basis to determine that Rosemont had valid unpatented mining claims giving them property rights over those 2,447 acres of land," he wrote. "Rather, the record strongly indicated the opposite."
RELATED CONTENT: Local thoughts on the Rosemont Mine
Your opinion: Local thoughts on the Rosemont Mine
Letter: Rosemont is short-sighted
On one hand, Colorado River basin states struggle to apportion the river’s water to a region whose climate future foretells warmer temperatures and drought. Water is our future.
On the other hand, Rosemont Copper is receiving a green light to devastate fresh water resources for a mine with a 20-year production span. The carrot of jobs will be followed by the stick as they disappear. Our eco-tourism industry will be damaged, our water polluted.
The Star’s Mine Tales series featured quaint stories of historic mines. Each had a short life that lives on in relics they left behind. This mine will be different only in the scope and toxicity of its debris.
We should not be tempted to sell our future for such short-sighted pennies. Twenty years: our children are not even allowed to drink alcohol legally by this age. Do we forget how quickly they grow up, and how valuable is their future?
Katy Brown
Midtown
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Permitting Rosemont Mine is wrong
The permitting of Rosemont Mine is a Death of Many Dreams - dreams of defending our public lands for the welfare of the public, of preserving rare birds and wildlife and the pristine natural areas they inhabit, of maintaining natural watersheds and clean ground water resources for all living beings, of living in a Democratic society where the people have control over their fate, and of a government that supports and protects our local tourist economy rather than permitting it to be destroyed.
After 20-plus years of constant destruction, noise, and pollution, the Santa Rita Valley will be left with a vast chemical “lake,” 1/2 mile deep and 1 mile wide, surrounded by 4,000 acres of enormous rubble fields that will, allegedly, drain water from this area forever. For a preview, look into the massive environmental impact that Hudbay Minerals has created in Manitoba and Peru.
Whatever laws or traditions or thought processes permit this devastation MUST BE CHANGED! This is WRONG. Paradise lost.
Peggy Hendrickson
Green Valley
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Where is the outcry/protest to the Rosemont Mine?
Take a good look at the jaguar picture in the 3/13 paper --it may be the last jaguar we ever see in AZ. The ocelots will also be gone and what other wildlife?
The Santa Ritas are the most beautiful of the mountains surrounding Tucson. Having camped there some years ago, near a running stream, I saw several deer and eight coatimundis in single file, tails held high, walk thru our camp. The drives all around there are scenic and beautiful. Once the mine goes in, the natural beauty, clear water and wildlife will disappear. Why are there no protesters demonstrating against this destruction? Living in Madison WI in the 60's, I was one of hundreds of protesters who came out for causes with great impact. Do we want destruction and ugliness in place of natural beauty? Do your part to stop this mine!
Jacque Ramsey
Oro Valley
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: rosemont mine
Mort Rosenblums recent article on the proposed Rosemont mine was insightful. His measure of tourism vs. mine revenues indicates that tourism creates a more sustainable stream of revenue for the state. If the mine were to be built, this beautiful and pristine place would be gone. The majority of the copper and its revenues would go to foreign countries and the resulting blight would be ours forever. Our water resources would be vulnerable. My husband and I live 12 miles from the proposed mine and wonder what it would be like with trucks rumbling up and down scenic highway 82 all day. I hope the voice of the people will be heard and the EPA will veto the permit.
Joan Pevarnik
Vail
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Rosemont Mine
in response to "Mort Rosenblum: The true cost of Rosemont mine", I think we need to realize that rather than reducing tourism, the mine will actually INCREASE visitor spending as vendors, and others flock to the mine to do business with them. Tourist will come to SEE the mine, as they have to many mines around the country. the mine is not going to destroy the desert and beauty that surround Tuscon. Sorry Chicken Little, but the Sky is NOT FALLING. The same people want to decry the mine turn around and support "green" energy. They do not realize that to supply the needed copper for wind turbines and electric vehicles do not realize that the "Green New Deal" would require a DOUBLING of world copper production, just to meet the USA demands for copper. Come on people, let's be real and realize the real benefits of the mine. It is time to stop obstructing and start benefiting.
Marty Col
Downtown
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: What Jaguars
“Rosemont would do devastating damage to Arizona’s water and wildlife. We’ll fight with everything we have to protect Tucson’s water supply, Arizona’s jaguars and the beautiful wildlands that sustain us all.” Randy Serraglio, Center for Biological Diversity
What jaguars? Arizona doesn't have any jaguars. Very rarely we see one that's a visitor from Mexico. These objections to mining and walls would have more credibility if they weren't so often filled with egregious hyperbole.
Jim McManus
East side
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Proposed Rosemont Mine
State highway 83 is the only road accessible to the proposed huge open pit mine called Rosemont. From the Rosemont road intersection with the highway 83 driving North to the Interstate 10, the road lanes are dangerously narrow for a 4 mile section to milepost 50. The highway lanes narrow to 8.5 feet in each direction and along the way steel guard rails are 1 foot from the right white line. No pull off and windy narrow roads could result in dangerous driving conditions especially in sharing with large rock haulers from the mine. I think ADOT allowed a road usage permit in error and I can envision litigation “down the road “.
Hank Wacker
Sonoita
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Rosemont Mine
In his excellent piece of March 10, Rosemont go-ahead casts aside EPA fears over Water, Reporter Tony Davis reports that The Army Corps of Engineers has issued the final permit required for the Rosemont Mine Project over the strong objections of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Rosemont Project was ill- conceived from its very inception, and represents yet another desecrating assault on our shared and essential habitat. In this era of drought and looming water shortages, Rosemont makes absolutely no sense, even for the shareholders of the Hudbay Corporation, its Canadian-based developer. To justify it decision, the Army Corps states repeatedly that Rosemont will only affect 13% of the watershed. If I drink a glass of water that is 87% clean, but 13% has cyanide in it, the result will be deadly. We have to wake up the reality of our finite resources and their fragility before it is too late.
Greg Hart
Midtown
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Rosemont Mine
Re: “Rosemont go-ahead casts aside EPA fears over water”
President Trump is probably the only power who can stop the Rosemont Mine. Please contact him.
David Ray
Midtown
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Rosemont Mine Sellout
Drive a few hours east to Morenci, Arizona and look at one of the world's largest open-pit copper mine with reserves of 3.2 billion tons. I was raised in this town and know first hand about environmental devastation. This man-made destruction is visible from our space station. Someday, the Rosemont mine will closely resemble Morenci. The water, toxic waste, and wildlife issues have been studied and ignored. Supporters argue that we need more copper, but don't tell you that worldwide there is no shortage. Chile, Peru, China, Mexico, and Indonesia are the world's top copper producers and it is said nearly 6 trillion tons of estimated copper resources exist. US Geological surveys show there are approximately 200 years of unclaimed resources are available. In addition, nearly 80% of all copper mined is recycled. So we will have more jobs and more tax revenue, but this beautiful wilderness will cease to exist. When it's gone, it's gone. Once again, greed and the mighty dollar triumph over our environment.
Judy Bullington
West side
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Saving the San Pedro River
Two environmental issues critical to southern Arizona have been awaiting decisions by the Army Corps of Engineers, Rosemont Mine and the Villages at Vigneto development near Benson. On Friday, the Army Corps issued a permit that allows the mine operation to begin.
Rep. Raul Grijalva and Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick together made a last minute plea to the Army Corps to reconsider its impending approval of Rosemont. Now their unified voice is needed to request that the Army Corps give adequate consideration to reinstating a permit to allow the 28,000 home Villages at Vigneto to proceed near the San Pedro River. This proposed mega-city will threaten the vital streamflow and riparian habitat of the San Pedro.
If our representatives speak out now, maybe at least one of two environmental nightmares can be avoided.
Debbie Collazo
West side
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Rosemont Mine
Rosemont Mine has finally been given the OK to build the mine in the Santa Rita Mountains. According to reports, the copper there will take about 20 years to extract. If a person goes to work there at the age of 20 or 25, when the mine closes they will be out of work with still half of their work life ahead of them and they will need to relocate to continue their mining career. So after only 20 years, Tucson will lose 500 good paying jobs and be left with a huge scar on the mountain and the degradation of an ecosystem that may never recover. Is it worth it? I think not.
Sandra Hays
Northwest side
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Looking forward to the economic boost of the Rosemont mine
I am very pleased to read that the US Army Corps of Engineers has given final approval to the construction of the Rosemont mine.
I have long supported Rosemont for its significant contribution to the economic development of Southern Arizona and for its wise use of the copper resources that our Creator - sorry, atheists, not - bestowed upon our part of the globe.
I too have an interest in the environment but not to the extent of preventing the sound, environmentally-respectful development of this mine. I make my living teaching via computer and telecommunications, and they needed copper to be built and run. So do many other things that I use.
As for the American Indians / Native Americans who protest, they should be thankful that Rosemont will benefit them too if they take advantage of its work opportunities, plus the increased tax revenues will make it a little easier for the government to fund the highly-subsidized reservation system for those who choose not to assimilate into broader American society.
James Stewart
Foothills
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: The Cost and Legacy of Tainted water ??
A month ago, you ran a Business article ( Rimini, Montana 2/21/19) on the unspeakable outrage of Mining legacies that poison and taint long after mines are abandoned. The state of Arizona and the United States permit this contamination for unfathomable reasons.
It is not a secret and is a nation-wide and world-wide travesty. Why - is this allowed ? Who agrees to allow it and even invite other nations to purchase precious land and metals for their own profit ? How long does arsenic, lead , zinc and worse continue to contaminate the water, wells, streams and land once poisoned ? To quote the above article: “ the waste is captured or treated in a costly effort that will need to carry on indefinitely , for perhaps thousands of years often with little hope . ..”
When, Who, How and What will it take for Arizona and Pima county STOP the Rosemont Mine ?
Please, the cost of too high !
Susanne Burke-Zike
Oro Valley
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Where's the outcry?
With our water supply threatened by overpopulation and global warming and Lake Mead looking like a half-drained bathtub, comes the news that Rosemont Mine will be approved. The 75,000 trees and the beauty of the mountain will be destroyed. The precious water will be polluted despite the denials of the "experts." Look at water supplies around the country that have been/are being polluted by mines. And this is for a FOREIGN COUNTRY to sell copper to a FOREIGN COUNTRY.
Where is the outcry? Where are the mayors of Tucson, Sierra Vista, and Green Valley, senators, representatives, City Council, and Daily Star editors? We once marched against the Iraq war, and look what happened. As Shakespeare said, "What fools we mortals be!" Or Pogo: "We've met the enemy, and it is us."
Diane Stephenson
Foothills
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Questioning the Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a law unto itself. Some years ago, The Atlantic ran an article, "The Public Be Dammed," on the Corps, and it has been damming and damning before and since.
For over 90 years the Corps has been responsible for dams and navigable rivers, yet the floods and flooding continue. Why? Because the Corps is rewarded with funding to clean up the mess it was responsible for. The flooding of New Orleans, for which the Corps was entirely responsible, cost about one billion dollars. The National Review commented, "Never has incompetence been so richly rewarded." It should come as no surprise for the Corps to allow the construction of the Rosemont Mine.
Andrew Rutter
Midtown
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Rosemont Mine
The ASARCO Mission Mine South of Tucson is located COMPLETELY within the Tohono O'Odham Indian reservation; I worked there for 12 years and as a heavy truck driver, we would go from the main pit to the San Xavier North pit, a distance of 2-3 miles . Many times I would see deer, bobcats, javelina, rabbits, wild horses, etc. on the road . At the San Xavier North pit, there was a water pipe stand water trucks would use to fill the 10,000 gallon water trucks, and the overspill would fill a small waterhole that wild horses would use to drink. Many workers would want to buy wild horses from the Tribe but would be told they were not for sale. Now all of a sudden the Tohono O'Odham and other tribes are against the Rosemont Mine!!?? All wild life in that area to the trucks, etc. No different in this case
Hector Montano
South side
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Copper vs water
It will be a sad day in Arizona should Toronto-based Hudbay Minerals Inc. receive approval for the Rosemont Mine. The critical issue is the value of copper over water. We can live without more copper. Clean water, however, is necessary for survival. Water is more precious than any mineral the mine can extract.
Hudbay is just another foreign-based company robbing ӰAV of its natural resources. Long after Hudbay has finished raping the land, polluting the water and air, our children will be left with their mess. I predict in 50 years the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA will collectively wring their hands and bemoan, “What were we thinking?"
Robert Lundin
Green Valley
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Ann Kirkpatrick, Raul Grijalva: Anti-Capitalists
New District 2 Congresswoman, Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick, and District 3 Congressman, Democrat Raul Grijalva, are anti-capitalists. The Star (3/1/19) reports they are against development of the Rosemont copper property 30 miles southeast of Tucson.
Their contrariness puzzles, for they serve citizens of Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz counties who will benefit hugely from Rosemont. An assessment by ASU’s W.P. Carey School of Business (2009) reports the operating mine will bring the counties 2100 jobs.
Annual revenues to counties will be $19 million; State, $32 million; Federal, $128 million. Surely, Pima County will pigeonhole its portion for road repair. Following reclamation, there are “lasting positive effects” for Arizona.
After a 12-year plod through steep EPA mining regulations and the hostility of no-growth enthusiasts, Rosemont is in the last phase of approval, finally.
Rosemont is a great example of capitalism that will wonderfully benefit so many families that these Representatives, oddly, oppose.
D Clarke
Sahuarita
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: Copper mining in the Santa Rita Mountains
Re: the March 1 article "Grijalva: Rosemont Mine is on verge of final OK."
While Hudbay Minerals of Canada rapes our beloved Santa Rita Mountains, makes millions or more selling the copper and then pays our community a pittance of $135 million and provides 400 jobs until the mine is dead, we lose a pristine, unspoiled wilderness forever.
If claims were made that copper laid under the nave of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, would Hudbay crave it, too? Aren't the Santa Ritas as sacred? I beg you to pay attention and act against this travesty in any way you are able.
Jane Leonard
Oro Valley
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
Letter: An alarming headline
No, not about Donald Trump, our lying, cheating, corrupt conman president, but the imminent approval of the Rosemont mine. In a time of acute drought, when Arizona has no real plan to deal with it, how is it possible that this project will be approved. The amount of water needed for this operation is absurd. This short term project with everlasting environmental devastation that will benefit ridiculously few, is, like Donald Trump, a real disaster.
Stanley Steik
Midtown
Disclaimer: As submitted to the ӰAV.
