The final showdown
Where there’s oak, there’s water … Project Blue drowned in opposition … And Sedona looks out for Sedona.
Welcome back, readers!
Time for Oak Flat is running out.
Later this month the federal government is expected to execute a land transfer in the Tonto National Forest to allow the development of a copper mine that would swallow up sacred indigenous land, wreck a fragile — and increasingly rare — riparian ecosystem, and tax the aquifer (and generate billions of dollars while doing so).
But a flurry of lawsuits that could stop the mine are still weaving their way through the courts. A federal judge heard arguments in two of the cases this week, and a group of Apache women filed a new suit in late July, bringing the number of active court cases against the mine to four.
This week, we look at what the San Carlos Apache and their allies are doing to stop the mine; what mine operator Resolution Copper says it will contribute to Arizona’s Copper Triangle, and what this all has to do with water.
Also in today’s edition, Project Blue, Tucson’s highly controversial data center project, is dead — or at least comatose. But will the Tucson City Council’s vote against the project do anything but forestall the inevitable?
Click the button to help us stay tuned!
Before we dive in, a reminder: The Agenda team is taking the next few weeks off for a little summer break. We’ll be back in your inboxes the first week of September.
Oak Flat is 2,200 acres of emory oak groves; it is sweeping, high-desert mesas ringed by dramatic cliffs and lined by several natural springs; it is an increasingly scarce riparian ecosystem. And it is sacred to the San Carlos Apache and other local indigenous communities, who have tended to Chi’chil Biłdagoteel and celebrated and worshipped there for the better part of a millennium.
It is also a massive, untapped copper reserve, billions of dollars in value for Resolution Copper and the local communities and workers who would extract Arizona’s top export from the land.
It’s the site of a seemingly inevitable conflict, one perhaps not as old as time, but at least as old as Anglo-European colonization and westward expansion.
For years, the Apache, environmental groups, outdoor recreationalists and more have fought against the mine, which was enabled through land transfer language attached to a defense authorization bill by the late Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain in 2014. There have been rallies, prayer circles, a 70-mile protest run to the Capitol and a flurry of lawsuits arguing the land transfer violates environmental and public review requirements and abrogates tribal rights.
These efforts will soon come to a head. At stake is not only the land — which would be quite literally swallowed up — but also fragile, groundwater-dependent ecosystems and an aquifer already strained by drought.
In June, a federal judge paused the transfer so parties in the various lawsuits against the mine could review a reissued environmental impact statement. But that pause only lasts until August 19. At that point, the transfer will go through unless there is further action from the court.
This week, a federal judge heard oral arguments on motions to block the transfer but has not yet issued a ruling. Two other related lawsuits on different timelines are also making their way through the court, including a new suit filed in July in Washington, D.C., from a group of Apache women on religious freedom grounds.
“The government has authorized the complete physical destruction of an irreplaceable Native American sacred site solely to pad the bottom line of a foreign-owned mining company,” the lawsuit argues.
Not just land, but water
Oak Flat holds one of the largest undeveloped copper deposits in the world — an estimated 1,970 billion metric tonnes of the metal that has helped electrify the world, generate massive amounts of wealth (and labor strife and environmental degradation) and sustain mining communities across the West for more than a century.
To access the copper, Resolution wants to employ a technique called panel caving, in which a network of shafts and tunnels is constructed below the ore body and then collapsed to reveal the ore. While this technique is more efficient for the mining company than some other methods, it will create a massive subsidence — geology talk for a big honking sinkhole — almost two miles across and more than 1,000 feet deep.
The sinkhole would mean irreparable damage to the site. The feds admit as such. Here’s what the environmental impact statement says:
“Extraction of the ore via block caving will eventually lead to the subsidence of the parcel; access to Oak Flat and the subsidence zone will be curtailed once it is no longer safe for visitors. Several springs located on the Oak Flat Federal Parcel will be lost due to the development of the subsidence area. The subsidence has a high potential to directly and permanently adversely affect numerous cultural resources sites, including the following: archaeological resources; areas with sacred values such as springs, seeps, and prayer locations; resource gathering sites; ancestor burial sites; traditional ceremonial and dance locations; and other places of spiritual and cultural significance to members of federally recognized Tribes.”
Even setting those impacts aside, the mine promises to be a major drain on local water supplies, requiring at least 250 billion gallons over 60 years. To mitigate some of that consumption, Resolution is presently recharging water to central Arizona aquifers in an attempt to generate water storage credits that it can later exchange to support the mine’s operation. (We explained how long-term storage credits work in a previous issue here.)
But most of the mine’s water needs would be served with groundwater, depleting aquifers by anywhere from 10 to 100 feet across 300 square miles. On the local level, the mine would destroy numerous springs, seeps and ponds that have spiritual significance to the Apache as well as ecological significance, supporting a riparian ecosystem that plays home to a diverse array of bird species, ocelots and more. Less than 10% of Arizona’s original riparian habitat remains. According to the environmental impact statement, between 18 and 20 “groundwater-dependent ecosystems” would be affected by the mine.
"Arizona is presently in a 25-year-long drought, and this Resolution mine will use 250 billion gallons of scarce Arizona water we don't have," Henry Munoz, former Superior councilmember and head of Concerned Citizens Retired Miners Coalition, told the Arizona Republic’s Debra Utacia Krol, who is an enrolled member of Xolon Salinan Tribe of California.
There's also the matter of waste. Resolution has estimated that extracting 40 billion tons of copper will generate 1.3 billion tons of tailings over the lifespan of the mine. Failure to maintain the tailings pile could lead to contamination in the Gila River and in nearby communities, opponents warn.
(Oak Flat and the nearby Devil’s Canyon are also home to some world-class climbing areas that would be lost to the mine. The Access Fund and other outdoor recreation advocacy groups have long been fighting the mine alongside the tribe. I’ve been climbing out there on a number of occasions, and a few years back, I briefly met Wendsler Nosie Sr., the leader of a group advocating against the mine called Apache Stronghold, who was camped out at the site in protest.)
The lawsuits
There are now four lawsuits against the mine. Two have been consolidated — one filed by the San Carlos Apache Tribe and the other by conservation and recreation groups — while additional suits have been brought by Apache Stronghold and the group of Apache women.
“The bill that authorized the land exchange is not in the best interest of the American people, Arizona or the San Carlos Apache Tribe,” San Carlos Apache Tribe Chairman Terry Rambler said in a statement in June. “We have filed this lawsuit because of our concerns of the mine’s massive use of groundwater, which will be devastating for both Arizona and eventually the Tribe. We are also deeply concerned about the [impact the] environmental destruction and the obliteration of Oak Flat will have on Apache culture and religion.”
The gist of the suits is that the federal government failed to adequately consider environmental impacts and that the transfer would violate tribal treaty rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has already declined to consider the Apache Stronghold case, which hinges on a religious freedom complaint.
The most recent suit argues federal religious freedom law “provides that the federal government may not ‘substantially burden’ a person’s religious exercise unless the government demonstrates that imposing that burden is ‘the least restrictive means of furthering’ a ‘compelling governmental interest’.”
And that standard hasn’t been met, the plaintiffs say.
Resolution, for its part, says the mine was authorized by Congress and thus must advance.
Along with allies in local trade unions and mining communities like Superior, the company also touts the major economic impact: something like $1 billion a year, plus 1,500 jobs, $149 million in annual payroll and $120 million in state and local taxes. Many of these jobs could be filled by tribal members, although most of the members of the Boilermakers Local 627 — the local that would likely work the mine — are Navajo.
Nevertheless, the mine has divided some indigenous communities with the promise of jobs in an otherwise economically depressed region. Accusations of bribery and backroom deals between tribal and union officials and the company have flown.
At this stage, the transfer will go through by August 19 unless a judge in one of the cases says otherwise. That has yet to happen. It’s important to note that the mine does have the backing of the Trump administration, which has sought to jump start a variety of natural resource extraction projects that stalled in previous administrations.
Project Blues, cont’d
The Tucson City Council has put the brakes on Project Blue, a massive, water-sucking data center that would have served Amazon Web Services near Tucson. The Council was tasked with approving an annexation petition required for the project to advance at its planned site near the county fairgrounds. But following weeks of public outcry, several extremely testy public meetings, and suspicion of the project by local policymakers, Project Blue is dead, per the Tucson Agenda’s Joe Ferguson.
“Project Blue started with a roar — promising a massive investment in Tucson’s water infrastructure, the creation of thousands of construction jobs and millions of dollars flowing into government coffers,” Ferguson wrote. “It died on Wednesday with a whimper, as every single member of the Tucson City Council denounced the NSA-like secrecy demanded from Amazon Web Services and its proxies, the excessive water usage and their overall lack of trust in the people behind the proposal.”
But while the vote may forestall the project — and perhaps signal to other corporate interests that they should look elsewhere when setting up shop — it won’t be the last data center project in Pima County. Councilwoman Nikki Lee wrote in her newsletter this week that Project Blue officials told her “this company came into our community with multiple options already identified.” In other words, the developers are likely looking to other sites in the region but outside of city limits.
Mayor Regina Romero — who wasn’t quite as opposed to the project as some of her colleagues on council — said something similar following the vote, noting the enthusiasm that Republicans in Washington and their crypto cadre have for data centers and AI.
“We have to understand as a community that this industry is out there and that everyone, including Donald Trump and Congress as well as the state, have incentives and policies to preempt cities like Tucson. So it doesn't end here,” Romero said. “We also have to work together because we can't just say no. What do we want to say yes to? What type of jobs do we want for our residents, for our construction workers and trade workers?”
ADWR attorneys keep busy
The Center for Biological Diversity is suing the Arizona Department of Water Resources, arguing the state must revoke the 100-year assured water supply designation for the city of Benson because of declining groundwater levels. CBD co-founder Robin Silver pulled no punches when talking to KJZZ’s Camryn Sanchez about his views of Gov. Katie Hobbs approach to water management.
“We have a governor who is very environmentally weak,” he told Sanchez.
(We should note that ADWR is also being sued for not allowing construction in parts of the Phoenix metro area. Water makes people hard to please!)
Bait and switch
In exchange for the federal land at Oak Flat, Resolution Copper will give the federal government an old-growth mesquite bosque outside of Mammoth. But another mining project is planned nearby, Inside Climate News’ Wyatt Myskow reports.
“One of the things that’s supposed to offset the tragic loss of Oak Flat is this 7B Ranch,” Russ McSpadden, a Southwest conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, told Myskow. “But it looks like its destiny is potentially to be impacted by another mine, which would really make its value moot in the land exchange.”
Imagine a faster, safer commute.
Arizona has a five-year plan to fix our roads, so let’s make sure we do it right the first time.
That means using skilled, fairly paid workers, ensuring safety on the job, and providing real oversight to make sure these public projects are actually built to last.
Let’s fix traffic the right way — once and for all.
Learn more at Rise-AZ.org.
Last week, we told you about Sedona’s battle to get all of its neighbors to help pay for a fancy new water storage project that won’t interrupt the Airbnb views of the Red Rock cliffs.
Well, the city of Sedona is getting its way, but not without a price.
The Arizona Corporation Commission last week approved a rate hike request from the Arizona Water Company to finance the $6 million underground water storage project that includes an above-ground mock-house to help the infrastructure blend in with the rest of the new-age tourist enclave.
Sedona wanted its neighbors in the AWC’s Northern Group to share the cost. Those neighbors weren’t so thrilled.
The compromise? Sedona customers will foot most — but not all — of the bill for the project, paying about 45% more per month on their water bills, bringing the average monthly bill to about $60.
Customers in surrounding areas will only see a 34% increase.
 |
|
Resolution Copper should look south. The Mexican government would roll out the red carpet for them. Mexico is mineral rich and there are exploratory companies all over Sonora right now.