One has to give credit to how the opponents to the Rosemont Mine have managed to turn what is in fact a very localized problem for residents along State Route 83 (the road between Vail and Sonoita) into a Tucson/Pima County issue.

As is obvious from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued by the US Forest Service, the impact of the proposed copper mine is the highest in the immediate vicinity of the mine site….mostly impacting nearby Coronado Forest lands….and declining the farther away from the mine site one gets.

How many Tucsonans drive on State Route 83? Probably way fewer than drive down Interstate 10 or Interstate 19.

So one main opposition groups calls itself “Save the Scenic Santa Ritas” and their campaign would leave one to believe that the mine will visually impact what most people in Tucson and Green Valley define as their view of the Santa Ritas.

Except that is not true. No one from Tucson or Green Valley will be able to see the proposed mine or its tailings piles.

The visual impact of the proposed mine is limited to people who drive on State Route 83 or live in that area.

But mine opponents have succeeded in getting hundreds of thousands of Tucsonans believing they will be impacted…. which is not true.

One cannot compare the Rosemont proposal to the mines west of Green Valley because those tailings piles were constructed prior to there being any effective regulation on the visual design of tailings piles.

The mining engineers who designed the Green Valley tailings piles created monuments to mining engineers….and in the course of that aliented a large number of people in the state. I dislike those tailings piles like virtually everyone else in the region.

That does not mean, however, that Rosemont will get away with tailings piles that replicate the Green Valley ones.

The major difference is the Forest Service has a lot of teeth in its land use permitting process.

There was no equivalent to the Forest Service addressing the Green Valley area mine design when those mines were started years ago.

A second issue…ground water in Green Valley.

The mine has a permit from the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to withdraw 6,000 acre feet of ground water from the Green Valley area.

Farmers Investment Company (FICO) jumped into the fight against Rosemont because the Rosemont wells are just east of FICO’s wells.

According to FICO, the world is going to end if Rosemont gets the green light to mine and begins pumping ground water from the mine’s wells.

One needs to remember that FICO pumps in the neighborhood of 25,000 to 30,000 acre feet of groundwater per year…5 times what Rosemont proposes.

FICO is under no state water law obligation to replenish the aquifer what they pump from it.

Mines and farms are exempt under current state law from having toi pay back our aquifers what they pump. Only new municipal development is under any kind of sustainability replenishment requirement.

There is a serious problem with groundwater level declines in Green Valley and that is because of FICO’s pumping for the last 50 years and the pumping by the mines west of Green Valley.

The problem is not limited to Rosemont.

To its credit, Rosemont recognized the issue and offered to do two things that they are not required to do under existing state law…they agreed to mitigate the impacts of their proposed pumping on neighboring private wells and they offered to fund a CAP recharge project in Green Valley via the Community Water Company.

FICO countered with its own proposed CAP recharge project that excludes participation of Rosemont.

Pima County and the City of Tucson jumped in behind FICO’s proposal and are working to try and block Rosemont from succeeding with its CAP recharge project.

Say what?

Interesting how FICO, Pima County and the City of Tucson can object to Rosemont’s groundwater use and then turn right around and do everything they can to block Rosemont from solving the problem.

Only in Tucson can that kind of duplicitous behavior be gotten away with because the Arizona Daily Star refuses to call FICO, Pima and Tucson out in this egregious  double standard.

So everyone believes Rosemont is going to cause water problems in Green Valley when in fact the leader of the opposition pumps five times the groundwater and is under no mandate to replenish its pumping and is fighting the resolution of the problem.

Instead of attacking Rosemont, Tucson and Green Valley residents need to tell FICO, Pima County and Tucson to get on board with a regional CAP replenishment project that ALL ground water users in Green Valley must participate in…Rosemont, FICO, and the mines west of Green Valley.

Pima County spent thousand of dollars creating a model of the proposed mine with graphics comparing the mine as though it were inside Tucson. A spectacular piece of prograganda…but the point is the mine is on the east side of the Santa Rita…not in downtown Tucson.

Listeing to the opposition one would think the site of the proposed mine is the last place on earth with specific environmental amenities.

It obviously was not that important a place when the Pima County committee that decided what lands to buy with Pima bond money chose not to buy the site before Rosemont got it.

You ought to take a tour of the mine site and see for youself where it is and how it relates to the surrounding area.

But as is typical in environmental fights..whatever disturbance one wishes to pursue…the site immediately becomes the last place on earth with some endangered species habitat or other attribute that demands stopping the project.

The mine involves a total of about 6 square miles of land that would be disturbed over a 20 year period.

Putting that in context…at least that much land gets bladed around Tucson annually for new subdivision and commercial development, pipelines, roads and other infrastruture.

*  *  *

Looking at the DEIS there are clearly a lot of issues to be addressed in the immediate vicinity of the mine.

The DEIS identifies potential impacts which thus sets the stage for negotiations between Rosemont and the Forest Service on how those impacts might be mitigated.

Identifying environmental issues in an environmental impact statement does not automatically mean the mine project can be killed. What it means is the Forest Service and the mine will need to address the issues in whatever manner the parties agree.

Opponents of the mine who have drawn a hard line in the sand saying “no mine” may find themselves left out in the cold when the negotiations start on mitigation because they have staked their position on an extreme position and not offered any mitigation proposals.

For example, the DEIS noted that the mine’s tailings piles could be constructed in such a way as the reduce the visual impacts on forest lands and for State Route 83 area residents.

There is an opportunity here for design controls over their tailings piles that never existed on the mines west of Green Valley.  Instead of “no tailings piles” there is an opportunity for “yes…but…” which the Forest Service has identified. Do the people along SR 83 want to be involved in the design criteria?

A third impact of the proposed mine is traffic on SR 83. No question there will be a major change there. The alternative would be to connect the mine to Interstate 19 via Santa Riota Road which would be a major issue for Sahuarita and Green Valley. Obviously the mine chose the least disruptive alternative that impacted the least number of people.

Of course the residents along State Route 83 object…but the bigger question is…is that your problem in Tucson and Green Valley?

Mine opponents are trying to make that your problem when in fact it is not.

The avoids a more basic issue…if there is going to be an impact on SR 83…what are the state and feds going to do to mitigate that impact?

Obviously some major improvements will be needed to SR 83 to mitigate traffic impacts. But I do not hear the mine’s opponents seriously digging into what mitigation requirements there ought to be. Should the road be widened? Should some of the tighter curves be straightened out?

My guess is the Arizona Department of Transportation  (who owns that road) will try and get some mitigation measures such as adding lanes to the road on grades so mine trucks will not impede the flow of traffic and so forth.

Again we have a group of people dug in on the position of “no mine” and there is nothing coming from them in the context of “yes…but”. The Arizona Department of Transportation will be the lead on the …but” conditions…and maybe with no input from area residents if they refuse to participate in mitigation discussions.

Another local issue about the mine is downstream from the mine site. There are issues about water supply and water quality. If Rosemont’s conduct regarding the Sahuarita Heights area and their willingness to recharge CAP water is any indicator (and they are) then solutions to the water issues downstream from the mine site are attainable.

Unlike the impacted residents of Sahuarita Heights who went to the table with Rosemont to find a mitigation strategy, SR 83 residents are dug in with their “no mine” approach and are not engaged in look for ways to not only eliminate the negative impacts but to maybe even improve their water supply situation.

I’ve worked on water issues in that area and it is not like the Tucson Valley with a huge lake of underground water beneath it. It is more like a surface water system that is highly reactive to annual rainfall. Wells can go dry out there having nothing to do with there being a mine.

Point out the problem only get one half way down the road. Problems always have solutions.

SR 83 residents are betting their future on killing the mine and doing nothing to look at Plan B if (as it in fact likely) the Forest Service approves the mine’s land use permit.

The core issue driving opposition to the mine is the belief that “public” meaning federally-managed lands should not be used to mine copper.

Many view the Coronado National Forest as some kind of wilderness park that exists solely to protect endangered species of plants and animals. That belief is not the law of this country.

A major issue involves alleged impacts of the mine on endangered species. The Center for Biological Diversity has jumped into the fray demanding the Rosemont mine site be included in Chiricahua Leopard Frog proposed habitat. That and several other endangered species impacts are alleged by Center for Biological Diversity. See KUAT story
One thing consistent about Center for Biological Diversity is they are all over the country trying to block development projects using the endangered species act and litigation to try and achieve their goals.

In the normal context of conflicts between development and endangered species impacts, the end result is usually getting a mitigation plan out of the proposed development to fund species protection and recovery projects. One gives a little here to get a lot more there.

There is no doubt in my mind that Rosemont could end up being a real plus for saving the Chiricahua Leopard Frog and other endangered species in the area by tapping the mine project  to buy other identified more significant habitat sites and funding recovery projects.

Absent the shrill opposition from CBD, that is likely to happen. And it is a good bet that whatever the Forest Service proposes to mitigate endangered species issue, CBD will sue to block the mitigation plans.

One has to acknowledge that the opponents of the mine have done a spectacular job of misdirecting public concern from what are very localized impacts and convincing a lot of people who really are not directly impacted  by the project into thinking the mine is “their” issue.

A telling trend in the mine fight was that the opposition was very successful in getting a lot of community opposition to the mine organized early on…such as getting resolutions opposing the mine approved by local governments from as far away as Oro Valley.

But as local governments looked deeper into the issues surrounding the mine, one by one they have backed off opposing the mine because they now see what the real story is. Oro Valley re-voted recently to withdraw its opposition to the mine and went neutral.

The interesting thing to me is that Rosemont has shown an unusual willingness to work with people to mitigate the environmental impacts of the mine.

But rather than participate in that process to seek mitigation measures, Tucson, Pima County, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, FICO and CBD keep pounding their opposition drums and attacking anyone that is willing to even try and talk to the Rosemont mine people.

The water table beneath Green Valley and Sahuarita is dropping.

All hydrology studies done in the area show the water table will continue to drop for the foreseeable future because there is a lot of groundwater pumping going on between the mines, FICO and area water utilities and golf courses that is not being replenished with Central Arizona Project (CAP) water.

Only new urban development is required to replenish the groundwater being pumped. Two area water utilities…Community Water Company and the Green Valley Domestic Water Improvement District have contracts to buy Central Arizona Project (CAP) water, but they cannot directly use CAP water because there is no CAP Terminal Storage facility to firm up local water deliveries. The only option for the local CAP contract water companies is to recharge their CAP water to offset their groundwater pumping.

FICO’s water company Farmers Water, the Sahuarita Water Company that serves Rancho Sahuarita and others in the area serving new development do not have CAP contracts.

New development in Rancho Sahuarita, Quail Creek and other areas pay a fee or assessment to the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) which goes out and buys CAP water and recharges it. Unfortunately for the water table in Green Valley, the CAGRD recharge occurs in Marana which has a rising groundwater table. There is no state mandate CAGRD recharges in the area where groundwater is mined.

FICO, Freeport, Asarco and Rosemont are under no state legal mandate to replenish the groundwater they pump. Just between FICO, Freeport and Asarco, over 60,000 acre feet of groundwater can be pumped annually without any recharge requirement. Unless all that pumping is subjected to a recharge obligation, the depth of groundwater in the area will keep dropping as it has for decades due to this exempt pumping.

Rosemont will add another 5,000 to 6,000 acre feet to the demand on the aquifer. Some claim Rosemont’s proposed pumping is the problem in the area. In fact, it is only about 10% of the problem.

Even though the Tucson Active Management Area (TAMA) administered by the Arizona Department of Water Resources is mandated by law to achieve “safe yield” by 2025…meaning no more groundwater is mined than is artificially or naturally recharged in the TAMA…studies show we will fail in this goal.

Under ADWR and TAMA rules, the “safe yield” balance is more mathematical than related to actual water table levels. Thus it is OK to mine groundwater in the Green Valley area resulting in the local water table to keep dropping and recharge CAP water in Marana so the water table there can rise.

There is no legal mandate in the TAMA to prevent local aquifers from experiencing long term declines as there is in the Santa Cruz Active Management area to the south of Green Valley.

This may be good for Marana, but it means big problems in the future for Sahuarita and Green Valley.

One obvious solution is to expand CAP recharge capacity in Sahuarita and Green Valley.

The existing Pima Mine Road recharge project does not have the capacity to allow replenishment of all the groundwater pumping that is allowed in the area. Plus the Pima Mine Road recharge project is down-gradient from the wells serving the area, so recharge at that site does not protect the water table further south under GVDWID’s, CWC’s and Quail Creek’s water service areas.

There are two competing proposals to expand CAP recharge capacity in the area…one led by Community Water Company (CWC) and one led by FICO.

There is a significant difference between the two proposals. Under the CWC plan the Rosemont copper mine would be able to recharge an equal amount of CAP water for what they will pump in the Sahuarita Heights area. Under the FICO recharge proposal Rosemont would not be allowed to recharge CAP water in its project.

Both recharge projects are currently being stymied by a bottleneck in the CAP water line that runs from the end of the CAP line just west of I-19 and Pima Mine Road over to the Pima Mine Road recharge site. Any new CAP recharge project needs to connect to this line and eliminate the bottleneck.

The existing CAP line can’t handle another 30,000 acre feet of CAP water delivery needed to offset the groundwater pumping by Rancho Sahuarita, FICO’s farm operation and future land development, area water companies, Freeport’s mine, and Rosemont. The bottleneck will have to be removed.

The City of Tucson, which controls this CAP line and a large share of the Pima Mine Road recharge project has taken the position that no “third party” can access the line or increase its capacity…especially Rosemont. I suspect Tucson would allow FICO to connect as long as Rosemont had no access.

Thus we have the City of Tucson, which claims to be a leader in good regional water management, working behind the scenes to block Rosemont from being able to recharge CAP water.

There is something really fishy going on in Green Valley.

FICO, which is one of the largest pumpers of mined groundwater complains about Rosemont’s ADWR approved groundwater use. This is a classic case of the “pot calling the kettle black”.

One would think that if FICO was so concerned about the potential impacts of Rosemont’s groundwater pumping, they would be doing everything they could to get Rosemont into a CAP recharge project. Instead FICO is doing just the opposite.

I am speculating that FICO’s theory is that if Rosemont is somehow denied the ability to recharge CAP water, that will somehow convince the federal government to deny Rosemont permission to use Coronado National Forest land for the proposed mine. Support for this speculation comes from FICO’s attempts to link the mine project to the environmental assessment of CWC’s proposed CAP recharge project. FICO failed in that attempt.

FICO wanted the environmental evaluation of the CWC CAP recharge project to include everything related to the proposed mine. The feds said there wasn’t any link and that the CAP recharge effort stood alone as being positive for the environment, regardless of any benefit Rosemont might get.

CWC’s recharge effort is for the benefit of everyone in Green Valley. It is not, as some claim, a “Rosemont project”. CWC was just smart enough to get some financial backing for their recharge project from another outfit that could also benefit.

Unfortunately for FICO’s theory, the federal government has no jurisdiction over groundwater rights and uses in Arizona. Arizona is fairly defensive of its state’s rights, and control of water rights is one of those state rights that is absolutely beyond federal control.

Rosemont already has its ADWR state permit to pump groundwater for use in its mining project. FICO actually fought the permit for Rosemont with ADWR and lost.

State law does not require Rosemont to do anything to mitigate its planned groundwater pumping…just as state law does not mandate FICO or Freeport from mitigating the impacts of their substantially greater amounts of groundwater pumping.

The water supply for the mine is a done deal.

On one hand FICO complains about Rosemont’s proposed groundwater pumping and obviously would like the federal government to condition approval of the mine on Rosemont being mandated to replenish its groundwater pumping, and then FICO turns right around and proposes a CAP recharge project that excludes Rosemont’s ability to participate.

The people of Sahuarita and Green Valley need to recognize that getting the maximum amount of CAP recharge going in the area is absolutely in everyone’s best interest to reduce the decline in the aquifer beneath the area.

There can be no exceptions to recharging CAP water.

Everyone pumping groundwater needs to be part of the solution and replenish their pumping with CAP water recharge under Green Valley and Sahuarita.

Attempts to use the CAP recharge issue as a weapon against Rosemont are contrary to the public interest of everyone in the upper Santa Cruz Valley.

FICO should be challenged for trying to hold CAP recharge hostage to opposition to Rosemont.

The City of Tucson in working with FICO should also be challenged in its attempt at blocking maximum sustainability solutions for Green Valley. Tucson is blocking sound water management in Green Valley and Sahuarita for political purposes aligning itself with opponents of the mine.

I strongly encourage everyone to merge their efforts and come up with one CAP recharge project which will allow all groundwater users to replenish what they pump…FICO, Rosemont, Freeport, Sahuarita, Community Water, and everyone else.

Take the money Rosemont is willing to spend in support of the CAP recharge project and keep CAP recharge project development out of the mine permitting fight. If Rosemont doesn’t get their federal permit…let them sell whatever CAP recharge capacity they have to someone else who can use it.

Rosemont opponents don’t want the truth to be known

Arizona Daily Star does hatchet job on proposed Rosemont Mine

Was on KJLL (1330 AM) radio this morning and discussed the water situation down in the Green Valley area and the Rosemont issue about water.

The show is hosted by the Southern Arizona Green Chamber of Commerce.

By way of background, I worked on Capitol Hill for Mo Udall back in 1967 on the Central Arizona Project legislation, came back to Arizona and got a law degree and spent the next 40 years involved in water issues in Arizona.

Rosemont has a permit from the ADWR to pump 6,000 acre feet of groundwater a year for its proposed mine.

By contrast Farmers Investment Company (FICO) pumps close to 30,000 acre feet a year for its pecan groves and has been doing so for over 50 years.

The mines west of Green Valley pump another 40,000 acre feet a year.

Green Valley and Sahuarita’s private water companies pump around 6,000 acre feet a year for residentrial use and another 5,000 acree feet a year is puped to irrigate golf courses.

There is a massive groundwater overdraft in the Green Valley area.

The Central Arizona project has a 30,000 acre foot capacity CAP recharge facility at the north end of Sahuarita next to the San Xavier Indian Reservation which recharges water for the Indians and the city of Tucson.

But with over 80,000 acre feet of pumping, the deifict for recharge is still 50,000 acre feet.

Community Water Company in Green Valley wants to construct a new CAp recharge facility father south in the area and recharge 30,000 plus acre feet of water and Rosemont has agreed to pay a big share of the cost of this project and recharge the 6,000 acre feet a year t would pump for the mine.

Oddly FICO has been opposing the Community Water project, even though FICO is one of the most vocal opponents of the mine.

I am the executive director of the Center for Sustainable Development and am involved in the Green Valley area water issues. I do not work for Rosemont.

Farmers Investment Company (FICO) recently announced it would hold a series of public meetings to figure out how to develop its 7,000 acres of pecan orchards  in Sahuarita and Green Valley into another suburb over the next 40 to 50 years. The first meetings on the development plan will be at 6:30 p.m. June 29, in the Madera Clubhouse in Quail Creek (RSVP to 520-305-3011) and at 8:30 a.m. on June 30 at Desert Hills Social Center, 2980 S. Camino del Sol in Green Valley.

Ultimately this will lead to FICO submitting Specific Area development plans to the Town of Sahuarita and Pima County for approval. FICO owns land in both jurisdictions.

According to its press release, FICO will continue its agricultural operations on the land “for the foreseeable future” .

FICO also claims that conversion of its orchards will reduce its overall water use on the property. Currently FICO pumps around 30,000 acre feet of groundwater per year to irrigate its trees.

FICO’s local  representatives Richard and Nan Walden have also been vocal opponents of the Rosemont Mine, arguing against the mine’s proposed groundwater use.

FICO also claims its urban development will be sustainable.

Some questions immediately come to mind about turning the FICO property into a land development.

They include:

–how much of the pecan orchard will be retained even after the development is completed, and how much water will the remaining trees use?

–where will the water to keep the remaining trees come from?  Treated effluent from the development?

–when a farm is retired from irrigation its Irrigation Grandfather water right gets converted and reduced to 3 acre feet per year called a Type 1 right. The Type 1 right can then be used to offset any CAP replenishment charges to replace the mining of groundwater. Thus the bottom line question is how much of the groundwater pumping for FICO’s urban development will be exempt from replenishing the aquifer with CAP water?

–how many new homes are going to be built on the property?

–what will the traffic impacts be on the old Nogales Highway from the development? Who will pay for road improvements to the Old Nogales Highway?

–will improvements be needed for the Continental Ranch and Duval Mine Road freeway interchanges on I-19 due to the development? Who will pay for those improvements?

–who will pay for the required wastewater treatment capacity expansion needed to serve the project? Where will the effluent from the development go?

–is the project going to be more retirement oriented development, or will it include homes for working families?

–where will the jobs come from to support the residents of the project?

–is there sufficient electric service capacity in the area to serve the project? Will new substations and electric transmission lines be needed? Will the energy to support the new homes come from existing coal-fired generation of Tucson Electric Power, or will a substantial portion of the energy needs for the project be met with renewable energy sources such as solar?

–will there have to be massive bak protection along the Santa Cruz River to remove FICO’s lands from the 100 year flood plain? Who will pay to construct and maintain the bank protection?

–will the Anza Trail be extended through the FICO project?

–is FICO’s fight against Rosemont over water so FICO has water for its proposed land development?

Things certainly are not dull down Green Valley way.

The general public opinion is there’s a water problem in Green Valley and it is all the fault of the proposed Rosemont mine. That is not true.

The water table will continue to drop in Green Valley even if there were no Rosemont mine. That water level decline is due to the pumping by existing mines, FICO, urban residents and golf courses. It is also caused by the lack of sufficient CAP recharge facilities in the area.

First, let me make it clear: I do not represent Rosemont.

I represented a whole bunch of homeowners east of Green Valley where Rosemont’s proposed groundwater wells are located. I negotiated a well protection agreement on behalf of the homeowners. As a result of that 2 year effort, I learned a lot about what’s going on down that end of the Valley.

Background: I’m a water attorney and have been dealing with water issues in Southern Arizona since 1974. For a primer on the state’s water law, click here.

Folks in Green Valley are concerned about their water. Rosemont has gotten a permit from the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to pump up to 6,000 acre feet of groundwater per year. That’s enough water for 18,000 new homes.

But there’s more to this story. Right now in the Green Valley are Farmers Investment Company (FICO) pumps around 30,000 acre feet per year, and the Freeport McMoRan copper mine west of Green Valley is also close to the 30,000 acre feet of pumping per year. Between them that is ten times the groundwater pumping of Rosemont. Click here for pumping history in Green Valley that was provided by ADWR.

Rosemont projects using around 100,000 acre feet of groundwater over a 20 year period. By comparison, Freeport or FICO can pump 100,000 acre feet  in about 3.5 years. Both FICO and Freeport will be able to pump 1.2 million acre feet at current rates in 20 years.

Neither Freeport nor FICO are under any state obligation whatsoever to replenish the groundwater they pump, because farms and mines are exempt from replenishment. They have what are called “grandfathered” rights to pump groundwater in the case of FICO, and Type 2 mineral extraction permits or mineral extraction permits for the mines.  Rosemont got a mineral extraction permit. They cannot exceed their permitted amount without another permit process.

The only new groundwater pumping that is subject to replenishment are new subdivision developments that got an assured water supply since 1993. They are taxed via the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD)  which buys CAP water and recharges it. Groundwater being pumped for urban uses prior to 1993 is  also exempt from replenishment requirements.

Besides the 6,000 acre feet permitted to Rosemont, ADWR has estimated another 11,000 acre feet per year of new urban demand along the Sahaurita Road corridor…mostly through sale of state owned land in the area for development in the future. That’s 33,000 more homes and another 8,000 acres of desert bladed.

Interestingly, while the Tucson Active Management Area (TAMA) has the goal of achieving “safe yield” by 2025, water experts at ADWR forecast that will not happen because of the  exempt groundwater pumping that will continue in the Green Valley area. “Safe yield” means no more groundwater is being pumped than is naturally or artificially being recharged,.

Also interestingly, the definition of achieving “safe yield” is for the entire Active Management Area, but there is no goal to keep local water levels from falling. The Santa Cruz Active Management Area to the south of  Tucson has the additional goal   ”to prevent local water tables from experiencing long-term declines”.

The Tucson AMA does not have this water table protection goal.

Thus, it is just fine under existing state law for CAP recharge to be concentrated in the Avra Valley, where there is now a rising groundwater table, and groundwater mining to continue in Tanque Verde, Vail and Green Valley, which have falling water tables. The few remaining riparian areas in the valley are at risk because there is no “direct hydrologic influence” recharge requirement for groundwater mining.

There is a CAP recharge facility at the north end of Green Valley called the Pima Mine Road site. However, this recharge facility does not have the capacity to recharge all the water being pumped out to the south. Its current capacity is 20,000 acre feet per year which could be expanded to 30,000 acre feet per year. As previously noted, there is 60,000 acre feet of groundwater mining going on in the area just between Freeport and FICO. Add existing grandfathered golf course and municipal pumping, as well as projected new municipal pumping, and it is obvious there is not enough CAP recharge capacity in the Green Valley area.

In the ideal world, if the state were really serious about sustainable water supplies, all the groundwater being pumped in Green Valley would be subject to replenishment, with no exceptions for any mine, farm and urban development that was completed before the replenishment mandate went into effect. Also, such recharge would be mandated in the “zone of hydrologic influence” to protect water tables.

The reality is that will require a major change in the state’s groundwater management laws, which will not happen until residents of Tucson and Phoenix unite to demand that change.

So where does Rosemont fit into all this?

Rosemont has been buying CAP water and having it recharged in the Tucson AMA before they even get their permits to mine. At last report (today) they have bought over 45,000 acre feet of CAP water for recharge. They didn’t have to buy one drop of CAP water. If Rosemont can do this, why can’t Freeport and FICO?

 The bad news is most of this Rosemont CAP water ended up being recharged at a CAP recharge project in Marana. Why? Because there was not enough capacity at the Pima Mine Road CAP recharge facility to get the CAP recharge closer to Green Valley. Between the Tohono O’odham and the City of Tucson, it is hard to get any surplus recharge capacity at Pima Mine Road.

Rosemont, recognizing the problem that their CAP recharge effort is not directly benefiting Green Valley, hooked up with Community Water of Green Valley to develop a second CAP recharge facility farther south, so any CAP recharge would directly offset any groundwater pumping by the mine. Remember, Rosemont is under no obligation to do squat about mitigating their pumping groundwater. But they are doing what is right notwithstanding the lack of any legal mandate. That’s not a common experience  with businesses in this country….doing something because it is right.

It gets even more interesting. There is opposition to the Community Water CAP recharge project from Pima County, FICO and others in the area. [note 1]  FICO has proposed an alternative CAP recharge project, but with the purchase of the Arizona Nevada development land west of Green Valley by Freeport (a major funding source for the FICO alternative) , the FICO recharge project may be dead.

Finally, another interesting facet of state groundwater law is that no one has any right to the existing depth to groundwater in their well. Up in Pinal County a new industry drilled a well and sucked the water out from under a neighboring pecan farm. The pecan farmer sued for damages and lost. For a more detailed discussion of groundwater law and that case click here.

When area residents who would be directly impacted by Rosemont’s proposed pumping approached Rosemont about the potential loss of their wells, property values and homes, Rosemont legally could have told the residents to go pound sand, literally.

Instead Rosemont agreed to a precedent-setting well protection program that could result in up to 166 private wells in the area being replaced or pumps lower edat the expense of Rosemont. The well protection  agreement is limited to this particular company because a covenant  condition and restriction has been recorded on the mine’s well sites mandating that anyone who owns the wells cannot pump any water for use at the Rosemont mine site unless the well protection program remains in effect.

Whether or not you think there ought to be another copper mine in the area, the water issue in Green Valley regarding Rosemont is very clear and documentable. The mining company is going way beyond any existing requirements to mitigate its impact on its neighbors.

Rosemont is actually part of the solution to the water problem in Green Valley. That cannot be said for other big water users in the area who are exempt from paying to replenish their pumping right now.

 _____________________________________________________________________________

[note 1] One of the objections to the Rosemont CAP recharge effort is the uncertainty of CAP water supplies. What is little understood is that the CAP is just a bunch of pipes and ditches, which currently diverts 1.2 million acre feet of Colorado River water into the state. Arizona has another 1.6 million acre feet of senior Colorado River water rights sitting in Yuma.  The CAP diversion point at the Colorado River was actually sized to divert 1.6 miollion acre feet per year. Thus, if there is a shortage for whatever reason, the issue is NOT physical availability of water. It is how much will that water cost if the farms in Yuma need to be bought out so their water rights can be transferred to Phoenix and Tucson. There are also high priority Colorado River water supplies available for lease by the state’s Indian tribes.  Groundwater could also be pumped out of western Arizona into the CAP system to augment it, with severance damges paid to western Arizona interests.  None of these are cheap alternatives.  So it is not a supply issue, but a cost issue.