How do we know that Pima County officials are working on what they are supposed to? And how much time do they spend on certain projects?

The Southern Arizona Business Coalition (SABC), an advocate for Rosemont, wanted to know how much time Pima County officials spent on Rosemont copper mine related business over the last two years. One of SABC’s interests was to find out if Pima County officials were using taxpayer money to aid groups that are opposed to the mine, as Pima County is.

SABC sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the County asking for:

“Any and all documents, timesheets, salaries, projections, calendars, meeting notes, audits, expense reports, budgets, reports, communications, correspondence, emails or other electronic transmissions relating to the amount of time and hours worked on any matters relating to the Rosemont Copper Project by any of your employees, representatives and/or consultants…..”

SABC did receive some information but much was missing. Pima County offered three excuses for its failure to provide the requested information:

1) The “majority of departments do not maintain records indicating time spent on a specific project.”

This excuse suggests that the County should change its operating procedures so that they are more accountable and transparent. Businesses require accountability from their employees. Even I, as a largely free-ranging geologist, had to account for time spent so the company could properly attribute time and expenses to specific budget items. Why doesn’t Pima County require this employee accountability?

SABC estimates that 38 County employees spent at least 10 percent of their time over the last two years on the Rosemont issue. That time cost taxpayers over $400,000 per year. And SABC estimates approximately 3% of staff time was spent over the previous 3+ years. Of course, at least some of that time would be legitimate processing of required permits, but how do we know how much. As I mentioned above, how much time and taxpayer money was spent on, shall we say, extracurricular activity that could aid opponents of the mine? Pima County will not or cannot say. Since the County did not provide adequate time allocation for the staff and legal office, SABC made assumptions based on previous information and experience in this issue and estimated that the County spent approximately $1 million on staff time (including Supervisors and their staff), outside consultants and legal fees fighting Rosemont.

2) The County Attorneys Office claimed attorney-client privilege regarding billing records.

This is a spurious argument since the attorneys are either County attorneys or attorneys hired by the County and the County is also the client. The right hand can’t disclose what the left hand is doing? This is another transparency issue. The County Attorney could have provided time allocation without violating attorney client privilege, but chose not to.

SABC says the County “would not have incurred $97,000 in attorneys’ fees had it not abused its discretion in denying the air quality permit to Rosemont. On November 30, 2011, the attorney working on behalf of Pima County found that the County’s ‘decision to deny Rosemont’s permit application . . . was contrary to law.’ Further, a Superior Court Ruling, dated July 5, 2012, determined that the Pima County Air Quality Hearing Board ‘acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and that the abused their discretion.’ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has since taken over this process from the County. An additional $15,500 was spent by Pima County appealing the Arizona Corporation Commission line siting proceeding for the TEP power line to Rosemont. Again, they did not prevail.”

3) The County is “unable to provide documents that no longer exist.”

This is “the dog ate my homework” excuse. Pima County broke the law if it did not maintain official records. Arizona law requires the County to “carefully protect and preserve the records from deterioration, mutilation, loss or destruction and, when advisable, shall cause them to be properly repaired and renovated.” A.R.S. § 41-151.15; and A.R.S. § 39-121.

These excuses show lack of accountability, lack of transparency, and failure to follow the law on record keeping. Since Pima County has stated publicly it is against the Rosemont mine, one wonders how much time was deliberate delay and obfuscation in permit processing. SABC alleges that Pima County also wasted time and money by attempting to duplicate work done by 17 federal agencies.

Taxpayers deserve better County accountability no matter which side of the Rosemont issue we take.

See also:

Pima County versus Rosemont

Jaguars versus the Rosemont mine

Proposed Jaguar habitat in Arizona and New Mexico is scientifically and legally indefensible

Rosemont’s dry-stacked tailings will be greener than those near Green Valley

Pima County wants to change the use of voter approved bond money.  According to the Arizona Daily Star (see story), “Bond money approved by voters for the expansion of Catalina State Park likely will be used instead to buy land to add to a different park.”

Can the County legally take this bond money and put it to another use?  If a similar precedent rules, then the answer is no.

The Cave Creek School District wanted to redirect $13 million in bond money approved for new school construction to other projects not voter approved.  The Goldwater Institute sued on behalf of District taxpayers.  A Superior Court Judge ruled that school districts may not use bond money for projects that voters have not approved. (See more here.)

From my reading of the Star’s story on Catalina State Park bonds, Pima County is contemplating what amounts to the same thing as the Cave Creek case, which means Pima County may be embarking on an illegal activity.  Such action could cost taxpayers money to defend any lawsuits that may arise.

That’s my take on this proposal, but I’m not a lawyer.  What do you think?

Pima County officials seem to be doing everything they can to delay and deny Rosemont Copper from opening a mine south of Tucson. As Hugh Holub wrote, this “delay as a form of denial..scheme involves gumming up the decision-making process with demands for additional studies, appeals to governmental entities, lawsuits and whatever other tactic that can put off a final decision.” And the delay is costing taxpayers in the form of fewer jobs, lost economic opportunity, and lost tax revenue.

According to Rosemont, the mine will produce over 400 direct jobs and about 1,600 indirect jobs that will provide about $3 billion in increased personal income over the next 20 years. The mine will provide local governments with tax revenues of about $19 million per year and create $700 million in local economic stimulus in such things as services, real estate, retail purchases, utilities and manufacturing.

One step in mine approval is that of obtaining an air-quality permit from Pima County. According to the Arizona Daily Star, “under federal laws, the county should have made its permit decision in December 2010 – 30 days after the county declared the company’s permit application complete.” The county has yet to issue a permit and is searching for any lame excuse to not do so.

The result of that delay is that Rosemont is suing the County for specific action. Taxpayers must bear the cost of defending the suit due to County perfidiousness to those it is supposed to serve. All of this is especially ironic because the County declined its chance to buy the property before Rosemont Copper became involved.

The mining industry is one of the most heavily regulated businesses in the country, so there are many safeguards on the environmental impact of the operation. Below is a list of some of the regulations mining companies must comply with:

 Mining Law of 1872

 Clean Air Act (CAA)

 Clean Water Act (CWA)

 Arizona Air Pollution Rules

 Local Planning and Zoning Rules

 Historic Preservation Act (SHPO)

 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

 Arizona Solid Waste Disposal Act

 Mining Safety & Health Act (MSHA)

 Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Act

 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

 Underground Storage Tank Laws (UST)

 Wastewater Treatment Plant Registration

 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

 Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)

 Arizona Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) Rules

 Hazardous Material Transportation Act (HMTA)

 Water Well Registration and Water Rights Permit

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rules

 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)

 Non-Community, Non-Transient Water Systems Rules

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dredge and Fill Permit

 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) Rules

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

 Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF)

 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

 Surface Management Regulations for Locatable Mineral Operations (43 CFR 3809)

 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

Pima County is well-endowed with mineral resources (see: “Mineral Potential of Eastern Pima County, Arizona“).   The anti-mining stance of Pima County officials does not bode well for our economic future. The green zealotry of these officials is not serving the people. And, a mine is a terrible thing to waste.

 For another example of mis-guided Pima County policy, see:

 Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Pima County’s ambitious but flawed scheme