Legislative leaders backtrack on Rosemont letter

Arizona Senate and House leaders praised the proposed Rosemont Copper mine as “a tremendous economic opportunity” in a letter to a federal official this week, saying they were writing “on behalf of the Arizona State Senate and House of Representatives.”

But after a day filled with criticism from Southern Arizona lawmakers, they backpedaled, saying the issue was "not as simple as we first thought."

Southern Arizona leaders long enmeshed in the debate picked apart the two-page letter, which appeared to back a mine that has little popular support in the area.

Sen. Jonathan Paton, who represents District 30, where Rosemont is located, said there was no discussion or resolution in the Legislature about the letter.

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, whose Congressional District 8 includes the proposed mine site, criticized the letter in a statement Thursday, saying, “The legislators’ new-found interest in this open-pit mine neglects to address the serious and intractable economic, quality-of-life and environmental problems that would result if it were to go into operation.”

State Senate President Bob Burns and Speaker of the House Kirk Adams said in the Feb. 2 letter to the head of the Coronado National Forest that they support the Environmental Impact Statement process under way on Rosemont mine, and noted, “It is imperative that Arizona responsibly utilize our natural resources as a part of our long-term economic recovery and stabilization.”

The letter, written on state Legislature letterhead and signed by Burns and Adams, was sent to forest supervisor Jeanine Derby and copied to 11 people, including U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar and Tom Tidwell, chief of the U.S. Forest Service.

Burns, a Peoria Republican, said Thursday afternoon that he didn’t realize the letter was going to cause controversy, and said his intention was to encourage federal officials “to go through proper steps.” He said it was sent because Arizona needs the type of economic development Rosemont promises.

A press release from Burns' office later Thursday said, "We want to make it clear that the decision on the plan for the Rosemont mine is a local issue, in consultation with Federal interests."

It went on to say, "It is not as simple as we first thought. Sen. Jonathan Paton has spoken to us about his concerns with the use of CAP water for the project. We understand his consistent opposition to the plan, and although we support mining, we do not want the February 2 letter to be understood as an endorsement of the Rosemont plan."

In an earlier interview, Burns said no one contacted him directly about sending the letter.

Rod Pace, president and CEO of Rosemont Copper, said Rosemont’s Vice President of Sustainable Resource Jamie Sturgess met recently with Burns to discuss an Arizona State University study on economic impacts of the proposed mine. He said he did not know if Sturgess asked for a letter of support.

Pace said he was pleased with the letter but that it was hard to measure its impact because as the Forest Service’s considers the mine proposal, “there is an EIS process and there’s not a lot of political input in it, but any process you go through, the public is interested in and we like to keep it as open as we can. There has been a lot of show of opposition, it’s nice to show there is support too.”

The Coronado National Forest in November said it will release a draft EIS on the Canadian-based Augusta Resource’s proposed mine in the Santa Rita Mountains this spring. Among other things, the EIS will evaluate the legal grounds by which the mine might not be approved to operate.

The Forest Service is looking at whether it can deliver a “no-action” ruling, which would block the mine, in the face of the 1872 Mining Act, which was designed to promote westward expansion.

The letter signed by Burns and Adams stated they were writing “on behalf of the Arizona State Senate and House of Representatives.”

Paton, who has opposed the mine from the start, said it appears Rosemont is “going further afield looking for support” after finding little backing in Southern Arizona.

“You can’t really say it’s on behalf of the members when I don’t even know about the letter,” he said.

Paton said he is drafting a letter and considering calling for a resolution to measure support for the mine at the Legislature.

“I completely disagree with the mine and it’s very simple,” Paton said. “I don’t believe trading CAP water with ground water is a fair trade, and I don’t trust our good friends in California to always keep the (Colorado River) water flowing.”

The letter from Burns and Adams says, “We appreciate your oversight and role as the lead agency in the EIS process.” Later, it states, “It is imperative that Arizona responsibly utilize our natural resources as a part of our long-term economic recovery and stabilization.”

Paton and others support mining in the state, but, “I just don’t think that taking Green Valley’s water and replacing it with CAP water is a fair trade.”

The letter also mentions an economic-impact study commissioned by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources and performed by ASU. The study says the mine would “benefit the state’s economy by more than $9.2 billion over the life of the mine.”

Rosemont Copper paid for the study.

Tom Ward, a spokesman for Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll, said his office is “greatly disappointed in the legislative leadership allowing itself to be hoodwinked by bogus numbers.”

“Supervisor Carroll has said in the past that when you pay for a study you usually get the facts you want,” he said.

Giffords, who also has a long history of opposition to the mine, said, “Those who are familiar with this ongoing EIS process already know that many factors — including economic — must be taken into consideration in such a comprehensive process.”

She continued, “The EIS process also will take into account the water that will be used to develop this mile-wide, 3,000-foot-deep pit. The mine owners expect to pump 100,000 acre-feet of water over 20 years - enough water to supply the needs of 300,000 homes for a year or enough to submerge all 26 square miles of Green Valley six feet deep.”

Arizona News Service is staffed by students from the University of Arizona School of Journalism.