Local Coalition Goes to Court to Protect Southern
Post# of 29
Posted On: 08/20/2013 2:03:03 PM
Local Coalition Goes to Court to Protect Southern Arizona Water
Lawsuit filed to overturn Rosemont Groundwater Permit
(Tucson, Ariz.) A diverse coalition of southern Arizonans filed a lawsuit on Friday to overturn
state approval of a key water permit for the proposed Rosemont Mine in the Santa Rita
Mountains, south of Tucson.
Despite its name, the “aquifer protection permit” would allow a Canadian mining company to
pollute Tucson’s groundwater supplies with mercury, arsenic, lead and other dangerous
contaminants.
The suit seeks to overturn the Arizona Water Quality Appeals Board's (WQAB) decision to
approve Rosemont Copper Company’s Aquifer Protection Permit. The suit asserts that the
WQAB acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it rubber-stamped the Administrative Law
Judge’s rejection of administrative appeals of the permit.
Vancouver, B.C.-based Augusta Resource Corporation is seeking permits for its subsidiary
Rosemont Copper Company to construct an open-pit copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains on
the Coronado National Forest southeast of Tucson.
“As it stands today, the Aquifer Protection Permit for Rosemont should instead be called the
Rosemont Aquifer Pollution permit. Southern Arizonans take threats to their water very seriously
and that is why we are taking this action,” said Gayle Hartmann, President of Save the Scenic
Santa Ritas, a citizens’ coalition opposed to the mine. “Rosemont likes to talk about the
economics of this mine, but the economic costs will be catastrophic if the WQAB and the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality shirk their responsibilities and allow the
permanent destruction of southern Arizona's water resources by this foreign mining company.”
Issues identified in the suit include:
* The WQAB rubber-stamped the ALJ's findings and recommendations. Water Quality
Appeals Board members publicly admitted they had not carefully read the ALJ’s decision
nor any of the other materials submitted in the course of the lengthy hearings on this
matter. Despite that admission, their written decision states - falsely - that they “reviewed
the ALJ Decision, transcripts and arguments of the parties, and the WQAB completed a
full and careful deliberation of the same.”
(0)
(0)