PHOENIX - Approval for a vast open-pit copper mine in the Santa Rita mountains 30 miles southeast of Tucson is expected soon from the U.S. Forest Service, but the Rosemont Mine faces several more regulatory hurdles before construction could begin.

Eva Sargent, Southwest program director with Defenders of Wildlife, says the Forest Service has little leeway because of the 1872 federal mining law.

"It's really hard for the Forest Service to say 'no,' but that's not the end of the game," she said. "The company can't go ahead without a permit to pollute the air, which is being appealed. They need a permit to pollute the water, which is not going very well for them."

The mining company says the Rosemont Mine would produce hundreds of jobs, add tax revenues and a secure domestic source of copper. Sargent counters that it isn't worth the effect on the region's groundwater supply and the resulting damage to area ranchers, the tourism industry and wildlife.

Mine opponents say the deep pit would negatively affect some 900 private wells in the area. Sargent says the mine would act as a "big drain, draining water out of the entire region."

"You know, the mine is miles across," she warned. "It's big enough to put the entire U of A campus into it. And it'll leave this, basically, toxic lake that cannot be fixed."

She adds that the mine would be located in the middle of habitat for creatures such as the jaguar and the southern willow flycatcher, which would be poisoned if they happened to drink water remaining in the pit.

Sargent says it isn't only conservation groups that are against the mine. There's also opposition from local governments.

"The county's against the mine, the Tohono O'Odham are against the mine, the Pasqua Yaqui are against the mine," she said. "Arizona Game and Fish filed very strong objections to the mine: they say it'll make the north end of the Santa Ritas virtually worthless as wildlife habitat."

The mining company disagrees, saying it has mitigation plans to protect water flows, wildlife habitat and recreation.

It's been six years since the mine was first proposed.




get more stories like this via email

Clean-water advocates are heading to state district court after Colorado regulators turned their back on a judge's decision last year calling for better oversight of factory farm waste.

Tyler Lobdell, staff attorney for the group Food and Water Watch, explained human sewage goes through water treatment plants or septic systems. But he said operations where thousands of cattle are confined in concentrated spaces have been dumping millions of tons of untreated manure onto nearby fields.

"It inevitably overwhelms the landscape and overwhelms watersheds," Lobdell pointed out. "Such that this pollution has nowhere to go but into our drinking water and into our lakes, rivers and streams."

Last year's ruling found Colorado was in violation of state and federal law because the state's general permit did not require monitoring of water quality near factory farms. But the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment dismissed the ruling, arguing because there was no evidence of leaks, there was no need to monitor. Industry groups also claimed current regulations are tougher than in other states.

Lobdell countered Colorado's rules are strict, as they should be, to protect one of the state's most valuable assets, its water supplies. Without monitoring and enforcement of any violations, public health will continue to be at risk.

"You can have the strongest restrictions imaginable on paper," Lobdell noted. "The problem is those restrictions have been rendered largely meaningless because the facilities aren't required to report their compliance with those restrictions."

Factory farms, also called concentrated animal feeding operations, have faced growing scrutiny as corporate farming practices have replaced family-scale ranches. Such operations produce 17 million tons of manure a year in Colorado, according to the lawsuit, and many are located along the South Platte River.

Waste runoff from concentrated animal feeding operations contains fecal pathogens such as E. coli, antibiotics and cleaning chemicals. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus from manure can also produce toxic algae blooms in waterways capable of killing people, pets and livestock


get more stories like this via email

National Rivers Month comes to an end this week and conservation groups said it is a reminder more action is needed to protect Idaho's rivers.

The state is home to more than 107,000 miles of river, providing drinking water, hydropower, tourism and recreational opportunities like rafting and angling.

Stephen Pfieffer, conservation associate for Idaho Rivers United, said only a small portion of the state's river miles have the strongest type of federal protections.

"Only 1% of the rivers here in Idaho are protected via Wild and Scenic River designations," Pfieffer pointed out. "There's a lot of opportunities to give more stretches of river, that people like to recreate on or might rely on, protections that they deserve."

Idaho is home to two of the eight rivers originally protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968: the Middle Fork of the Clearwater River and the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. About 890 miles of river in Idaho are protected under the designation today.

The Snake River also flows through Idaho. The Biden administration has been studying four dams on the lower part of the Snake River in eastern Washington and their effect on fish populations migrating to and from Idaho. Last week, the administration announced the Columbia Basin Task Force to further examine the impact of those dams. Pfieffer said salmon and steelhead numbers are dwindling because of the dams.

"It all boils down to the fact that our wild salmon and steelhead don't have much time," Pfieffer emphasized. "But if we take these actions now we can get them to a place where populations can stabilize, and are in fact recovering, in the event of dam removal."

Supporters of the dams said they provide hydropower to the region, as well as enabling other uses for the river, like barging and irrigation.

Pfieffer added National Rivers Month is not only about threats to rivers, it is about enjoying what they offer.

"Idaho has so many amazing stretches of river and there might be an amazing stretch right in your backyard that's just waiting to be explored," Pfieffer observed.


get more stories like this via email

A New York City bill is a catch-22 for removing lead pipes. The so-called "Rotten Apple Bill" makes city property owners remove their home's lead service lines and threatens financial penalties if they fail to comply.

Up to 41% of water service lines have or may have lead in them.

Valerie Baron, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, applauded the bill's intent but argued there are better ways to address lead service lines. She said problems can arise when property owners organize line replacement work.

"You might be digging up the street six, seven, eight different times for example," Baron pointed out. "It's also confusing. It makes it difficult to get the proper health safeguards in place, and it's not cost-effective."

Baron contended an effective program requires a mandate for lead pipe removal with the city conducting the work at no cost to homeowners. The state has received funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to replace pipes. But she noted if New York City passes the buck to homeowners, they run the risk of being ineligible for the large pot of money. State dollars have been set aside for this purpose but they do not match federal funds.

Other concerns are the health hazards of removing lead pipes. Disturbing a lead pipe can dislodge little bits of lead and further contaminate the area. Baron noted creating a centralized program ensures a home's pipes are flushed properly and the water is filtered for six months. She stressed the bill's penalties could harm the wrong people.

"It would be a $1,000 fine if you don't get that pipe out," Baron emphasized. "We're concerned that either some landlords might choose to take that fine as the cost of doing business, or other families that couldn't afford the pipe replacement won't be able to afford that $1,000 either."

The push comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a new Lead and Copper Rule, which is expected to give municipalities nationwide 10 years to replace all existing lead pipes. There are some exceptions. The EPA's new rule could take effect in 2027.


get more stories like this via email