Grijalva and Guerra, Candidates for US House District 3

Oct 7, 2012 | Blog

Raul Grijalva and Blanca Guerra are candidates for US House of Representative District #3. Here are their positions on issues relevant to PARA’s mission to monitor the activities of industrial developers, such as mining corporations, as well as government agencies, to make sure their actions have long-term, sustainable benefits to our public land, our watershed, and our communities.

1. When considering an industry’s promise to bring jobs to our community, what other factors would you consider when deciding whether or not the overall impact of such activity would ultimately be good for the long term sustainability of our communities?

RAUL GRIJALVA
Job creation is a top priority. There’s no excuse for letting unemployment linger for so long when some people are making more money than ever. What we can’t do is throw cost-benefit analysis out the window. Jobs aren’t created in a vacuum. New industries need to build relationships in their community and can’t come in expecting taxpayer handouts. Factories, office parks, open pit mines and every other business have positive and negative impacts on their surroundings, and we have to be honest and realistic about them.
Economic development plans have to complement the long-term vision a community has for itself. That’s one reason Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide for an environmental review – including consideration of relevant science and input from the public – of any major federal action that will impact the environment. We can’t go back to the days when heavy industry called all the shots and locals were left with a big cleanup bill.

NEPA provides an important layer of review and gives communities a needed voice, but it doesn’t always ensure sustainable development. It only looks at proposed projects and doesn’t provide for forward planning. We need to remember, whenever we’re making a big economic decision, that job plans have to account for the values of the communities they affect. Will local residents see economic benefit, or will the employees be brought in from elsewhere? Will the product or service improve local quality of life, or enrich company executives at local expense? Often businesses will pass this test. Sometimes they will not.

BLANCA GUERRA
Could this project be done in another place; How much revenue would the project bring to the community; How many communities would the project support; Economic growth; Present unemployment rate; At this time, I would also consider the tax increases needed in order for the government to continue to maintain the unemployed budget and those on state aid.

 2. As we desert dwellers are aware, water is a precious resource. What actions will you take to assure protection of the quality and quantity of our water resource?

RAUL GRIJALVA
A recent report from the U.S. Geological Survey highlighted the fragility of Arizona’s groundwater situation. Due to climate change and demand from a growing population, aquifer levels are diminishing at an alarming rate. We need better policies.
One of the most effective ways to address climate change is to reduce the amount of emissions through a revenue neutral carbon tax. This will reduce climate change and protect ground water supplies. The revenue generated can offset personal taxes, pay down the deficit, and be used to invest in conservation programs designed to mitigate the impacts of climate change and drought. I am an original cosponsor of the Save Our Climate Act, a bill that achieves these goals.

Preventing water pollution is as important as preventing overuse. From the Clean Water Act, Safe Water Drinking Act and other landmark environmental laws to grant and loan programs administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and others, the federal government is an important partner in protecting our water resources. Unfortunately, these programs and laws have been under attack by House Republicans. Their anti-regulatory agenda ignores the long-term environmental and social damage of weak laws that allow heavy industry to pollute without consequences. Water is scarce in the desert, and we must do what we can to protect it.

BLANCA GUERRA
Central Arizona Project. Expansion of it’s resource should at all times be considered.

3. If you support open pit mining in the Santa Rita Mountains, Canelo Hills, Patagonia Mountains, and the San Rafael Valley, what is your proposed solution for the economic bust that will happen after the mines play out in 20 years (historical track record and what current mining applicants forecast as period of operation)?

RAUL GRIJALVA
The short-term economic benefits of open pit mining across Southern Arizona do not outweigh the long-term environmental damage that will inevitably follow. Economic development should complement local visions for their future. I am not opposed to mining in general, but existing proposals in the Santa Rita area do not meet our community’s criteria for approval.

BLANCA GUERRA
I believe that 20 years of economic growth is good. I would ask the local businesses if they want 20 years of prosperous growth.
The surrounding area will only expand if the owners want to sell or legally, by right of ownership, divide their property.
I may be erred, but I do not believe there are plans for the county to sell real property at this time.
I challenge those who oppose Rosemont Copper to come up with their own plan to bring 20 years of projected economic growth, revenue, jobs to Southern Arizona and prosperous years to the local community as an alternate to the mines.

4. What types of support do you suggest for fostering our existing economic business models such as local food production, wineries, eco-tourism, heritage tourism, etc?

RAUL GRIJALVA
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, local food sales total $5 billion annually. We can’t afford to ignore this important sector of our economy. Enhancing and incentivizing local food production should be a priority for Congress.

I co-sponsor the Preserving Healthy Food for the Hungry Act, which provides grants to land-grant colleges and universities to improve access for low-income families to locally produced fruits and vegetables, and the Local Food, Farms, and Jobs Act, which creates insurance plans for diversified farming, helps schools buy local food, and allows customers to use SNAP cards at farmers markets. Our food policies are an economic issue, and we need to make sure local farmers get the support they need to compete with conglomerates that don’t always have local customers in mind.

Preventing the destruction of valuable scenery and natural resources is important for tourism in Southern Arizona. People travel from all over the world to enjoy our unspoiled natural views, our unique mountains and deserts, and our wilderness areas. If those become polluted or despoiled, our entire regional economy will suffer. Hotels will have fewer visitors, restaurants and markets will have fewer customers, and local tourism companies will have fewer clients. That’s not an economic vision I support.

BLANCA GUERRA
There will be more people driving through the area, such as workers, contractors and subcontractors.    Those individuals will be bringing more customers to local businesses.
If I were Rosemont, I would gladly participate with fostering local businesses. Ask them.

5. Thomas Jefferson said : “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. ”
The Mining Law of 1872 was enacted to develop this part of the country and at the time mining used dramatically different extraction methods than today’s industry. What will you do to either outright cancel this law OR in the alternative, bring it to modern times and empower local communities to have control over their resources?

RAUL GRIJALVA
Mining law reform is absent from the national conversation about deficit reduction. It shouldn’t be. Every year we fail to reform the Mining Law of 1872, the American people are robbed of millions of dollars in lost tax revenue. I’ve asked the Government Accountability Office to put together a forthcoming report on the market value of minerals extracted from all federal land. Billions of dollars worth of natural resources are being extracted from public land at taxpayer expense and no one is keeping track of their worth or what revenue is being lost due to antiquated regulation. We have to fix this.

Until legislation is passed that implements fair royalty rates, I will continue to look for ways to, at the very least, determine the value of minerals extracted from public property. When people understand the opportunity costs associated with the status quo, the demand for reform will be undeniable.

BLANCA GUERRA
I believe home buyers receive disclosure of mines etc… in the area. That is the time when property buyers should have made the decision not to buy property there.
Mother earth decided where she was going to create copper. One cannot decide to plant, grow and harvest copper.

6. HR 3446, the “Fair Payment for Energy and Mineral Production on Public Lands Act” will require mining companies to pay a royalty, provide safeguards for clean water, and give communities and agencies a say about where mining will be permitted. What will you do to support this House bill or its Senate version?

RAUL GRIJALVA
I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3446 and will continue to work with my colleagues in the Natural Resources Committee to ensure its passage. This is a conversation we need to have.

BLANCA GUERRA
I would ask for specifics as to where and how the funds would be directed.

7. What other visions of sustainable economic activities do you have for our area?

RAUL GRIJALVA
From the Grand Canyon to the Sonoran Desert National Monument, Arizona has spectacular public lands, and there is tremendous potential for these protected spaces to complement existing business models across Southern Arizona. Areas set aside for conservation and recreation are a pillar of our job market and our way of life.

My Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act, which I introduced in May of 2011, would establish a new public-private approach to managing our valuable Southern Arizona natural resources. A National Heritage Area designation is a relatively new concept whereby Congress sets up a system for federal, local, public and private entities to preserve an area’s natural, historic, cultural and scenic value. It is a non-regulatory, voluntary approach to promoting conservation and would be an excellent complement to other local, sustainable future projects.

My bill would designate around 3,325 square miles of the Santa Cruz Valley as a National Heritage Area. I will continue to fight for this and other proposals that bring people together to improve our local economy rather than play them against one another.

As a non-profit organization with a pending IRS 501-c-3 application, Patagonia Area Resource Alliance (PARA) can not endorse specific candidates. PARA can ask questions of all candidates regarding their positions on issues relevant to PARA’s mission.

“I say No to mines.” ~ Jon Coppa, Patagonia, Arizona

Oct 4, 2012 | Blog

RE: Open Minds to the Mines, Nogales International, 09/18/2012

Dear Mr. Coppola,

It is reassuring to see the Nogales International publisher strongly encouraging business development in Santa Cruz County.  Regrettably, the inspiration for your editorial came from a mining company banner at a social event.  With your editorial title being “Open Minds to the Mines” you have stipulated that we must adhere to a comprehensive and critical evaluation along with clear sighted analysis of what this open pit mine will mean to our county.  Acceptance of a business opportunity should not be based upon a hasty knee-jerk reaction to an advertising banner.

It is unrealistic to feel comfortable about the new open pit mines because of your father’s brief experience working at the Trench Mine.  It is impossible to compare the Trench and Hardshell Mines of the last century to the current open pit mining process.  To declare them one and the same is misplaced nostalgia.  Growing up in Mohave County, I have first hand experience with the Goldroad, Oatman, Chloride and Signal Mines – none of these produced environmental destruction to the same magnitude as an open pit mine.

(more…)

In Response to Manuel Coppola’s 9/18/2012 Nogales International Editorial

Oct 4, 2012 | Blog

RE: http://www.nogalesinternational.com/opinion/editorial/open-minds-to-the-mines/article_80f7d140-01a9-11e2-b84b-0019bb2963f4.html
Dear Mr. Coppola,
It is reassuring to see the Nogales International publisher strongly encouraging business development in Santa Cruz County.  Regrettably, the inspiration for your editorial came from a mining company banner at a social event.  With your editorial title being “Open Minds to the Mines” you have stipulated that we must adhere to a comprehensive and critical evaluation along with clear sighted analysis of what this open pit mine will mean to our county.  Acceptance of a business opportunity should not be based upon a hasty knee-jerk reaction to an advertising banner.
It is unrealistic to feel comfortable about the new open pit mines because of your father’s brief experience working at the Trench Mine.  It is impossible to compare the Trench and Hardshell Mines of the last century to the current open pit mining process.  To declare them one and the same is misplaced nostalgia.  Growing up in Mohave County, I have first hand experience with the Goldroad, Oatman, Chloride and Signal Mines – none of these produced environmental destruction to the same magnitude as an open pit mine.
In Santa Cruz County, the old Mowry Mine at the head of Corral Canyon was worked for several centuries and its silver smelter relied on oak trees cut down by woodcutters.  The area of Corral Canyon and Mowry Wash demonstrates extensive second growth of oak trees originally felled for wood to fuel the old Mowry smelter furnaces.  The dimension of impermanent environmental destruction by the Mowry Mine was exceptionally small compared to the area of permanent devastation that will be created by the proposed Wildcat Silver Mine at the nearby Hardshell Mine site.  Since modern day open pit mines require a working area of 10 to 15 square miles for mine pit, tailing piles, ore processing, water recirculation and retention ponds, and cyanide treatment and leaching ponds, the old Mowry Mine and the thousands of regrown oak trees will now be threatened with irreversible obliteration by Wildcat Silver – along with the scattered graves of the Mexican woodcutters who died during that era.
I also have a mining heritage.  My grandfather and his two brothers worked for more than a spell as muleskinners in the southeastern Colorado coal mines. they worked for more than a decade at a two dollars per day wage, twelve hours a day, with a six day per week schedule.  And no benefits.  The families of miners accidentally killed in these John D. Rockefeller, Jr. mines were supported by other families passing the hat.  Their willingness to work in the mines ended in 1914 when their families were attacked by Rockefeller’s men and the Colorado National Guard in the striking miners’ camp at Ludlow, Colorado.  Fortunately, all of my relatives survived the Ludlow Massacre.
Even though my grandfather was an illiterate North Italian immigrant, he had a great deal of common sense and wisdom and he understood very well that technology was rapidly advancing in the mining industry.  He knew he would not be rehired to work the new mines.  Skilled miners from Denver, Pueblo and Raton were being employed.  If he were alive, he would be reminding us to find out who will be hired to work these advanced technology open pit mines as most of the jobs will not go to local citizens inexperienced in open pit mining.
If the landscape and clean water resources were completely restored during and after mining operations, there would not be passionate arguments against the mines.  It is correct to say “Mining technology too has come a long way from the days of statehood,” but one must ask how the new tools are used.  Technology is tools.  The use of a tool is determined by the human mind and heart.  New tools are not being invented to enable mining companies to completely reverse their destruction of the environment.  Mining companies demand that new tools be developed for the sole purpose of efficiently removing mineral wealth from the earth with the least expense.  There is no altruistic ethic in the mining industry demanding that our environment be returned to a healthy premining state  Their industry has never agreed to allocate profits to complete restoration of what has been contaminated and destroyed.  When a mine is no longer profitable, the company declares bankruptcy and their executives escape back to Canada, Britain and Australia where they cannot be touched.  Who cleans up the toxic debris and damage?  The American taxpayer.
Since these mining industry historical facts do not reveal adherence to an ethical code as compared to medicine, it is laughable for the Nogales International to compare new technology for open pit mining with technological advancements used for caesarean sections.  All of medicine is guided by a principal precept of medical ethics – first do no harm.  Medical procedures are developed under the umbrella of medical ethics to facilitate healing of the human body and not to harm or permanently compromise the patient.  New medical technology assists the physician in better diagnosis and treatment with only one goal in mind – heal the patient and return the patient to a healthy state.
To mine the pregnant uterus and witness the magical delivery of a healthy baby followed by the complete recovery of a mother’s health is completely opposite to an open pit mine permanently disemboweling Mother Earth.
Opposition to mining does not mean we have no concerns about developing employment for our families in need.  However, we should be proactive in developing new business opportunities and not sitting back to wait for the next magical elixir salesman to exit the freeway promising jobs for everyone.  It is illogical and unreasonable for the Nogales International to accuse “others complaining about the mines, (who) live comfortably in some of our rural areas and already got theirs so to speak.”  Are you accusing industrious and successful ranching families in our rural areas as holding back development of industry and employment sources?  Similarly, are you accusing farmers, contractors and business owners of preventing industrial development?  Your accusation focus should be forcefully directed toward those responsible for bringing new business and industry to Santa Cruz County – county administrative officers.
How can this county bring in new industry if its previous administrative officers have not done their job?  We have had a past administrative officer who deliberately ignored and rejected information and offers for the county to apply for grants and funds for alternative energy plants and their related manufacturing enterprises to be established in Santa Cruz County.  And this neglectful past administrator has been hired by Augusta Resources to be in charge of Wildcat Silver’s Office of Sustainable Development.  It is unthinkable for any open pit mine to claim their business to be sustainable development.  The landmark definition of sustainable development is: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
How can all of us, including mine worker families, meet our immediate and future generations’ needs when we are left with permanent compromise and destruction of the environment – contamination and restriction of water resources – bad air quality during pit excavation and from residual mountains of tailing debris – disruption of communities with inordinate increase in truck and railway transportation of ore going to China – overuse destruction of existing roads and highways to be repaired with taxpayer money – hazardous ore transfer stations – significant decrease in all property values.  How in the world does this represent “sustainable development?”
Since “sustainable development” is impossible for an open pit mine to achieve, then affixing this intentionally deceptive label to its operations can be regarded only as a smoke and mirrors scheme.  Augusta Resources has no previous experience developing a mine.  They have hired an executive with a past history of failure to develop business and industry in this area.  Are these facts a formula for success in this county?  The important question is what methods are really being used to convince our county government and chamber of commerce that we need their open pit mine?
This land is our home.  Water is life.  Minerals and metals are commodities.
I say no to the mines.

Jon B. Coppa, MD
Venado Cola Blanca Vineyard, Inc.
Patagonia, Arizona

Editor of the Weekly Bulletin says, “I say yes to mines.”

Oct 3, 2012 | Blog

This week the editor of one of our local newspapers, the Weekly Bulletin, wrote an editorial titled Open Minds to the Mines. In it he describes how his dad would rise before dawn to catch the bus that would take him to work at the Trench Mine in Harshaw during the 60’s. He states that although superfund atrocities spring to mind when we think about mines, we shouldn’t let that predjudice us from considering new mines in the Patagonias because mining companies now “work to comply with some of the strictest regulations designed to protect the environment.”

“Yes, a portion of the land may be forever scarred, but out of that dirt can come hundreds of decent jobs and an improved quality of life.”

He ends his editorial with…”I say yes to mines.”

This has caused quite the flurry of emails to our inbox! It seems that Mr. Coppola is trusting the mining companies and the government agencies that oversee them to make sure that the very things that give us life, like water, are protected. But in a recent and thorough study titled Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock Mines, mine operator promises versus what actually happened after operations began were compared. The results showed that even with the National Environmental Policy requirements and oversight, the Environmental Impact Statements underestimated the impact on water in 76% of the cases studied.

Read Mr. Coppola’s editorial.

We have written two lettors to the editor in response to Mr. Coppola’s editorial. You can read them here.

We encourage you to also write and let him know how you feel about the prospect of four open pit mines in the Patagonia Mountains, and his idea that they would lead to an “improved quality of life”.

Letter to the editor form here.

All that Glitters is not Silver

Oct 1, 2012 | Blog

The Patagonia Area Resource Alliance hosted a screening of Cyanide Beach by InvestigativeMEDIA. John Dougherty, the filmmaker, was available to answer questions following the short documentary. It follows the actions of five of Augusta Resources current board members at a former mine project in Italy. Wildcat Silver also shares three of those same board members.

The story is the same regardless of the location and specific players. The mine companies make big promises to both the locals and the investors. It’s usually a promise of jobs and a big payoff, respectively. They hype up those promises every chance they get.

Suddenly, market conditions change or the minerals just weren’t accessible or, in the case of Cyanide Beach, there’s a messy clean-up involved to continue mining. The mine companies leave–often overnight. They declare bankruptcy, dissolve the company and legally no longer exist. The locals are left with a polluted mine site with potentially catastrophic consequences to water and the surrounding environment and a large clean-up bill. Mark Twain is often credited for saying “A mine is a hole in the ground owned by liars.”

So why do we keep falling for it over and over again?

Wildcat Silver (TSX: WS) just released their latest Preliminary Economic Assessment for their proposed Hermosa mine in Santa Cruz County near Patagonia, Arizona. It now promises a bigger, better silver deposit and a newer, better way to process the ore.

Who’s buying that hype?

The Need for Overall Balanced Judgement in Managing our Public Lands in Regards to Mining Proposals

Sep 8, 2012 | Blog

Guest Post by Elizabeth Bernays, Regents’ Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona

The Coronado Forest Supervisor, Jim Upchurch, addressed the community of Patagonia last Thursday, September 6th. The meeting was ostensibly to introduce the new Sierra Vista District Ranger, Mark Ruggiero, and discuss other issues about the Patagonia water supply. The meeting was mainly a diatribe from Mr. Upchurch about his legal responsibilities to honor the 1872 mining law. He started with some of the definitions, such as locating and leasing resources, and scoping for minerals, and he took many quite polite questions from the floor, most of which were reasonable issues from a concerned public. He made it plain that his job was to usher the mining corporations through the maze of Federal, State and local regulations, and minimize any problems they may face from a public that is principally a nuisance to them.

Our concerns are serious. There was little indication that the Forest Service actually cared about the concerns quoted in the job description of Forest Chief, Tom Tidwell:

“Healthy lands support the outdoor activities of millions of Americans each year, a service we proudly provide on the National Forest System. A central concern for all Americans is sustainable land management. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to protect our communities, properties, and wildland resources from catastrophic fire and other threats.”

We all know that the 1872 mining law was made for a completely different period and a vastly different level of technology, and that the pick and shovel mines were as nothing compared with the vast open pit mines that we see today for extracting the very small proportion of the mass of rock that contains minerals. The despoiling of so much requires a superior level of understanding and balance regarding what happens on our wild lands, and it was profoundly distressing to discover that obtaining mineral resources is considered so important that the big picture is totally ignored. The needs for the communities and the future are apparently rated as impediments to the progress of major corporations, including various foreign entities with reduced levels of caretaking, limited addition to the financial well-being of our country, and no sign of concern for the ecology of place. He even stated that if the cost of repairing a destroyed region were too great, then it could not be enforced!

Mr. Upchurch stressed the laws: the out-of-date mining law and the three laws that must be overcome first concerning clean air, clean water and endangered species. He did not address the need to see the whole picture, or the role of overall balanced judgments:

• What is the balance between the economic value of the corporate mining activity vs. the local economy, and to what extent should one destroy the other?
• Where is the concern for having open pit mines so close to a major city (Tucson in this case) and almost on top of small towns nearby, and how can the use of so much water be acceptable as it threatens the more than a million people?
• Where is the judgment of the Forest Service to encourage mining in a place where water is more precious than gold, where a long-term drought is predicted to become very long term?
• Where is the real ecological concern, as opposed to the skimpy and biased opinions concerning the threats not just to endangered or sensitive species, but to a whole ecosystem where reduced water tables could in 50 years mean that even the tree cover of thousands of acres would very likely disappear.
• How do we know that the cumulative effects of the proposed activities of several mining companies are being considered?
• Where is the sensible broad thinking concerning places that are more sensitive to destroy vs. places that are already degraded, or places with limited biodiversity? Santa Cruz and Cochise counties are way off the chart in numbers of sensitive species as has been shown recently by ecologists, but we hear nothing about such issues from the Forest Service.

The lack of balance is extremely disturbing. The lack of insight into what could be the future of Tucson, surrounding townships, agriculture, and the wild lands of the Sky Islands is profoundly worrying. The leadership at all levels of government seems to be in question – of the Forest Service Chief (Tom Tidwell), the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment (Harris Sherman), and the Secretary for the USDA itself (Tom Vilsack). We need more than a wooden and belligerent acceptance of a law that was made for a pioneering era. One even has to wonder if there are unseen, or even unseemly, rewards.

Mine Protests and Public Opposition making a difference in Peru

Aug 26, 2012 | Blog

Newmont Mining Corporation, headquartered in Denver, CO, and one of the world’s largest gold producers, is facing some serious local opposition in Cajamarca, Peru, where they have plans for a 5 billion dollar gold mine, The Conga mine. And it’s making a difference. Recent poll results have shown that 78% of people in Cajamarca oppose the mine. That number increases to 83% in rural areas. Although nationally, 45% approve and 40% oppose it.

Miningweekly.com reports “this high-profile conflict has dominated President Ollanta Humala’s first year in office, resulting in five deaths and two cabinet shuffles.”

Locals fear the project, an expansion of the Yanacocha mine in Cajamarca, will cause contamination and ruin local water sources essential to their agricultural livelihoods. The company says reservoirs it would build will provide year-round water supplies in areas that currently suffer during the dry season.

The Conga mine would be one of the biggest investments in Peru’s history. Mining makes up 60% of Peru’s export earnings and has traditionally powered its economy, although towns near mines often are plagued by poverty.

The project has become a lightning rod for debates about whether mining can benefit local communities without damaging the environment, and whether national economic interests should trump local opposition to extractive activities.

Newmont’s CE, Richard O’Brien said last month that Conga “will occur only with local and national support … Conga is still in our plans but moving ahead on a very measured basis.”

We’ll be keeping any eye on how this develops.