Latest news with #CentralArizonaProject
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Shared risk at the heart of dispute over Colorado River
Railroad tracks run along the Colorado River as it flows along Interstate 70 through Glenwood Canyon near Glenwood Springs. (William Woody for Colorado Newsline) A version of this story originally appeared in Big Pivots. Even-steven. That was the intent of delegates from the seven basin states in 1922 when they met near Santa Fe to forge a compact governing the Colorado River. But what exactly did they agree upon? That has become a sticking point in 2025 as states have squared off about rules governing the river in the drought-afflicted and climate-changed 21st century. The negotiations between the states, according to many accounts, have been fraught with tensions. Becky Mitchell, Colorado's lead negotiator, delivered a peek into that dispute at a forum on May 22 in Silverthorne along the headwaters of the river. The Colorado River Compact was a quid pro quo. California, in particular, but also Arizona, was ready to see the highs and lows of the rivers smoothed out. They, as well as Nevada, wanted a giant reservoir in Boulder Canyon in Nevada near the small town of Las Vegas, which then had a population of 2,300. Those Southwestern states couldn't do it alone, though. They needed the federal government to build the dam later called Hoover. For that, they needed the support of Colorado and the three other upper-basin states. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Colorado, represented by Delph Carpenter, and the three other headwaters states realized that they had best reach a compromise, as they would more slowly develop the rivers. If the doctrine of prior appropriation that they had all adopted within their own states prevailed on the Colorado River, the water would be gone by the time they found need for it. This was the foundation for Article III of the Colorado River Compact. It apportions 7.5 million acre-feet in perpetuity for the exclusive beneficial consumption by each of the two basins. On top of this 15 million acre-feet, they knew there would be water lost to evaporation, now calculated at 1.5 million acre-feet annually, plus some sort of delivery obligation to Mexico, which later turned out to be 1.5 million acre-feet. In Santa Fe, delegates had assumed bounteous flows in the river, as had occurred in the years prior to their meeting. And so, embracing that short-term view of history, they believed the river would deliver 20 million acre-feet. It has not done so routinely. Even when there was lots of water, during the 1990s and even before, as Eric Kuhn and John Fleck explained in their 2019 book, 'Science be Dammed,' troubles ahead could be discerned. And by 1993, when the Central Arizona Project began hoisting water to Phoenix and Tucson, the river ceased absolutely to reach the ocean. Then came the 21st century drought. Those framing the compact understood drought as a temporary affliction, not the multi-decade phenomenon now perplexing the states in the Colorado River Basin. Nor did they contemplate a warming, drying climate called aridification. Similar to drought in effects, it is rooted in accumulating atmospheric gases. Unlike drought, it has little to no chance of breaking. Now, faced with creating new rules governing the sharing of this river, delegates from the seven states are at odds in various ways, but perhaps none so much as in their interpretation of compact's Article D. It says that the upper-division states 'will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years.' The lower division states have so far received 75 million acre-feet over every revolving 10-year period. The upper-basin states have not fully developed their apportionment, although Colorado has come close. In the last 25 years, the upper-basin states have been using 3.5 million to 4.5 million acre-feet. The lower-basin states that a decade ago were still using 10 million acre-feet have cut back their use to 7.5 million acre-feet. Lake Powell serves as a water bank for the upper basin states. The storage in 2022 had declined to 22%, although a good snow winter in 2022-23 restored levels somewhat. Today, the two reservoirs are at a combined 34% of full. 'That means 66% empty,' said Mitchell at the forum along the Blue River in Silverthorne at a 'state of the river' forum organized by the Colorado River Water Conservation District. Mitchell, an engineer by training, has a large on-stage presence. She's not one to mince words, sometimes straying into the colloquial. This outspokenness is more evident when she speaks exclusively to a home-town crowd. Silverthorne certainly counted as one. Shared risk is at the heart of the dispute. Colorado and other upper-basin states want the lower-basin states to accept that the river will not always satisfy all needs. 'How do we handle drought? We know how to do that in the upper basin, and most of the people in this room know that you get less,' said Mitchell, Colorado's representative on the Upper Colorado River Commission. 'That hasn't been the case in the lower basin.' The two basins differ in three fundamental ways. One is the pace of development. The lower basin developed quickly. The upper basin still has not used its full allocation. From the upper-basin perspective, that does not mean that the lower-basins states should expect something beyond a 50-50 split. 'The main thing that we got from the compact was the principle of equity and the ability to develop at our own pace,' said Mitchell. 'We shouldn't be punished because we didn't develop to a certain number. The conversation now, she added, is 'what does equity look like right now?' Another difference is that the upper basin has thousands of individual users. Sure, there are a few big ones, like Denver Water and the other Front Range transmountain water diverters who collectively draw 400,000 to 450,000 acre-feet annually across the Continental Divide. The lower basin has just a handful of diverters, and the diversions are massive. Also different — as alluded to by Mitchell — is that the lower basin has the big reservoirs lying upstream. The largest is Mead, with a capacity of almost 29 million acre-feet, followed closely by Powell at a little more than 25 million acre-feet. Mead was created expressly to meet needs of irrigators and cities in the desert southwest. Powell was created essentially to ensure that the upper-basin states could meet their delivery obligations. Mitchell shared a telling statistic: More water has been released from Powell in 8 of the last 10 years than has arrived into it. Upper-basin states must live within that hydrologic reality, said Mitchell. If it's a particularly bad snow year in the upper basin, the farms and ranches with junior water rights and even the cities can get shorted. The lower basin states? Not a problem. They always get their water — at least so far. But the two big reservoirs have together lost 50 million acre-feet of stored water. 'We're negotiating how to move forward in a way different place than we were negotiating 20 years ago,' said Mitchell. Upper-basin states have managed to deliver the 75 million acre-feet across 10 years that the compact specifies, but what exactly is the obligation? That has long been a gray area. At a forum two days before Mitchell spoke in Colorado, her counterpart in Arizona, Tom Buschatzke, reiterated at a conference in Tucson that they see the compact spelling out a clear obligation of upper-basin states to deliver 75 million acre-feet plus one-half of the water obligated to Mexico. What if the water isn't there? That's the crux of this dispute as the upper and lower basin states negotiate in advance of a September deadline set by the Bureau of Reclamation. In theory, if the situation were dire enough, Colorado could stop all its post-1922 diversions to allow the water to flow downstream. But is that what those gathered in Santa Fe in the shortening days of November 1922 had in mind? Will lawsuits toss this into the court system for resolution? That process might take decades and, if it ended up at the Supreme Court, it might not yield a nuanced outcome. Mitchell didn't address that directly, although she did say everybody on the river wants to avoid litigation. The situation described by Mitchell and other upper-basin proponents is perhaps analogous to a divorce settlement. The settlement may call for a 50-50 split of all earnings between the partners, but what if one becomes destitute and has no money to pool? Upper-basin states do have reservoirs to help buffer them from short-term droughts. Altogether, however, they don't come close to matching the capacity of Powell. Again, from the perspective of upper-basin states, California and Nevada have a sense of entitlement. Not that the upper basin states are angelic, said Mitchell. It's because they have no choice. 'I say we use three to four million acre-feet less than our apportionment. It varies. You know why? Because hydrology varies. And so we respond to hydrology. It's all based on snowpack and it's all gravity. Most of it is gravity dependent. We don't have those two big reservoirs above us like the lower basin does. We don't have those reservoirs to equal out the flows or allow us to overuse. We have to live with variable hydrology, and we take cuts every single year.' Upper-basin states want a willingness in this settlement for agreement that focuses on the water supply, not the demand. 'Common sense would tell you, maybe Mother Nature should drive how we operate the system.' That, she said, is the bedrock principle of the proposal from the upper division. With plentiful snowfall, greater releases from Powell might be possible, said Mitchell, and in times of extreme duress, water from Flaming Gore and perhaps the Blue Mesa and Navajo too. She said there might be room for greater conservation measures in the upper basin states. But there must be 'real work happening down in the lower basin,' she said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Governor Hobbs takes Colorado River helicopter tour, urging upper basin states to take water cuts
The Brief Western states are ramping up negotiations on the allocation of Colorado River water. During a helicopter tour with officials from the Central Arizona Project, Governor Katie Hobbs emphasized the importance of securing a fair share for Arizona. Hobbs says the state is working on solving an ongoing water crisis and would be much worse off without conservation efforts and previous cuts. PHOENIX - In the next few months, western states will have to get on board and agree on how much water each state will get from the Colorado River. It has been a decades-long battle and tense negotiations with other states are ramping up again. We are getting closer and closer to a critical moment in our state's water security. Governor Katie Hobbs helped explain what is being done to ensure we get a fair slice during a helicopter tour of the Colorado. The backstory The tour took off from the Central Arizona Project's (CAP) campus in North Phoenix. Inside, Governor Katie Hobbs listens as CAP General Manager Brenda Burman describes how the canal from the Colorado River is pumped uphill to bring water through the Valley and onward to Tucson. "Before cap growth was very much constrained in the Valley," said Burman. What we know Colorado River water was a large piece of the Arizona water puzzle and we have something called "junior rights" to it, meaning other states have bigger claims to the water before it ever even gets here. "We have already taken real cuts and done a lot to do our part in conservation, and we need the upper basin states to do the same thing," said Hobbs. The canal leads to Lake Pleasant, known for its boating and sunshine, but CAP thinks of it as a water storage facility. "This is where the water both comes in and is taken out so it's our intake towers," said Burman. What's next Soon, the states along the Colorado River will need to come to an agreement on how much each state gets. Arizona received water cuts in 2022 and our negotiator is fighting for upper basin states like Utah and Colorado to make cuts as well. It hasn't gone over well. Why you should care Flyovers help Hobbs and her negotiating team to gain more perspective during the negotiations. "We're in a position where the lower basin states have taken the brunt of the cuts until now and if we don't reach agreement with the upper basin we're going to be in a far worse position," she said. At a water roundtable, state, city, and tribal leaders stressed why CAP water is so valuable. "It doesn't seem like the upper basin is willing to do anything," said Terry Goddard, CAWCD Board President. "It's really critical at this point of time. Time is short," said Tom Buschatzke of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. What they're saying Katie Hobbs believes the state is in a water crisis. "Oh, absolutely, but we're solving it," she said. Moments later she clarified that answer. "I think if we weren't taking the action that we are now that we would get there, but we're taking action. We're avoiding that," said Hobbs.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Hobbs says Arizona will defend its Colorado River water, wants other states to accept cuts
Arizona is doing its part and taking its hits to conserve the Colorado River, Gov. Katie Hobbs said, and it's time for upstream states to do the same. The governor assembled a roundtable of water users and officials on May 13 to present what she called a unified front among the state's interests in defending Arizona's share of the Colorado River as time runs short for reaching a deal with other states that use the water. So far, states upstream from Arizona have not offered cutbacks beyond the limits that a paltry snowpack naturally extracts from their farmers. 'It's been more than a little frustrating,' Hobbs said. 'We've come to the table with real solutions, with real proposals. We have real skin in the game,' she said, including billions of dollars in water infrastructure upgrades and in conservation agreements that keep water in the river's reservoirs. 'The upper states need to be willing to take their share as well.' Gathered at Central Arizona Project headquarters with representatives of cities, tribes, farms and hydropower interests — all reliant on the river water that flowing into the CAP's canal — Hobbs said the state seeks a compromise. Otherwise, supplies could become subject to litigation, an outcome she said she's preparing for in part by seeking a legal fund from legislators. 'We need a signal that we're prepared to defend our water, and that's a strong signal,' Hobbs said. Negotiations lag: At odds over water cuts, Colorado River states still seek consensus as deadline nears As the West has warmed and dried, the river that seven states and Mexico share has shrunk. It's a reality that has already brought significant supply cuts to Arizona in particular, and that the states and federal government are trying to address with a new shortage-sharing deal that must be in place by the time the old one expires next year. U.S. Interior Department officials seek to publish a draft of a plan by summer, though it's unclear if the states will be able to agree on something by then or will simply wait to see what federal officials envision. So far, the Rocky Mountain states known collectively as the Upper Basin have declined to specify new cuts they might take, because they say they already suffer the consequences of a reduced snowpack that shortchanges their farmers every year. The federal government has paid some Lower Basin farmers and others to cut back on their demands from Lake Mead's storage bank, and the four Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming argue that their year-in, year-out hardship is unrewarded and largely invisible to water users in the Southwest. Those state also were slower to develop water that the 1922 Colorado River Compact envisioned for them, and therefore continue to use less even as an age of aridification has threatened their ability to send the Lower Basin its compact-prescribed share each year. 'We have hydrologic shortage every year across all four states,' Colorado's river commissioner, Becky Mitchell, said at a February meeting of the Upper Colorado River Commission. 'These are forced cuts based on administration (of water rights) that are not compensated.' Presented with that viewpoint, Hobbs rejected the claim that the Upper Basin is doing its part. 'That's water on paper,' the governor said. 'It's not real water. We're putting real water on the table and they're not, and they're not feeling any impact based on the system changes.' Questions linger: Trump's funding freeze muddies water outlook on the drought-stricken Colorado River Recognizing that the Lower Basin — Arizona, California and Nevada — use more of the water, those states have together proposed absorbing the first 1.5 million acre-feet of new cuts, enough water to support millions of households. But they want the Upper Basin to agree to share equally in any further cuts that might be necessary to keep the river flowing past Glen Canyon and Hoover dams in especially dry years. (Arizona's full allocation of Colorado River water, including on-river uses such as Yuma farms, is 2.8 million acre-feet. It is second to California's 4.4 million.) So far, the Upper Basin has not agreed to send more water, and the former Biden administration did not include that option in the alternatives it began analyzing before leaving office. Arizona Water Resources Director Tom Buschatzke said Trump administration officials appear ready to help reach a 'collaborative agreement.' Because the previous administration's initial approach did not suggest obvious risk of new cuts for the Upper Basin, he said, it may have reduced incentives to deal. Discussions with Interior officials now suggest that they're 'more willing to tweak alternatives' in a way that can prod collaboration. 'This administration is taking more of the tack that we asked for, which is to show risk for both basins,' Buschatzke said. The two basins continue to talk, but he said he could not rate the chances of reaching a deal this summer. The Central Arizona Project has already absorbed a reduction of nearly a third of its normal entitlement to the river, partly from voluntary conservation measures and partly because the expiring shortage-sharing agreement lumped the first steep cuts on Arizona. Those mandated cuts reflect the lower priority that the state accepted decades ago in its effort to secure federal authorization for CAP. CAP Board President Terry Goddard told The Arizona Republic that what's left is critical to the region's health and the U.S. commitment to tribal water rights. He said he doubts it would be legal to further reduce canal flows to those users in the Phoenix and Tucson areas. Besides seeking conservation in other states, he said, it could be necessary to shift some of Arizona's next cuts to the Yuma area, which generally has older, superior water rights. Whether by cooperation or eventual emergency legislation, he said, it will be necessary to spread the pain. 'It's a time of shortage an everybody's going to pay the price,' Goddard said. 'We've already paid ours.' Want more water news like this? Sign up for AZ Climate, The Republic's weekly environment and climate newsletter Tribes including the Tohono O'odham, Ak-Chin and Gila River Indian Community attended the roundtable and said they have collaborated with cities and others to keep water in Lake Mead, and now it's incumbent on the United States to keep water flowing to them through the CAP canal. Ak-Chin Chairman Gabriel Lopez said the Colorado is his tribe's only reliable source for irrigating its 16,000 acres of farms. The U.S. granted the water in a 1978 settlement meant to make up for other users' depletion of the groundwater that previously supported the community, he said, and is a sacred trust. 'Tribes like us hold senior water rights,' Lopez said. 'We expect these sacred and good-faith obligation agreements to be honored.' Phoenix and Tucson officials noted that they have dramatically reduced per-capita use over decades and in recent years struck deals to keep some of their water in Lake Mead — a case that other cities around the watershed can also make. A representative from the Arizona Power Authority said low water kept Hoover Dam from generating a third of its contracted power last year, driving up prices for replacement power. An attorney for Pinal County farm groups said their conversion to groundwater as a replacement for previous CAP cuts will be in jeopardy if there's no baseflow in the canal to help move the groundwater to where it's needed. The economic development group Valley Partnership said it's the certainty surrounding CAP water that has allowed Phoenix and its ascendant semiconductor industry to thrive. Hobbs agreed, and said computer chip manufacturing in the area makes Arizona's water security a national priority. 'Our growing economy is not just important to Arizona, but it is important to the nation's economy, to national security, to moving manufacturing back to America,' Hobbs said. 'This conversation isn't just about Arizona. It's about our country.' Brandon Loomis covers environmental and climate issues for The Arizona Republic and Reach him at Environmental coverage on and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Sign up for AZ Climate, our weekly environment newsletter, and follow The Republic environmental reporting team at and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Gov. Katie Hobbs says other Colorado River states must cut water use
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Is Phoenix sustainable? Experts tell SEJ conference the region plans for heat, drought
As a major city in the middle of the Sonoran Desert, Phoenix has been in the spotlight in the debate over the sustainability of urban development, so much so that it's gained the reputation for being an "uninhabitable hellscape." But some on a panel at the 2025 Society of Environmental Journalists conference on April 25 argued that while Phoenix has its fair share of environmental and sustainability concerns — notably extreme heat and water shortages — a habitable future is still in reach. Water remains a major concern over the sustainability of Phoenix, especially on the Colorado River, and by extension, the Central Arizona Project. The CAP is a system of pipes, tunnels and aqueducts designed to bring water from the river to Indigenous communities and populous regions of the state. Kathryn Sorensen, director of research at Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University said a plan for the Valley has been in the works in case Colorado River water runs low. She said the plan is to fall back on other water supplies like the Salt River, the Verde River and groundwater. 'It would be highly disruptive – I don't want to minimize that,' Sorensen said. 'But it is something that the municipal water planners have known about, it's something they have planned for, and we have taken care of our aquifer exactly for that contingency.' But groundwater management remains a contentious battle. Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter, said she sees this play out at the state Legislature, especially when it comes to the Groundwater Management Act, a law passed in 1980 that established rules for pumping groundwater. 'What I've seen in my time at the Legislature is whittling away at the protections that were in that Groundwater Management Act — weakening it, finding ways around it,' she said 'Yes, we require a 100-year assured water supply in Active Management Areas … but there are all kinds of ways to get around that, and developers are very influential at the city and the state level.' One way certain actors try to skirt the rules, she said, is to challenge the legitimacy of models showing that an area doesn't have the required 100-year supply and calling for other calculations to be used. Even so, Sorensen said there are reasons to remain optimistic, including increased efficiency in plumbing and appliances like washing machines, local efforts to reclaim and reuse wastewater and removal of grass lawns in exchange for more desert-adapted landscaping. Phoenix is also notorious for its extreme temperatures, but some neighborhoods, like the Grant Park Neighborhood in south Phoenix, suffer from it more than others. That's why community volunteers like Silverio Ontiveros are doing their best to plant trees so the neighborhood gets enough shade. Ontiveros said nonprofit organizations and community groups have previously worked with the neighborhood to plant trees, but maintaining them has proven difficult. 'We've planted … around 300 trees, and I would guestimate probably around a third of them are still alive today, only because they don't get watered,' Ontiveros said. One reason for this, he said, is that neighborhood residents don't have the know-how to maintain the trees. He also attributes the tree shortage to the fact that many properties in the neighborhood are rented, and landlords don't want to shoulder the cost of tree planting and maintenance. City officials are also making efforts to plant trees in the areas, often using resident feedback and identifying places with the most need, like areas with high pedestrian activity and transportation use, said Willa Altman-Kaough, deputy chief of staff to Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego. Altman-Kaough also emphasized the need for other shade structures for places like street intersections that aren't hospitable for trees. All of these factors taken into consideration, journalist and author Tom Zoellner said the narrative of an unsustainable Phoenix, largely fueled by apocalyptic media coverage of the hot 2023 summer, 'doesn't take into account the tremendous adaptivity that has always been a feature of this particular state.' Naomi DuBovis is a journalism student at Arizona State University, and is part of a student newsroom led by The Arizona Republic. Coverage of the Society of Environmental Journalists conference is supported by Arizona State University's Cronkite School of Journalism, the University of Arizona, the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust and the Arizona Media Association. These stories are published open-source for other news outlets and organizations to share and republish, with credit and links to This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: SEJ 2025: Panelists debate the question of whether Phoenix is sustainable
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Copper Creek mine foes say project would disrupt San Pedro River conservation
MAMMOTH, Ariz. — High above the San Pedro River Valley, the expanse between the Catalina and Galiuro mountain ranges ripples into the distance. The cracks and crevices between peaks expose the winding channels where valuable desert water flows from higher elevations. At the bottom of the valley, the San Pedro River snakes across the vast landscape. The northward flowing river originates in mountains of northern Sonora, Mexico, and connects to the Gila River near Winkelman. The Lower San Pedro River Watershed is one of the largest unfragmented landscapes in Arizona, second only to the Grand Canyon region, and the last remaining intact desert river system in southern Arizona. It's also within a historic mining district, where two major copper belts intersect. About 9 miles east of Mammoth and the river, exploratory drilling has begun for a proposed mine. Redhawk Copper Inc., the U.S. arm of the Canadian Faraday Copper Corp., is drilling at two sites as a part of its Copper Creek project. According to a preliminary economic assessment by Faraday, the drilling could lead to a mine that would operate over 25 square miles, include seven open pit mines and two underground block-cave mines, and extract ore for an estimated 32 years. Community members and environmentalists are concerned that the region, which has historically been preserved to offset environmental damage in other areas of the state, could be degraded beyond recognition. Among the areas that could be impacted by the mining exploration is the 7B Ranch, a parcel of more than 3,000 acres that supports one of the largest intact mesquite bosque habitats in the American Southwest. It is designated an 'Important Bird Area' by the National Audubon Society. Owned by Resolution Copper, the 7B Ranch property was included in the federal legislation passed in 2014 that authorized transfer of over 5,000 private, ecologically valuable acres to public conservation lands in exchange for the land sitting above a large copper deposit the company plans to mine at Oak Flat near Superior. Because of its large tracts of undeveloped landscape and rare riparian habitat, the Lower San Pedro region has become a bank of conservation lands meant to compensate for the negative environmental impacts caused by development elsewhere in the state. Other conservation sites near the area have been preserved to mitigate environmental degradation and wildlife habitat destruction caused by Salt River Project, the Central Arizona Project and Pima County. 'I think the San Pedro needs to be reserved for mitigation land. Development is not going to stop, but it just needs to be located appropriately, and this isn't the place for it," said Cathy Gorman, a member of the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance, a regional community group that opposes the Copper Creek project. "Some place has to be left for the environment, wildlife and water.' 'I just don't know how you can justify destroying or devaluing mitigation land," Gorman said. "The whole purpose of the mitigation land was to make up for some devaluing elsewhere.' The project is described on Faraday's website as 'the potential for a significant, low-cost long-life copper operation.' The Bureau of Land Management, the federal agency that oversees the land in the project's footprint, received a notice of exploration for nine drill sites in the area in 2024, and the agency issued a draft environmental assessment for the whole project, which proposes 67 total sites, in February. Each rig is estimated to use 70,000 gallons of water, according to the company's draft environmental assessment, pumped from nearby private wells owned by the company. The plan calls for up to two drill rigs operating simultaneously during the exploration. More mining? Trump says reliance on imported copper leaves U.S. vulnerable, orders review of policies Angela Johnson, vice president of corporate development and sustainability at Faraday Copper, said the company is committed to the long-term success of the watershed and claims Redhawk's process of exploration uses very little water. 'One drill rig typically uses less than the equivalent of four household's worth of water each month. The water used in the process is recirculated and returned down the drill holes during drilling. Over 95% of the water pumped goes right back into the ground where it came from, with the remainder evaporated,' said Johnson in a written statement. 'All of this activity is permitted and regulated by government authorities.' The Mining Law of 1872 guarantees American citizens and companies the right to extract valuable minerals on public lands. According to Sharisse Flatt, the field manager at the BLM Safford Office, the agency's role in the process is to ensure that the mining company's plan of operations complies with relevant laws and surface management regulations throughout the life of the project and reclamation of the land when the project is complete. 'Redhawk is committed to responsible exploration and proactively implements a number of design features in its drilling operations to minimize potential impacts,' said Johnson in a written statement. 'Redhawk also adheres to regulatory guidelines and engages environmental specialists to conduct surveys and assess mitigation measures.' Mining expansion: In the 'Copper State,' growing demand for ore raises fears in the fragile Sky Islands The large, twisting mesquite trees that wind around the 7B Ranch's 700-acre forest are an ecological rarity. Known as a bosque, the dense population of mesquite trees are tapped into the underground water source, growing larger due to their proximity to the San Pedro River. The bizarre branches create holes and pockets perfect for breeding birds to occupy, and the flowing river water attracts a buggy food source for the millions of migrating birds that pass through the valley every year. Mature bosque habitat used to be common along the San Pedro River, before agriculture, groundwater drawdown and mesquite tree harvesting degraded or eliminated the forests completely. Hundreds of millions of birds migrate each year through the San Pedro Valley, which was designated a 'Global Important Bird Area' by the National Audubon Society and BirdLife International. The 7B Ranch has been the site of several research projects, including the observance of the rare desert purple martin, which feeds at the river and nests in nearby saguaros. Some biologists are concerned that the disturbances from mining operations, like increased traffic, noise and overnight light pollution, will have a detrimental impact to the bird species that migrate and breed in the area. 'To have mining trucks going up and down all day, every day, that amount of disturbance is worrying,' said Jennie MacFarland, a bird conservation biologist with the Tucson Bird Alliance (formerly Tucson Audubon Society). 'There isn't much of this sort of habitat left, and to have that kind of disturbance right there along one of the last patches of it, it's worrying.' MacFarland, who conducts surveys in the 7B Ranch property, also expressed concerns over artificial lights that could disorient and confuse birds that migrate during the nighttime. According to its operations plan, Redhawk will use hooded lights that shine downward toward the work site to decrease light pollution. 'It could help,' said MacFarland when asked about the hooded lights. 'It's certainly better to not have the light at all, especially during peak migration times.' According to the BLM's draft environmental assessment, the endangered yellow-billed cuckoo could be affected by the project's footprint, but local citizen scientists have documented a number of threatened and endangered species in the wider region, including ocelot and Mexican-spotted owl. Included in the assessment is an adaptive management plan, crafted by the agency, which calls for enhanced groundwater monitoring and data collection to allow BLM's land managers to make flexible decisions around natural resources during the life of the project. 'We've gone a little bit beyond the status quo to try to get some of these things in place, because we do know the wildlife resources out there,' said Flatt of the BLM. 'While I'm sure those won't alleviate all the concerns that the community has about wildlife and water in this area, we are doing something and we will continue monitoring to figure out what those impacts are.' The 7B Ranch is owned by Resolution Copper, a mining company that plans to extract copper from a deposit on public land in the Tonto National Forest. In 2014, Congress approved a plan to transfer the public land to Resolution Copper to mine in exchange for 5,459 acres of ecologically valuable conservation land around Arizona, including 7B Ranch. The land swap and the mine have been slowed by legal challenges from environmental groups and tribes, who hold Oak Flat as a sacred site. In a management plan written for Resolution Copper, the Nature Conservancy wrote: 'The 7B's primary ecological value, aside from the river itself, is its 700-acre mesquite bosque, a climax community that is fairly stable. Hence, one primary management objective for the 7B is relatively simple: protect the 7B's mesquite forest from degradation or habitat alteration.' Mining: 'C' is for copper: If it isn't still king, it remains a royal growth industry in Arizona Residents of Mammoth, Oracle, and San Manuel gathered at the Mammoth Community Center on Feb. 11 to voice their concerns over mining exploration operations occurring in the area. The meeting was organized by the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance, a grassroots organization that opposes the mine, to inform residents of the impact that potential mining operations could have on the region. 'What we've been dedicated to, ever since the beginning of the organization, is posing to the public the question: Are we going to destroy this, the last remaining wild landscape in southern Arizona of any significant size with a thousand different cuts?' said Peter Else, the chair of the board for the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance, at the meeting. Other speakers at the meeting included representatives from the Center for Biological Diversity, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas Association and the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition. Large-scale development projects have been proposed in the region for decades. In 2008, the Arizona Department of Transportation Board voted against plans for a bypass of Interstate 10 that would extend from east Phoenix through the San Pedro Valley connecting to the highway near Wilcox, citing environmental concerns. The Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance is hoping that mining companies will be deterred from the area if the community is opposed, but resistance hasn't stopped all development in the region. Demand grows: Trump orders faster approval to mine on public lands. Critics say it's asking for trouble In 2023, the SunZia Transmission Project broke ground on a 45-mile stretch of transmission towers running along the river on public land, despite opposition and legal action from conservation groups and tribal communities. The project will carry renewable electricity from wind farms in New Mexico to communities in Arizona and California. Looking over the valley from above now, the cleared patches of desert where the towers and connecting access roads have been built stretch into the horizon alongside the San Pedro. 'This area has been under a lot of different threats,' said Gorman, who was a board member of the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance when it was founded in 2013. Gorman said the organization was founded after seeing the community resistance to the Interstate bypass plans. 'The community got together to fight that, and they were successful. And I guess that made us realize we needed to be more formally organized.' The public comment period for the Copper Creek project is open until April 14. Comments can be submitted online through the BLM's NEPA Register on the project's web page. 'We do really appreciate the public's attention to this and any comments they might have, if we missed anything, or how we could do better in a certain area, and tribes as well. Keeping in mind the decision before us right now is the exploratory drilling' said Flatt, field manager at the BLM. 'Should we ever get that application for a larger mine plan of operations, there would be very extensive public processes involved in that.' The Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance and the Center for Biological Diversity will host a workshop on 'How to Write Effective Public Comments' online and in-person in Oracle on April 1. John Leos covers environmental issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral. Send tips or questions to Environmental coverage on and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Sign up for AZ Climate, our weekly environment newsletter, and follow The Republic environmental reporting team at and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Copper Creek mine would slow conservation work on San Pedro, foes say
