Residents press county for transparency, water relief as Hermosa mine permits undergo review

Speakers from Patagonia and local conservation organizations told the Board of Supervisors on Sept. 17 they want more transparency and stronger protections in the county's Community Protection and Benefits Agreement (CPBA) tied to the South32 Hermosa mine project.

"We need minimum 60 days to actually be able to review this document," Anna Darien, executive director of Patagonia Area Resource Alliance (PATA), said during call to the public, citing concerns about limited opportunity for substantive public input if the agreement is presented and approved quickly. Darien said the county planned executive-session negotiation but urged a public review process that allows scientific comment and meaningful changes.

Darien and other speakers also raised concerns about an air permitting process administered by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Darien said the county and conservation partners appealed an ADEQ permit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which identified several Clean Air Act deficiencies and returned some permit elements to ADEQ; she said the permit was again out for public comment with a comment deadline of Sept. 25 and a public hearing scheduled in Patagonia that evening at 6 p.m.

"We cited over 20 violations of the Clean Air Act," Darien said, and added that a subset of violations was taken up by the EPA and required ADEQ revision. She said PATA and partners were preparing sample comment letters and technical analysis for residents.

Local resident and conservation biologist Dr. Susan Wethington said she lives about four and a half miles downstream of the mine and has not had potable well water at her house for more than three years. Wethington said she has relied on the Patagonia Fire Department for water deliveries that could not guarantee potability, and that her well showed increased iron and previously increased lead. "I have put in over $25,000 trying to address my water issues," she said, and asked the county to include free potable water delivery, nonlitigation compensation mechanisms and property tax relief in the CPBA.

Robin Lucky, president of Thomas Alliance, said the CPBA should not be "window dressing" and supported Wethington's request for meaningful protections.

Deputy County Manager Chris Young told the board the county was nearing a point at which the draft CPBA could be released for public comment and emphasized that the county planned to solicit public feedback before signatories make decisions. Young did not give a specific publication date but said public review would be opened "soon".

The board later moved the CPBA discussion into executive session under Arizona Revised Statutes 38-431.03(A)(3) and (4) to consult with legal counsel and to receive direction on negotiation strategy; supervisors said publicly they expected to provide an opportunity for comment on the draft once the county can release it.

Speakers asked the county to ensure the public comment period is long enough to allow technical review and urged explicit commitments in the CPBA for potable water delivery, monitoring, compensation and other protections. No CPBA text was released during the Sept. 17 meeting and the board did not take a public vote on the agreement that day.