Santa Cruz County supervisors recessed into executive session to seek legal advice on the South 32 Hermosa Project Community Protection Agreement after several residents and community advocates raised concerns about groundwater depletion, air quality and wildlife habitat during public comment. The motion to move into executive session cited Arizona Revised Statutes 38-431.03(A)(3) for consultation with legal counsel on the matter.

Why it matters: Residents described receiving certified letters from the project or related entities and said those notices warned of falling water tables and potential long-term dewatering. Speakers said those developments threaten private wells, local wildlife, recreation and property values in Patagonia-area neighborhoods and along Patagonia Lake.

At the meeting, multiple speakers tied their complaints to the Hermosa mine proposal and related infrastructure. “We came to this area looking for peace and quiet,” said Robert Paulson, a Patagonia Ranch Estates resident, adding that he and his wife were surprised to learn of the Hermosa project only after seeing other notices about local power-line work. “I got a letter in June … disclosing that our water table may drop, or will drop over a period of years, at least 10 feet or more.”

Rebecca (Becky) Ball, who said she bought property less than a year ago, told the board she received a certified letter on June 4 and “we were presented a disclosure from TEP for the Hermosa mine power line. We were never told anything else about the mine.” Ball said residents have been told the mine will use millions of gallons of water per day; she told the board that such withdrawals could render Patagonia Lake and other local water features unusable and expressed concern about dust and possible hazardous spills.

Joni Stellar, chair of the Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, urged the board to insist on greater transparency in proposed Community Protections and Benefits Agreement work and to consult local experts who filed comments on the Hermosa draft environmental impact statement. “There's a complete lack of transparency, trust, and proven results,” she said, and asked supervisors to review the organizational comments filed with the Coronado National Forest.

Other public speakers provided additional claims and local context: John Nordstrom said state estimates foresee roughly $37 million in annual state revenue from the mine and that about $15 million of that would be allocated to counties; Nordstrom urged the county to ensure funds be used to secure water for residents. John Ball described receiving a certified letter and said the prospect of large, sustained water withdrawals has caused stress for homeowners who moved to the area recently.

Speakers cited different figures when describing mine water use—Rebecca Ball said “6,400,000 gallons of water a day” and John Nordstrom said the mine is approved to discharge or handle roughly “6,500,000 gallons a day” (both figures reflect what those speakers said at the meeting). The transcript also contains references to the Hermosa DEIS and to local creeks such as Harshaw Creek and Goldbaum Canyon as pathways and areas potentially affected by project discharges.

Board action and next steps: Following public comment the board voted to move into executive session for legal advice on the Community Protection Agreement under ARS 38-431.03(A)(3); that executive session was announced on the public record. No public decision or vote on the substance of the Community Protection Agreement was recorded in open session during the meeting.

What was not decided: The board did not adopt or reject any Community Protections and Benefits Agreement terms in public session; the meeting record shows only that the board entered executive session for legal consultation. Several speakers asked for third-party monitoring or independent scientific review; the board did not announce any specific follow-up staff actions in open session.