Residents from Patagonia, Lake Patagonia and Rio Rico told the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 17 that they are seeing antimony and other metals in wells and stream discharges near the Hermosa mine and asked the board to press state regulators and the company for answers.

“Antimony in the discharge from South 32 to Harshaw Creek is now present in the drinking water along the creek and appears to exceed the drinking-water standard,” hydrologist Chris Gardner told the board, summarizing permit-sampling events and what he described as a misreported sample that later was shown to exceed the state's permit discharge limit. Gardner asked for a county study session that includes presentations from South 32 and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and urged the county not to adopt a staged community-benefits-and-protections approach that delays safeguards.

Several residents gave similar accounts. “Antimony in my well is twice the limit for drinking water standards,” said Susan Wetherington, who said her home well is within about 4½ miles downstream from the mine and that she has been living without potable tap water. Robert Paulson, a Lake Patagonia resident, said notices from the operator indicate his well could lose more than 10 feet of water level over coming years and questioned whether South 32 is meeting reporting requirements.

Technical commenters pressed regulators’ and the company’s underlying assumptions about treatment capacity. Chris Werkhoven, a PhD in physical chemistry, said the treatment approach outlined by the permit — relying on a single central plant and reference facilities that do not match Hermosa’s conditions — elevates the risk of noncompliance and argued that operations should not proceed until treatment performance can be demonstrated publicly.

Robin Leckey read an ADEQ statement to the board saying ADEQ’s sampling reports received on Nov. 30 showed antimony above the Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) limit of 6 micrograms per liter, that South 32 had called an exceedance a laboratory error, and that ADEQ had not received the five‑day APP notice for the event; ADEQ, she said, had continued an investigation and required South 32 to submit a 30‑day investigative report (due 12/26/2025). Leckey asked the board to press for a comprehensive groundwater-quality study in the area.

Speakers recommended immediate steps: a county study session with South 32 and ADEQ; more frequent, arm’s‑length monitoring (some suggested citizen‑science sampling done independently of South 32 contractors); clearer public posting of data; and community protections that require verified mitigation measures rather than phased benefit payments alone.

Board responses and next steps: after public comment the chair said the board would schedule a study session on the water issues as soon as possible. The meeting record shows no formal action, vote, or directive adopted on specific regulatory sanctions during the Dec. 17 session; speakers asked staff to bring the requested briefs forward for future consideration.

Authorities and sources referenced at the meeting include ADEQ sampling reports, the Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) standards and community commenters’ submitted monitoring results. The board scheduled a study session but did not set a public deadline for additional action at that meeting.