Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mining Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pima supervisors direct staff to send opposition resolutions to Hudbay board; vote splits 3–1–1
Summary
After public comment from a Hudbay representative, the board voted 3–1–1 to instruct staff to distribute previously passed resolutions opposing the Copper World project to additional regulators and Hudbay leadership, prompting a sharp exchange among supervisors over outreach and development priorities.
The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted on Jan. 20 to direct county staff to send previously passed resolutions opposing Hudbay’s proposed Copper World mine to additional external parties, including the company's board and other relevant regulators. The motion passed on a 3–1–1 vote after an extended discussion between supervisors.
Supervisor Hines, who moved the directive, said he was motivated by reports that Hudbay was portraying regional sentiment as favorable toward the project and wanted to ensure the company's leadership and outside regulators saw the board's formal opposition. "I don't believe that we have [sent the resolutions] ... I don't know if we have," Hines said when explaining the intent to distribute the board's prior actions more broadly.
Supervisor Christie, whose district includes the project area, objected strongly and said she supports the Copper World project for local job growth and economic development. She asked for a list of the specific external recipients and said she would send a letter in support of the project to the same recipients. "As the sitting supervisor whose district houses the Hudbay Copper World project, I am in favor of it. I support it," Christie said.
Earlier in the meeting, Jerry Bustamante, who identified himself as representing Hudbay and the Copper World Project, urged the board to engage directly with the company, tour the site and meet technical staff. Bustamante told supervisors that Hudbay had finalized a joint-venture partner with Mitsubishi and had prevailed in recent litigation over a right-of-way claim, and he invited the board to open lines of direct engagement.
Supervisor Scott and other board members debated whether the county administrator's office already had authority to send tabulated resolutions to state or federal officials after passage or whether a board motion was required for broader distribution. Supervisor Scott noted past practice of the county sending resolutions to the federal delegation and governor's office.
The final tally on the motion to direct distribution was three in favor, one opposed (Supervisor Christie) and one abstention (Supervisor Scott). The board did not vote to rescind prior resolutions; members said the motion was limited to distribution of existing board actions to additional external recipients.
