Santa Cruz County approves early-action agreement with South 32 after residents press for independent testing

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors on March 4 approved an early-action community investment agreement with the city of Nogales, the town of Patagonia and mining company South 32, authorizing county staff to finalize the agreement as presented by Deputy County Manager Chris Young.

County officials said the agreement funds 16 initial projects — including a protections roadmap, an independent emergency services audit, mobile health units, a childcare strategic plan, a nature-based restorative-economy capital investment plan and a housing strategy — intended to address immediate community needs while federal environmental reviews continue. "Protections remain central to all signatories," Chris Young said during a presentation laying out the projects and the process for developing scopes of work.

The agreement drew extensive public comment and board questions. Several residents urged the county to add independent environmental testing before proceeding with investments tied to the mine’s activities. "Can we please ask for a independent water assessment and an independent soil assessment?" Pamela Mckay told the board, arguing the community needs outside testing in addition to the documents already released by federal agencies.

Other speakers warned of air and water contamination risks they attribute to the Hermosa mine and South 32 operations. Chris Verkofen and Darla Sealander said existing permits and studies leave gaps in protections and called for binding remedies for well impacts and independent oversight. A resident, Ernie Edwards, urged supervisors to scrutinize the timing of parallel votes by multiple jurisdictions and to prioritize long-term safeguards over short-term community benefits.

Board members acknowledged the concerns and said the early actions are intended to fund immediate, data-driven studies and capacity-building while the Forest Service’s final EIS and federal biological opinions are reviewed. "The CPBA process will include community engagement," Young said, adding that scopes of work must be approved by all signatories and that the early-action list can be amended by consensus.

The board moved to approve the agreement during the action-items portion of the meeting; the motion was seconded and carried as recorded by the chair. The meeting record shows the motion carried with all members present voting in favor; no roll-call vote listing individual member votes appears in the transcript.

Votes at a glance

- Early-action community investment agreement with Nogales, Patagonia and South 32: Approved; county manager authorized to sign. (Motion carried.) - Authorization to fill two vacant detention officer positions (jail district): Approved. (Motion carried.) - Proclamation declaring March 2026 as Santa Cruz County Government Employee Appreciation Month: Approved. (Motion carried.) - Professional services agreement with SCR Jobs (WIOA) for $49,499.82 (or $4,949.98 per participant): Approved via consent agenda. (Motion carries as recorded.) - Consent agenda items j1–j7: Approved. (Motion carries as recorded.)

Why it matters

The early-action agreement channels several million-dollar-class projects and studies intended to shore up county capacity on health, emergency services, water and planning as federal environmental reviews continue. Residents who oppose the mine argued the agreement should not move forward without independent environmental assessments and legally binding protections; board members said early-action funding is meant to address gaps identified by local focus groups and a University of Arizona gap analysis while a longer CPBA (community protections and benefits agreement) process proceeds.

What comes next

County staff and signatories will develop scopes of work for each early-action project; those scopes require consensus approval by the signatory parties. Chris Young said staff will work through reimbursement processes for county-owned projects and use participants from the focus groups and subject-matter stakeholders when conducting the studies. The board did not set a timeline for when specific independent water or soil assessments requested by members of the public will be procured.

Public comment and the board’s discussion make clear that independent testing, the composition of focus groups, and scope-review procedures are outstanding issues the board is likely to revisit as work begins under the approved agreement.