On April 24, 2015, Pima County asked the Arizona Superior Court for a declaratory judgment against Rosemont for a violation of the County’s outdoor lighting law, previously reported in the ADI.
Pima County claimed that under A.R.S. § 11-251(35), the Pima County Board of Supervisors has the authority to “[a]dopt and enforce standards for shielding and filtration of commercial or public outdoor portable or permanent light fixtures in proximity to astronomical or meteorological laboratories.”
While Rosemont contended that A.R.S. § 11- 812(A)(2) precludes enforcement of the lighting code against Rosemont’s drilling program. This statute provides that local governments cannot “Prevent, restrict or otherwise regulate the use or occupation of land or Improvements for railroad, mining, metallurgical, grazing or general agricultural purposes……”
On Tuesday May 17, 2016, the Hon. Stephen C. Villarreal ruled on CASE NO. C20151842 that….
…Here, the language is not ambiguous. The Outdoor Lighting Code is authorized by “this chapter,” and therefore, § 11-812(a)(2) applies and exempts mining operations. The Outdoor Lighting Code therefore does not apply to the Rosemont Project.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Pima County’s Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rosemont’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part. Pima County’s Outdoor Lighting Code does not apply to Rosemont based on the exemption for mining in
A.R.S. § 11-812. The court therefore need not rule on whether the Outdoor Lighting Code is pre-empted by state or federal law or whether the application ofit is a violation of Equal Protection, and those claims are therefore dismissed as moot.
Rosemont requests its attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-341 and 12-348(A)(l). As the successful party,
IT IS ORDERED that Rosemont Copper Company is entitled to its reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
Counsel shall have 10 days to submit an Application for And Affidavit of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees that comports with the requirements of Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., 138 Ariz. 883, 673 P.2d 927 (1983).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Status Conference on August 15, 2016, and the trial set to begin on September 7, 2016.
Late on Friday May 20, 2016, in a memo to the County Board of Supervisors County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry wrote:
“The Court has found in favor of Rosemont Copper and ruled the County’s Outdoor Lighting Code does not apply to Rosemont based on the exemption for mining contained in AAS 11- 812.
The County Attorney advises there are few, if any, grounds that would warrant an appeal; therefore, the matter should be considered closed.”
Perhaps the County will allow the copper mine to go forward and produce copper and the much needed jobs for area residents.