In science, extraction is the process by which a substance is separated from a matrix. Mining is the extraction of minerals from the earth.
In Pima County, extraction is the process by which a government entity claims for itself a portion of a business interest’s assets in order to allow that business to do business. In other words, businesses can receive the permit and licenses they require if they can hand over land, concede to a higher tax rate, or otherwise meet the demands of the government interests.
Land developers have grown accustomed to turning over chunks of their land to the County in order to develop what remains. Their stories are legendary, but will never be told publicly for fear of retaliation… or the fear that even more extractions will be demanded for their next project.
In the case of the Rosemont Mine, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry has said that the mine will be allowed to extract copper from the land when they agree to provide the extractions Huckleberry wants. According to sources, those extractions include extreme measures including the demand that Rosemont fill the crater in once it is done extracting the minerals, and hand over a huge percentage of the money it earns from the minerals.
Until and if they meet his demands, Rosemont will be a source of contention, and handfuls of fines and fees, and now court costs.
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.
Pima County claims 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.”
Rosemont contends 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……”
According to the pleadings, Pima County passed Ordinance 2012-14, on March 13, 2012. “Under Section 101.3, the purpose of the Outdoor Lighting Code “is to preserve the relationship of the residents of the City of Tucson and Pima County, Arizona their unique desert environment through protection of access to the dark night sky,” reads the pleading.
Pima County insists that Rosemont obtain a permit for all their outdoor lighting “regulated by the Outdoor Lighting Code.” If they don’t, the code “authorizes the Building Official to serve a notice of violation and order of abatement on the person responsible for a violation of the Outdoor Lighting Code,” according to the County. And that is what happened.
Rosemont has been conducting exploratory drilling. On September 25, 2014, Pima County’s Chief Building Official sent Rosemont a letter notifying Rosemont of possible Outdoor Lighting Code violations at the Rosemont Mine site.
In a written response dated September 26, 2014, Rosemont responded:
Even though the mining activities are exempt from the Outdoor Lighting Code, Rosemont has required its drilling contractor to operate within the Intent of the Outdoor Lighting Code as long as mine safety and operations are not compromised. The contracts issued for this project had the following specific requirements for lighting and we are working with the contractors to be sure they meet these requirements.
All portable work light plants shall utilize 3000K or 3500K maximum correlated color temperature (CCT) light emitting diode (LED) light sources. All luminaires shall be carefully aimed prior to each work shift so as to focus the light emissions on to the task area and to minimize off-site spill light and glare. Work lights shall be extinguished when task lighting is no longer needed. The use of LED sources in excess of 3500 CCT and/or any metal halide and/or high pressure sodium luminaires for portable work fighting is prohibited.
In sum, Rosemont’s confirmatory drilling program is exempt from the Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-812(A)(2). Nevertheless, we intend to operate within the intent of the Outdoor lighting Code as long as the requirements of the State Mine Inspector are met and mine safety and operations are not compromised.
Clearly, Rosemont has committed to voluntarily comply with the Pima County code.
The County forged ahead and advised the Court in their pleading that “based on the September 26, 2014 letter from Rosemont, the Building Official issued a Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement to Rosemont on October 1, 2014 for placing regulated outdoor lighting into service without obtaining required permit.”
Rosemont did not apply for an outdoor lighting permit.
Now the Court must decide whether or not the County has the authority to regulate lighting used in Rosemont’s mining activities with the Outdoor Lighting Code.
According to experts, the County’s lawsuit is frivolous and only intended to sink the mine. The lawsuit will fail over the safety issue if nothing else.
Should the County prevail, they want the Court to award legal fees. With Huckelberry’s knack for creative accounting the fees should be astronomical – maybe even enough to cover a shortfall somewhere else in his budget.
Related articles:
Pima County deputy admin named
Pima County bond package raises questions
Pima County Prop 415 consultants, strategists win big
Auditor General: Pima County must improve internal controls over federal programs