U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva and co-sponsor Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona Democrats, have re-introduced a bill to withdraw all federal lands in Santa Cruz and Pima counties as well as Pima County lands with federal claims from future mining and geothermal development claims.

This would include all Coronado National Forest and Department of Interior lands in both counties that straddle Grijalva’s and Gifford’s congressional districts. The exact acreage is unknown at this time.

The bill, the Southern Arizona Public Lands Protection Act of 2009, is a slightly modified version of legislation introduced by the co-sponsors in November, 2007, but bills must be re-introduced in every new session of Congress. The original bill had strong support from Pima and Santa Cruz Ccounties as well as a large number of municipalities within both counties.

Grijalva stated, “The environmental damage from mining in these special places will be too immense and this legislation will prevent future mining from occurring in the area.”

In addition to halting new mining claims on federal land in the two counties, the legislation, if passed, would require that all existing claims within those counties, such as those for the proposed Augusta Resource Rosemont Mine in Gifford’s district or from any mining company would require “validation” to prove a profitable mineral deposit before any further exploration or mining could take place. Concerns over the Rosemont Mine and other existing claims in the Santa Rita, Patagonia mountains and the San Rafael Valley led to the push for the legislation, particularly after the Coronado National Forest and Bush Administration officials refused to explore validating Rosemont or other existing mining claims in 2007.

Legislative withdrawal, said Giffords’ District Director Ron Barber, “Will create a serious legal question having to be resolved by the Rosemont Mine or others attempting to mine on existing claims in these areas.”

The issues are two-fold: First, does a mining claim have minerals that can be mined profitably enough that a “prudent man” would invest under an 1894 legal definition. This can get complicated with a modern mine that may have to be mined less profitably for several years before hitting richer deposits, a potential issue with Rosemont. The law states that each contiguous 20-acre claim must be valid.

Second, a legal issue that may need clarification by Department of Interior Secretary Salazar directly, is whether mine wastes on federal lands can (in Rosemont’s case from largely private property claims) be deposited on claims that, ironically, may actually be profitable or “valid” to mine.

For example, the Rosemont Mine claims include about six square miles of land including a 505-acre pit �“ 90 percent on private land, but with 10 percent of the pit plus tailings and processing facilities on 3,155 acres (five square miles) of the Coronado National Forest Nogales Ranger District.

If the legislation passes, and if the Rosemont Mine gets permitted to operate by the Forest Service and goes beyond litigation, any new activity on their claims would require validation. The question of whether their mining claims are valid would circulate around both questions of whether they have profitable deposits on mining claims and if some of the “mill” claims where wastes would be deposited are valid to use for mine wastes if they have profitable mineral deposits.

Both congressional offices report that they have had no contact from the mining industry regarding the legislation since the 2007 introduction, other than public declarations by Augusta opposing the earlier bill. Nevertheless, the Arizona Legislature introduced a memorial in 2009, clearly written by the industry, opposing congressional mining withdrawal without unanimous support from the Arizona congressional delegation.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) successively co-sponsored legislative withdrawal for the eastern Chiricahua Mountains in 1993, but had no comment as of press deadline. Augusta Vice-President Jamie Sturgess was also unavailable for comment.

Among Pima County preserve lands managed by the BLM for mining claims that would be impacted by the legislation are Tucson Mountain Park, Tortolita Mountain Park, Colossal Cave Mountain Park, Sweetwater Preserve, Cienega Creek Natural Preserve, Lords Ranch within the Ironwood Forest National Monument, Rancho Seco (Arivaca), Six-Bar Ranch (San Pedro River), and A-7 Ranch (San Pedro River).

Save the Scenic Santa Rita’s spokesperson Lainie Levick said, “It's truly exciting that these public lands are finally being recognized for their real values, and if this bill passes, our water resources and sustainable land uses in Southern Arizona will be protected for future generations from the short-sighted land use of mining”

(Editor’s note: Kamp is an environmental liaison for Wick Communications.)