Contact
Restore funding for groundwater projects in Grant County
Allyson Siwik
For more than a century, hard-rock mining has been a driver of economic development in Southwestern New Mexico, but not without significant environmental impact to the area’s landscapes, water and air quality, wildlife and ecosystems. Since a chance inspection back in 2000 turned up 200 bird carcasses in the acidic waters of tailings ponds at the Tyrone open pit copper mine outside Silver City, state and federal agencies have pursued a natural-resource damage claim against Freeport-McMoRan (formerly Phelps Dodge), the largest publicly-traded copper company in the world.
Extending across 20,743 acres, groundwater contamination at Freeport’s three mines, Chino, Cobre and Tyrone, will need to be pumped and treated forever to contain the existing plumes of heavy metals, sulfates, and other pollutants and prevent migration of contamination to aquifers and drinking water wells that would pose a health and safety risk for Grant County residents. Soils and creeks in the vicinity of the mines also have been contaminated, affecting wildlife and ecosystems.
The New Mexico Office of the Natural Resources Trustee (ONRT) and Freeport reached a $13 million settlement in December 2010 for groundwater damages caused by the mines. According to the consent decree, settlement funds are to be used by ONRT “to plan and implement projects designed to restore, replace, rehabilitate, and/or acquire the equivalent of ground water resources allegedly injured, destroyed, or lost as a result of the release of hazardous substances and non-hazardous substances at or from the Sites.”
In signing the consent decree, the ONRT also agreed “to solicit public review and comment on the Restoration Plan and in no event will any project proceed without the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the vicinity of the Sites of the opportunity to review the proposed project and submit comments on the proposal to the Trustee.”
Legislature improperly spends money elsewhere
However, before Grant County communities had a chance to provide input about the groundwater restoration plan, and without public knowledge, the state Legislature funneled $1.5 million of settlement funds to the Attorney General’s Office for Lower Rio Grande water rights litigation during the 2011 legislative session.
Not only does this appropriation appear to be in violation of the federal Superfund law, the New Mexico Natural Resources Trustee Act and the consent decree, but resources that could have been used for groundwater restoration projects in economically distressed Grant County instead will go to fund risky water rights litigation in a different watershed. There is no certainty that this lawsuit will end up acquiring on behalf of the public the equivalent of the groundwater damaged.
Nor is it fair to rob Grant County to pay for Lower Rio Grande litigation. Grant County loses out on the groundwater and public health benefits that could have been realized from the $1.5 million, and the economic boost that these projects would create will go instead to fatten the incomes of Santa Fe attorneys and consultants.
The ONRT has identified $9.5 million more in fundable projects than is available in settlement funds. There are four projects waiting in the wings that could be partially funded if the $1.5 million had been available, including wastewater and sewer projects in the Mining District and Silver City.
The Legislature needs to right this wrong
Grant County will forever be dealing with the legacy of mining. It is inexcusable that mining-impacted communities are not being fully compensated for the natural-resource damages that have occurred in their backyard.
The state Legislature needs to right this wrong and restore $1.5 million to ONRT’s budget so that needed groundwater improvement projects can be implemented.
Allyson Siwik is executive director of the Silver City-based Gila Resources Information Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to promotion of community health by protection of the environment and natural resources in Southwestern New Mexico.
9 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
IP, in the business you work in, you are undoubtably right, but its not mine, nor most people’s. My experience on these issues is not limited in any way, it spans a wide range of time, geography, and industries, both public and private. You may disagree with me on the seriouness of “Sustainable Development” in the course of a conversation about environmental issues, but you should just disagree. I understand why they talk that way in Santa Fe/
stever:
You experience, by your own admission, seems to be limited to people who are focusing only on rhetoric and talking-points rather than substantive issues; my implication, however, was that you were advocating an absence of facts by demeaning – rather than addressing – the viewpoints of another person simply because you don’t like their word-choice… which I suppose is understandable if your experience has been limited to people who we probably both feel are little better than cheerleaders.
However, to serious people on both sides of the aisle, the concept of sustainable development – in both energy policy and environmental issues – is not a mere talking point detracting from the conversation; It is the conversation. Asking that it be omitted from any serious conversation is little different than asking that we not actually have a serious conversation.
IP what facts, rhetoric, or conclusions am I advocating? What side of what aisle? What do you think sustainabilty means? My experience with the concept is no different than for Total Quality Management, Lean Six Sigma, ISO9001, ISO 14001, etc etc.
Feel good concepts, poorly understood and very poorly implemented, in spite of lots of money spent for training. In my experience working for the Army sustainabilty is just the latest yawn inducing concept, which some consulting firm gets paid to train mid level civil servants while the command writes policy letters which are soon ignored when the new commander comes on board. Hard to take it serious. I’m not into the whole UN Agenda conspiracy, there are actually valid reasons to ignore it.
Please don’t use the word “sustainable” in a serious conversation about environmental issues.
So it’s only a “serious conversation” if the rhetoric, “facts”, and conclusions come entirely from your side of the aisle, stever?
@ paulec3
Please don’t use the word “sustainable” in a serious conversation about environmental issues. You either have a good point that doesn’t need a meaningless word associated with it or you aren’t very experienced (or knowledgeable).
Kudos to Rick Mohr of Freeport and Ron Curry the Natural Resource Trustee for making the initial agreement happen. Too bad the current administration turned their head and signed the legislation taking the money away from it’s intended and legal use. Perhaps the Martinez administration needs to learn about sustainable development and funding requirements that are legally mandated.
Tossing aside Joseph Cummins’ non-sequitur comment, this consent decree was a voluntary agreement between the State of New Mexico and Freeport that clearly spells out how the settlement funds were to be used by the state. For the state legislature to ignore that agreement and surreptitiously take $1.5 million out of this money for use on an unrelated project amounts to thievery. And before their current 30-day session ends, the legislature needs to restore that stolen money so that it can be used as agreed upon.
Modern day environmental (green-socialist) experts make all kinds of wild accusations regarding how mining natural resources has destroyed this and that.
These same brilliant pseudo-scientists conveniently forget that if it wasn’t for these mining activities everyone including these green peacocks would still be clutching sticks and stones fending off the wild-beasts they claim are being threatened by past and present mining.
Contrary to what the EcoElites state there are no free-rides in life. There is always a price for what ever is or is not done. Take away the abundant use of metals there would not be any clean water. Of course these theoretical do-gooder seem to forget that it was – in geological time – not that long ago when people drank whisky instead of water, because the water made everyone sick and often dead.
If bleeding-hearts really wanted to be useful and constructive they ought to get off their soap-boxes and develop useful technology that will make life better instead of creating zillions of laws that stifle creativity that has resulted in the off-shoring of American jobs.
Hmm SW New Mexico getting a raw deal from Santa Fe? Who’d a thunk it?