Tucson parking lots have long been hell on Earth — for vehicles, their sizzling passengers, wildlife and the environment in general. Only a buzzard, catching an updraft off one of these heat islands, could love them. But there's a partial glimpse of the kinder, less hellish parking lots in Tucson's future at a new Target big box store at 4400 N. Oracle Road.
Jason McHolm sees a trend: More homeowners tired of their desert-landscaped backyards are harvesting rain to nurture a more lush garden. "People want to plant more in their yard, but feel guilty if they don't put something in there," says McHolm, co-owner of Southern Arizona Rain Gutters (SARG) Inc. He's also seeing people catching water to replenish their pools. The cost of harvesting rain from a roof can range from zero to thousands of dollars, depending on the system. Here are some options. Passive system All that's required is a shovel and labor. The idea is to shape the ground to guide water from where it collects to where it's needed. A basin that feeds surrounding plants is a simple example. A passive system doesn't store water for later use. Above-ground collector These usually connect to a down spout. Today's iconic collector, the steel culvert cistern, sits on a concrete platform. (SARG: $1,700 to $2,400, depending on size. Silverbell Nursery: $1,500 for 752 gallons.) A collector can be as simple and inexpensive as a large plastic trash can. (Ace Hardware: $40 for 50 gallons.) Rain barrels have a spout or hose connection (Ace: $130 for 100 gallons.) Bushman US sells polyethylene tanks that collect from 130 to 2,865 gallons. Their variety of colors and low profiles blends more easily with most homes. The 6 1/2-foot-tall Slimline (SARG: $1,350) that holds 620 gallons can sit flat against an exterior wall or fence and doesn't require a platform. BlueScope Water USA offers a steel slim tank. (SARG: $1,700 for 500 gallons, $2,400 for 1,000 gallons.) Underground collector Buried tanks provide the best aesthetic. They require additional equipment to send water into the tank and then pump it out for above-ground use. The Aquascape RainXchange system circulates stored water through a water feature as well as provides delivery connections. "The whole goal is to eliminate the look of the cistern," says Nathan Novak, owner of Canyon Pondscapes, which installs the system ($4,500 to $6,500 for 1,000 to 2,000 gallons, including water feature.) water harvesting techniques Does harvesting rain save you money? It can if you don't spend a lot collecting it or if you collect enough to offset your typical water use and the cost of the system, says Tucson Water spokesman Fernando Molino. One inch of rain collected from a 2,000-square-foot roof yields about 1,250 gallons. An irrigation system that uses 50 gallons an hour would get 25 hours of water from that one inch.
Resources • Ace Hardware, several locations, including 6959 E. 22nd St., 747-9473. • Canyon Pondscapes, 820-7737, www.canyonpondscapes.com. • Silverbell Nursery, 2730 N. Silverbell Road, 622-3894, www.sbnursery.com. • Southern Arizona Rain Gutters Inc., 1627 N. Stone Ave., 299-7246, www.southernarizonarain gutters.com. • Tucson Water, www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/ harvesting.htm
Published: 12.13.2008
Freeport plans Sierrita mine cleanup
By Tony Davis
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Chronic water pollution at a Green Valley-area copper mine is apparently going to get a massive multimillion-dollar cleanup.
Mining giant Freeport McMoran Copper and Gold wants to spend $81 million to stabilize and pump out pollution underlying its Sierrita mine northwest of Green Valley.
The copper company says that plan is the most cost-effective of five alternatives it has studied for easing the sulfate pollution known to have tainted the area's groundwater since the early 1980s.
It's also evaluating the possibility of building a new stack of mine tailings west of its existing tailings. That will help the company solve two problems at once: water pollution underneath the tailings and dust pollution blowing from them, said a retired geology professor who has served as a neutral observer working with a community group that has been monitoring the studies for the cleanup.
The company's consultants outlined the alternatives, costing $71.7 million to $208 million, to generally positive reviews Friday at a meeting of community activists and a state environmental official. One Freeport consultant, Stuart Brown of the Bridgewater Group, said the cleanup will be a large, complex undertaking that will last a long time.
If the state approves Freeport's proposal, cleanup work could start two to three years later, a consultant's study said. That doesn't include the time it takes to buy land for new tailings, do environmental studies, and obtain permits to build a new tailings impoundment. Those stepscould take until 2016 to finish, said the study.
The proposal calls for pumping out contaminated groundwater at the edge of the mine's pollution plume to keep it from advancing toward drinking wells. More intensive pumping would occur in the heart of the polluted groundwater.
The pumped-out water would be shipped over to the mine for mining operations. The pumping would continue well into the middle of the 21st century, since the mine is expected to keep producing until about 2042, according to the consultant's report.
Sulfates — sulfur-based compounds that come from copper production — can harm the stomach and intestines, the State Department of Environmental Quality has said.
"I think, 'yay,' " was Green Valley activist Nancy Freeman's reaction to the Freeport proposal Friday.
Terming the plan "a miracle," she said the company goes well beyond what it needed to do to meet a 2006 agreement Freeport signed with the state. That agreement said Freeport must produce a plan to prevent pollution from contaminating drinking wells within a mile of the edge of the polluted groundwater.
"I was really determined that something positive like this was going to happen," said Freeman, director of the Groundwater Awareness League, a non-profit group in Green Valley. "I feel like the mining management has really listened to the community."
Cynthia Campbell, ADEQ's water quality compliance manager, told the group her department likes this alternative.
But because the idea of building a new tailings impoundment is "very speculative, we'd probably like to see another alternative as a fallback," Campbell said.
Building the new tailings stack would require Freeport to buy a considerable amount of adjoining state land. That is never a sure thing because by law, the State Land Department must reap maximum revenue from the sale of its land for public schools. Because no roads or other infrastructure exists in that area, the area may not prove alluring for private developers; Freeman called the area "the backside of nowhere."
Still, "we like the idea of a fallback because without it, if this alternative fails off the table, you've got nothing," Campbell said.
Two other alternatives call for pumping only from the pollution plume's edge, with or without a new tailings stack. A fourth alternative would pump the bulk of the sulfate pollution — without a new tailings impoundment.
The fifth proposal, costing $173 million, would allow the pollution to be naturally eased by mixing with cleaner groundwater. Authorities would drill wells to monitor nearby drinking supplies. If they got contaminated, the company would provide alternative supplies, treat the drinking water or blend polluted water with clean water.
If the new tailings impoundment is built, that would help groundwater pollution because the new tailing site would be lined to prevent leaks, unlike the current one, and include a collection system to pipe out tainted water, said John Sonderegger, a Green Valley resident and a retired professor of hydrogeology at the Montana School of Mines. The new tailings stack would also ease dust problems because the dust pollution increases as the impoundment grows, he said.
"They did a thorough look at the relative value of these projects," Sonderegger said. "The simplest thing to do is to do the alternative with no cleanup — that would have met the state guidelines. It has the lowest cost at the early stages, but you pay big at the back end. By hitting it hard early, they wind up actually doing a better job and saving money later, and it's better for the environment."
The Santa Cruz River flows both north and south, and crosses the international border twice.
The river starts in the San Rafael Valley, near Patagonia, and runs south into Mexico before doubling back into the U.S. near Nogales and traveling north through Tucson to where it peters out near Casa Grande.
The effluent-fed flows along two stretches of the Santa Cruz River are significant enough to merit the highest protections under federal law, the Environmental Protection Agency said this week.
In a letter sent late Wednesday to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin Grumbles said two portions of the Santa Cruz River — one stretching from Tubac to Continental Road and the other from the Roger Road sewage- treatment plant to the county line — should be considered "traditional navigable waters," a designation that brings with it the highest level of protection under the Clean Water Act.
The letter put to rest months of uncertainty after the Army Corps of Engineers first granted the designation, then withdrew it. In August, the EPA announced it would take on the Santa Cruz River as a "special case" and make the determination itself.
Local environmental groups lauded the decision even as national environmental groups raised concerns about another EPA announcement about how the Corps of Engineers should make decisions about other ephemeral and intermittent streams.
They said the guidelines did not provide adequate protection for watersheds and called on Congress to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act.
The act attempts to clarify how the Clean Water Act should be applied after a 2006 Supreme Court decision that many regard as confusing.
Carolyn Campbell, executive director of the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, lobbied for the designation and wants the entire Santa Cruz eventually to be protected.
"This was really good news to have back the protections that we lost when the Corps rescinded the designation," Campbell said. "I see this as an important interim step while they study whether the rest of the river should have this protection. I'm very hopeful for the whole river to get the traditional navigable waterway, but with this, all the tributaries should be protected because they all eventually touch these two portions."
Before the 2006 Supreme Court decision, the Corps generally had treated the Santa Cruz River as if it were a traditional navigable waterway. But several opinions issued by the justices supporting their ruling in the case led to confusion about how much water and what kinds of navigation were enough to meet the designation.
Home-builder organizations fought hard against treating streams with intermittent flows, like the Santa Cruz, as navigable waters. Reached Thursday, representatives of the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association and the National Association of Home Builders said they were unaware of the decision.
SAHBA Vice President Roger Yohem said his organization could not comment until its lawyers reviewed the decision.
Environmentalists and some elected officials believe Pima County also lobbied against the designation to prevent a drawn-out permitting process from slowing down county construction projects.
That feeling eased only after the Board of Supervisors in August passed a resolution supporting the designation. County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said county staff only wanted timely decisions on permits, and he cleared staff of any inappropriate actions.
Huckelberry said Thursday the decision is "fine and what we asked for."
Supervisor Richard Elías, who pushed for the county to support the designation, said he was pleased but the county needs to keep pushing for the entire river to be protected.
Grumbles based the designation on the width and depth of recorded flows in the Santa Cruz, the presence of activities like canoeing and birding along the river and the potential for more water in the river if the Corps moves ahead with restoration projects on the river.
"This is good news for the river and the watershed," he said. "We found evidence from the physical characteristics that it is susceptible to future navigation, and it had been navigated in the past. We feel this decision is on solid ground."
He said the guidelines issued Wednesday for determining whether the ephemeral or intermittent streams common in the Western United States are navigable should help the Corps make decisions about other waterways.
But environmental groups blasted the guidelines as confusing and no improvement over earlier guidelines issued in 2007.
Melissa Samet, senior director for water resources with the group American Rivers, said the EPA made the correct decision on the Santa Cruz, but there is no guarantee that similar waterways will receive the same protection.
"The real question is, how do you protect the headwaters and ephemeral streams because if you don't, you have very serious consequences for the watershed downstream," she said.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva said that issuing the guidelines now is part of a last-ditch effort by the outgoing administration to influence environmental regulations in favor of business interests. He said Congress needs to intervene to make sure the Clean Water Act protections apply where they should.
"The Clean Water Restoration Act is the only way to clean this up," he said.
● Contact reporter Erica Meltzer at 807-7790 or emeltzer@azstarnet.com.
New Scientific Research Reveals Widespread Failure to Keep Mines from Polluting Water
New scientific research unveiled today finds that faulty water quality predictions, mitigation measures and regulatory failures result in the approval of mines that create significant water pollution problems. Despite assurances from government regulators and mine proponents that mines would not pollute clean water, researchers found that 76 percent of studied mines exceeded water quality standards, polluting rivers, and groundwater with toxic contaminants, such as lead, mercury, arsenic and cyanide, and exposing taxpayers to huge cleanup liabilities. The release was issued by the Washington, DC-based conservation group EARTHWORKS and conservation groups in as many as ten western states affected by mining.
"Without correction, the human, environmental, and financial costs of these regulatory failures will continue to grow as more mines are permitted," said report author and mining engineer Jim Kuipers. "Where predictions of water quality at mine sites are concerned, the scientific process is broken and must be fixed."
The first-of-a-kind reports, "Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines," and "Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art," by Kuipers, P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality predictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted in the United States during the last 25 years.
The scientists found that predictions of mining's impact on clean water were made without checking the results of past predictions. They also found that predictions were often made using inadequate information, incorrectly applied. Not surprisingly, mitigation measures based on the inaccurate predictions also typically failed to protect clean water.
Among the researchers' findings for the 25 mines examined in depth:
* 76 percent of mines exceed groundwater or surface water quality standards * 93 percent of mines that are near groundwater and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching exceeded water quality standards[1] * 85 percent of mines that are near surface water and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching exceeded water quality standards * Water quality standards for toxic heavy metals, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, copper, and zinc, were exceeded at 63 percent of mines. * Mitigation measures predicted to protect clean water failed at 64 percent of the mines.
"Regulators and mining companies have a responsibility to ensure that sound science and widely available, state-of-the-art methods are used to prevent pollution at mine sites," said Maest. "Changes in permitting evaluations are needed at current and future mines to keep our waters clean and our fisheries viable."
The researchers also found that mines located near surface or groundwater that tapped ore bodies with high potential for acid-generation or contaminant leaching, and near water resources were at high-risk of resulting in water pollution. This finding in particular has serious implications for controversial new mines now being proposed, or in permitting including:
* Pebble gold-copper mine in southwest Alaska at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, home to the world's largest salmon runs. * Atlanta gold mine in Idaho adjacent to the Boise River, which provides Boise with more than 20 percent of its municipal water * Rock Creek silver-copper mine in northwest Montana near the Clark Fork River and underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness.
"With dozens of new mines and mine expansions in the pipeline, this report could not have come at a better time," said Alan Septoff, Director of Research at EARTHWORKS, which commissioned the studies. "Action on these findings by regulators and mining companies should result in cleaner water, healthier economies, and more responsible mining."
Sustained increases in metal prices, driven in part by growing demand from China, have triggered a sharp increase in the number of new mines and mine expansions being proposed in the United States. New mining claims filed in 2006 for mines on federal public lands are on track to more than quadruple since 2002.
Based on the researchers' findings, the groups releasing the studies offered the following recommendations:
* Better screening of high-risk mines -- particularly those near water resources that have the potential to create pollution from acid drainage or metal leaching. * Take a precautionary approach to mine permitting and plan for worst-case scenarios. * Undertake a thorough review of water quality predictions at all existing mines. * Keep the public informed, make risks transparent. * Prevent conflicts-of-interest between mine proponents and expert consultants who prepare predictions and analyses.
The reports have been extensively peer-reviewed and presented at five major conferences, including: U.S. EPA's Hardrock 2006 Conference in Tucson, Arizona; Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration's 2006 Annual Meeting in St. Louis; and the Mine Design, Operations and Closure Conference in Fairmont Hot Springs, Montana, also in 2006.
Please let us know which issue / area you would like your generous donation earmarked for. Your info credit card info is secure through PayPal. We are not a 501c3. Thank You.
Water research institute of UA, ASU, NAU is axed By Tony Davis ARIZONA DAILY STAR The shutdown of a three-university water research institute will hurt the state's ability to prevent or deal with a water crisis, several researchers and outside officials say. The Arizona Water Institute, headquartered at the University of Arizona, will close in July because of the major budget cuts the Legislature ordered recently for universities. University officials said they eliminated the institute and its $1.2 million annual budget because of the magnitude of the statewide cuts — $142 million total. Some of the institute's work can continue under other university programs, at a reduced scale, they said. The institute plans and supports research on some of the state's major water-supply issues and water-quality problems. It's noted for drawing on the expertise of a wide variety of agencies and other groups. "I don't want to say that the impact was small. It is an important institute that we closed, but the impact is not nearly as great as if it were the only entity" for this work, said Leslie Tolbert, UA's vice president for research, graduate studies and economic development. The institute's backers, however, said the group does unique work, and the shutdown will make it harder for Arizona to ensure it has enough water for future growth. It will be more expensive to deal with future water crises because not enough planning will be done today, backers said. The vulnerability of water supplies may seem off in the distant future, but if officials don't plan now, the state will be caught unprepared and have a crisis, said Gregg Garfin, a UA climate scientist. "Arizona became Arizona because we solved problems early on in providing water to the desert. Our future economy depends on continuing to do that," said Guy Carpenter, an official with HDR Inc., an engineering consulting firm with offices in Tucson and Phoenix. "The institute was the only such institute set up and equipped to deal with this issue statewide. "When the economy here comes back, in the next growth wave, if we don't have good solutions for the problems we have right now, we won't have the ability to grow, at least not in the way that we have in the past," Carpenter said. The institute's prime goal was to translate scientific issues for average citizens, water agency officials and other laymen, said Kathy Jacobs, its director. The work was done for agencies, Indian tribes, watershed groups and the private sector. Research topics have included: • The vulnerability of water supplies to climate change, and how to adapt to that problem. • How to detect pharmaceuticals and other previously unknown contaminants in sewer plant wastewater. • The water needs of plants and animals living in and along the Verde River in north-central Arizona, one of the last, year-round flowing streams in the state. • Water desalination. • The relationship between water and energy, because water is needed to produce energy, and energy is needed to find and deliver water. Because of the shutdown, about 15 previously approved studies will not get done, said Jacobs, who also is a UA professor of soil, water and environmental science. She has become a national expert on the climate-change water issue and is chairing a National Academy of Sciences panel that is studying the adaptation question. One major study left hanging was going to try to predict how global warming and drought would affect the Colorado, Salt and Verde river areas. The project was requested by Phoenix water officials and has clear implications for Tucson, because this city depends on the Colorado. Although many studies have predicted that higher temperatures will cause drought in the Southwest, this would be one of the first research projects to determine the effects on a local scale, said David Modeer, director of the Central Arizona Project and former Tucson Water director. Rick Shangraw, an Arizona State University official, pointed out that the UA has a separate Water Resources Research Center and that ASU conducts water research at its Global Institute of Sustainability. While a specific research program is being cut, he expects money to keep flowing from federal agencies and other outside sources for this research, Shangraw said. "We had to cut a ton of stuff," he said. "I am very supportive of the institute. I had no interest in killing it." Arizona Water Institute • Has an annual budget split $400,000 apiece among the University of Arizona, Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University. • Started operations in 2006 and was the brainchild of then-Gov. Janet Napolitano. • Has two full-time staffers, two nearly full-time associate directors who work for state agencies, and four faculty coordinators. Contact environment reporter Tony Davis at 806-7746 or tdavis@azstarnet.com.
Water research institute of UA, ASU, NAU is axed By Tony Davis ARIZONA DAILY STAR The shutdown of a three-university water research institute will hurt the state's ability to prevent or deal with a water crisis, several researchers and outside officials say. The Arizona Water Institute, headquartered at the University of Arizona, will close in July because of the major budget cuts the Legislature ordered recently for universities. University officials said they eliminated the institute and its $1.2 million annual budget because of the magnitude of the statewide cuts — $142 million total. Some of the institute's work can continue under other university programs, at a reduced scale, they said. The institute plans and supports research on some of the state's major water-supply issues and water-quality problems. It's noted for drawing on the expertise of a wide variety of agencies and other groups. "I don't want to say that the impact was small. It is an important institute that we closed, but the impact is not nearly as great as if it were the only entity" for this work, said Leslie Tolbert, UA's vice president for research, graduate studies and economic development. The institute's backers, however, said the group does unique work, and the shutdown will make it harder for Arizona to ensure it has enough water for future growth. It will be more expensive to deal with future water crises because not enough planning will be done today, backers said. The vulnerability of water supplies may seem off in the distant future, but if officials don't plan now, the state will be caught unprepared and have a crisis, said Gregg Garfin, a UA climate scientist. "Arizona became Arizona because we solved problems early on in providing water to the desert. Our future economy depends on continuing to do that," said Guy Carpenter, an official with HDR Inc., an engineering consulting firm with offices in Tucson and Phoenix. "The institute was the only such institute set up and equipped to deal with this issue statewide. "When the economy here comes back, in the next growth wave, if we don't have good solutions for the problems we have right now, we won't have the ability to grow, at least not in the way that we have in the past," Carpenter said. The institute's prime goal was to translate scientific issues for average citizens, water agency officials and other laymen, said Kathy Jacobs, its director. The work was done for agencies, Indian tribes, watershed groups and the private sector. Research topics have included: • The vulnerability of water supplies to climate change, and how to adapt to that problem. • How to detect pharmaceuticals and other previously unknown contaminants in sewer plant wastewater. • The water needs of plants and animals living in and along the Verde River in north-central Arizona, one of the last, year-round flowing streams in the state. • Water desalination. • The relationship between water and energy, because water is needed to produce energy, and energy is needed to find and deliver water. Because of the shutdown, about 15 previously approved studies will not get done, said Jacobs, who also is a UA professor of soil, water and environmental science. She has become a national expert on the climate-change water issue and is chairing a National Academy of Sciences panel that is studying the adaptation question. One major study left hanging was going to try to predict how global warming and drought would affect the Colorado, Salt and Verde river areas. The project was requested by Phoenix water officials and has clear implications for Tucson, because this city depends on the Colorado. Although many studies have predicted that higher temperatures will cause drought in the Southwest, this would be one of the first research projects to determine the effects on a local scale, said David Modeer, director of the Central Arizona Project and former Tucson Water director. Rick Shangraw, an Arizona State University official, pointed out that the UA has a separate Water Resources Research Center and that ASU conducts water research at its Global Institute of Sustainability. While a specific research program is being cut, he expects money to keep flowing from federal agencies and other outside sources for this research, Shangraw said. "We had to cut a ton of stuff," he said. "I am very supportive of the institute. I had no interest in killing it." Arizona Water Institute: • Has an annual budget split $400,000 apiece among the University of Arizona, Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University. • Started operations in 2006 and was the brainchild of then-Gov. Janet Napolitano. • Has two full-time staffers, two nearly full-time associate directors who work for state agencies, and four faculty coordinators. Contact environment reporter Tony Davis at 806-7746 or tdavis@azstarnet.com.
