,

New Mexico Copper Corporation is sent to the back of the line by Mining and Minerals Division

by Kathleen Sloan | April 6, 2020
5 min read
The State’s Mining and Minerals Division has such strong doubts the New Mexico Copper Corporation won’t get the water rights needed to operate the mine, to reclaim the land and to offset water depletion in the Rio Grande and Caballo Reservoir, it has cancelled its prior approval of the company’s mining plan. 

Losing that approval wipes out years of work. NMCC Chief Operations Officer Jeffrey Smith said the company has been submitting “baseline data” since 2010. Therefore the cancellation of “technical approval” it gave the company’s mining plan two years ago is a hard blow. 

Mining and Minerals Director Jerry Schoeppner sent his “Director’s Order” to Smith on March 31, formalizing the withdrawal of technical approval, also laying out new issues in the “permit review process.” 

Schoeppner cited the NMCC’s update to the public, published in the Las Cruces Bulletin December 2019, in which it summarized its water rights acquisitions, which triggered his concern. 

NMCC claimed it had 7,500 acre feet a year of water right, contested by several parties in an adjudication court. The Third District judge assigned the case ruled it only had 864 AFY. For more information on that court case, please read: “Water rights are only holdup in New Mexico Copper Corporation’s start-up of mining operations.” 

The case is on appeal, but judges have not been assigned and no court date has been scheduled. 

NMCC’s update also stated it acquired 3,000 acre feet from the Jicarilla Apache Nation in 2016. The water is leased for 15 years, and will be used to offset the Rio Grande and Caballo Reservoir depletions, but five to six times more water is needed, Schoeppner pointed out. 

In addition NMCC acquired 2,400AFY, leased over a 10-year period, from Tulla Resources Group and Santa Teresa Capital. However, its application with the Office of the State Engineer to change the point of diversion and place of use to the mine’s production wells has been protested, the water not usable.

“In summary, NMCC’s water rights for the Copper Flat Mine to date totals 864 AFY of vested rights,” Schoeppner’s cover letter to his order states. 

“Considering NMCC’s lack of success over the past eight years,”Schoeppner said, “MMD is concerned that many more years of protracted litigation may not result in obtaining sufficient water rights to operate and reclaim the mine.”

 “MMD formally rescinds the notice of technical approvability dated July 18, 2018,” Schoeppner’s letter states, “and reopens the permit review process for consideration of the following issues:” 

The new issues include “demonstrating” that NMCC has acquired 6,100 AFY for the 12 years of proposed mining, the amount and time NMCC named in its application, necessary to operate and reclaim the mine. Schoeppner said the 10-year lease for 2,400 AFY is too short a time and too little water to satisfy the application requirements. 

Another 16,382 acre-feet of water must be acquired to offset the Rio Grande and Caballo Reservoir depletions, the order states.  

Another 2,200 acre-feet of water must be purchased “to rapidly fill” the mining pit at the start of reclamation. 

In addition, an unspecified amount of water must be obtained to get a safety-dam permit for the tailings pond, Schoeppner said, with the OSE determining the amount and issuing the permit, but the MMD must have proof the permit was issued. 

That is over 92,000 acre-feet of water NMCC must “demonstrate” it has before receiving a mining permit.

NMCC COO Jeffrey Smith said, “We have been transparent in our communications with the Agency and the public over the years and strongly believe there have been no changes in circumstances to justify this action. We have acknowledged every step of the way what still requires attention prior to permit issuance and we remain committed to taking those steps.”

“The Order allows an administrative appeal [within 60 days of March 31, when the order was handed down],” Smith said. “We are considering our next step at this time.”

Smith said he could not comment on the appellate court case in which NMCC is still trying to win 7,500 AFY, nor the protested OSE application to divert 2,400 AFY to the mine.  
​
Max Yeh is a correspondent for the Percha Animas Watershed Association, which formed in the 1990s to watchdog the Copper Flat Mine, which has had several owners over the years. 

Yeh is also among the protestants to the NMCC application to lease 2,400 acre feet per annum of water right. 

In addition, Yeh is the research assistant to the attorney for the Hillsboro protestants in the water-rights adjudication case—State of New Mexico, ex rel. Office of the State Engineer v. EBID et al.—in which NMCC claims 7,500 AFY water right.  

Yeh said, “NMCC can, of course, appeal, but the order is very solid because it is supported by 65 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” 

“This is the first time a permitting agency has acknowledged our claim that water is the central issue with the mining project,” Yeh said. 

“The BLM ignored it in the Environmental Impact Statement, first by saying NMCC would get the water rights, then by saying it wasn’t BLM’s concern, and the Department of Interior side-stepped the issue by approving the permit conditionally (something federal law does not authorize),” Yeh said. 

“Director Schoeppner’s recognition of the importance of water and water rights in this case,” Yeh said, “brings into focus the importance of our ongoing litigation with NMCC in the Court of Appeals over water rights and our protest of the transfer of leased water rights to our area.”  

TAGS: |
author
Kathleen Sloan is the Sun’s founder and chief reporter. She can be reached at kathleen.sloan@gmail.com or 575-297-4146.
Share this:
HAVE YOU SEEN?

Understanding New Mexico's proposed new social studies standards for K-12 students

“The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.”
—National Council for the Social Studies 

Reader Michael L. Hayes of Las Cruces commented: What impresses me is that both the proposed standards and some of the criticisms of them are equally grotesque. I make this bold statement on the basis of my experience as a peripatetic high school and college English teacher for 45 years in many states with many students differing in race, religion, gender and socioeconomic background, and as a civic activist (PTA) in public education (My career, however, was as an independent consultant mainly in defense, energy and the environment.)

The proposed social studies standards are conceptually and instructionally flawed. For starters, a “performance standard” is not a standard at all; it is a task. Asking someone to explain something is not unlike asking someone to water the lawn. Nothing measures the performance, but without a measure, there is no standard. The teacher’s subjective judgment will be all that matters, and almost anything will count as satisfying a “performance standard,” even just trying. Students will be left to wonder “what is on the teacher’s mind?” or “have I sucked up enough.”

Four other quick criticisms of the performance standards. One, they are nearly unintelligible because they are written in jargon. PED’s use of jargon in a document intended for the public is worrisome. Bureaucrats often use jargon to confuse or conceal something uninformed, wrong or unworthy. As a result, most parents, some school board members and more than a few teachers do not understand them.

Two, the performance standards are so vague that they fail to define the education which teachers are supposed to teach, students are supposed to learn, and parents are supposed to understand. PED does not define words like “explain” or “describe” so that teachers can apply “standards” consistently and fairly. The standards do not indicate what teachers are supposed to know in order to teach or specify what students are supposed to learn. Supervisors cannot know whether teachers are teaching social studies well or poorly. The standards are so vague that the public, especially parents or guardians, cannot know the content of public education.

Three, many performance standards are simply unrealistic, especially at grade level. Under “Ethnic, Cultural and Identity Performance Standards”; then under “Diversity and Identity”; then under “Kindergarten,” one such standard is: “Identify how their family does things both the same as and different from how other people do things.” Do six-year-olds know how other people do things? Do they know whether these things are relevant to diversity and identity? Or another standard: “Describe their family history, culture, and past to current contributions of people in their main identity groups.” (A proficient writer would have hyphenated the compound adjective to avoid confusing the reader.) Do six-year-olds know so much about these things in relation to their “identity group”? Since teachers obviously do not teach them about these other people and have not taught them about these groups, why are these and similar items in the curriculum; or do teachers assign them to go home and collect this information?

Point four follows from “three”; some information relevant to some performance measures requires a disclosure of personal or family matters. The younger the students, the easier it is for teachers to invade their privacy and not only their privacy, but also the privacy of their parents or guardians, or neighbors, who may never be aware of these disclosures or not become aware of them until afterward. PED has no right to design a curriculum which requires teachers to ask students for information about themselves, parents or guardians, or neighbors, or puts teachers on the spot if the disclosures reveal criminal conduct. (Bill says Jeff’s father plays games in bed with his daughter. Lila says Angelo’s mother gives herself shots in the arm.) Since teacher-student communications have no legal protection to ensure privacy, those disclosures may become public accidentally or deliberately. The effect of these proposal standards is to turn New Mexico schools and teachers into investigative agents of the state and students into little informants or spies.

This PED proposal for social studies standards is a travesty of education despite its appeals to purportedly enlightened principles. It constitutes a clear and present danger to individual liberty and civil liberties. It should be repudiated; its development, investigated; its PED perpetrators, dismissed. No state curriculum should encourage or require the disclosure of private personal information.

I am equally outraged by the comments of some of T or C’s school board members: Christine LaFont and Julianne Stroup, two white Christian women, who belong to one of the larger minorities in America and assume white and Christian privileges. In different terms but for essentially the same reason, both oppose an education which includes lessons about historical events and trends, and social movements and developments, of other minorities. They object to the proposal for the new social studies standards because of its emphasis on individual and group identities not white or Christian. I am not going to reply with specific objections; they are too numerous and too pointed.

Ms. LaFont urges: “It’s better to address what’s similar with all Americans. It’s not good to differentiate.” Ms. Stroup adds: “Our country is not a racist country. We have to teach to respect each other. We have civil rights laws that protect everyone from discrimination. We need to teach civics, love and respect. We need to teach how to be color blind.”

Their desires for unity and homogeneity, and for mutual respect, are a contradiction and an impossibility. Aside from a shared citizenship, which implies acceptance of the Constitution, the rule of law and equality under the law, little else defines Americans. We are additionally defined by our race, religion, national origin, etc. So mutual respect requires individuals to respect others different from themselves. Disrespect desires blacks, Jews or Palestinians to assimilate or to suppress or conceal racial, religious or national origin aspects of their identity. The only people who want erasure of nonwhite, non-Christian, non-American origin aspects of identity are bigots. Ms. LaFont and Ms. Stroud want standards which, by stressing similarities and eliding differences, desire the erasure of such aspects. What they want will result in a social studies curriculum that enables white, Christian, native-born children to grow up to be bigots and all others to be their victims. This would be the academic equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

H.E.L.P.

This postmortem of a case involving a 75-year-old women who went missing from her home in Hillsboro last September sheds light on the bounds of law enforcement’s capacity to respond, especially in large rural jurisdictions such as Sierra County, and underscores the critical role the public, as well as concerned family and friends, can play in assisting a missing person’s search.

Reader Jane Debrott of Hillsboro commented: Thank you for your article on the tragic loss of Betsey. I am a resident of Hillsboro, a friend of Rick and Betsey, and a member of H.E.L.P. The thing that most distresses me now, is the emphasis on Rick’s mis-naming of the color of their car. I fear that this fact will cause Rick to feel that if he had only gotten the facts right, Betsey may have been rescued before it was too late. The incident was a series of unavoidable events, out of everyone’s control, and we will never know what place the correct color of her car may have had in the outcome. It breaks my heart to think that Rick has had one more thing added to his “what ifs” concerning this incident.

Diana Tittle responded: Dear Jane, the Sun undertook this investigation at the request of a Hillsboro resident concerned about the town’s inability to mount a prompt, coordinated response to the disappearance of a neighbor. From the beginning, I shared your concern about how our findings might affect Betsy’s family and friends. After I completed my research and began writing, I weighed each detail I eventually chose to include against my desire to cause no pain and the public’s right to know about the strengths and limitations of law enforcement’s response and the public’s need to know about how to be of meaningful assistance.

There was information I withheld about the state police investigation and the recovery. But I decided to include the issue of the car’s color because the individuals who spotted Betsy’s car emphasized how its color had been key to their identification of it as the vehicle described in Betsy’s Silver Alert. Because the misinformation was corrected within a couple of hours, I also included in this story the following editorial comment meant to put the error in perspective: “The fact that law enforcement throughout the state was on the lookout in the crucial early hours after Betsy’s disappearance for an elderly woman driving a “light blue” instead of a “silver” Accord would, in retrospect, likely not have changed the outcome of the search” [emphasis added].

I would also point to the story’s overarching conclusion about the inadvisability of assigning blame for what happened: “In this case, a perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances, many of them beyond human control, hindered the search that it would fall to Hamilton’s department to lead.”

It is my hope that any pain caused by my reporting will eventually be outweighed by its contribution to a better community understanding of what it will take in the future to mount a successful missing person’s search in rural Sierra County.

Scroll to Top