Attorneys get more time to argue over contested copper mine on land sacred to Apaches
A U.S. district judge in Arizona has opened the door for the next round of legal wrangling as environmentalists and some Native Americas seek to stop the federal government from transferring land in Arizona for a massive copper mining project.
Judge Dominic Lanza in a ruling issued Monday denied motions that sought to halt the transfer pending the outcome of the case. However, he did preclude the U.S. Forest Service from proceeding with the land exchange until 60 days after the agency issues a required environmental review.
Lanza said that would give the parties more time to analyze the environmental report and file amended complaints. He said granting a preliminary injunction now would be premature since the review will differ in some ways from the one that spurred the legal challenge four years ago.
'It is unfortunate that the result of this order will be to force the parties to engage in another stressful, abbreviated round of briefing and litigation activity" when the new review is issued, he said, acknowledging the unusual circumstances.
Attorneys for the federal government and the mining company agreed during a recent hearing to the 60-day delay. That time frame also is specified in the legislation that Congress passed and then-President Barack Obama signed in 2014 authorizing the exchange.
The group Apache Stronghold, the San Carlos Apache Tribe and others welcomed more time to fight for Oak Flat, an area they consider as holy.
'In this critical moment, we call on the Trump administration and Congress to halt the transfer to a Chinese-owned mine, and honor what is sacred,' said Wendsler Nosie Sr., leader of Apache Stronghold. "As we continue to fight in court, know this: Nothing will turn us away from defending the spiritual essence of our people, the lifeblood that connects us to the creator and this land.'
A statement from Resolution Cooper said the ruling is consistent with prior decisions and gives the parties time to review the final environmental impact statement that will be issued later this month.
'We are confident the project satisfies all applicable legal requirements,' said Resolution president and general manager Vicky Peacey.
She added that years of consultation with tribes and communities resulted in changes to the mining plan to reduce potential effects.
The fight over Oak Flat dates back about 20 years, when legislation proposing the land exchange was first introduced. It failed repeatedly in Congress before being included in a must-pass national defense spending bill in 2014.
San Carlos Apache Chairman Terry Rambler said Monday that the bill was not in the best interest of the American people, Arizona or his tribe. He said concerns persist about the mine's use of groundwater and the pending obliteration of the culturally significant site.
Apache Stronghold and the tribe sued the U.S. government in 2021 to protect the place tribal members call Chi'chil Bildagoteel, which is dotted with ancient oak groves and traditional plants the Apaches consider essential to their religion. The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected an appeal by the Apache group, letting lower court rulings stand.
The project has support in nearby Superior and other traditional mining towns in the area. The company — a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP — estimates the mine will generate $1 billion a year for Arizona's economy and create thousands of jobs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Democrats want new leaders, focus on pocketbook issues, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
By James Oliphant and Jason Lange WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Democrats want new leaders for their party, which many feel isn't focusing enough on economic issues and is over-emphasizing issues like transgender rights and electric vehicles, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found. The poll identified a deep disconnect between what Democrats say their priorities are and the issues they believe party leaders care about most ahead of next year's midterm elections, when they hope to crack Republican control of Congress. They see their elected officials as not focused on helping families make ends meet and reducing corporate influence. Democrat Kamala Harris' November loss to Republican Donald Trump has left the party rudderless and sparked a round of soul-searching about the path forward. The poll shows that party leaders have work to do in recruiting candidates for Congress in 2026 -- and for the White House in 2028. Some 62% of self-identified Democrats in the poll agreed with a statement that "the leadership of the Democratic Party should be replaced with new people." Only 24% disagreed and the rest said they weren't sure or didn't answer. Just 30% of Republicans polled said they thought their party leadership should be replaced. Democrats' dissatisfaction is also playing out in leadership changes, including this week's resignation of Randi Weingarten, the influential president of the American Federation of Teachers, from the Democratic National Committee -- which followed the ouster of progressive activist David Hogg. The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,258 people nationwide and online June 11 through 16, including 1,293 Democrats. It had a margin of error of about 3 percentage points for Democrats. It found that Democrats want the party to focus on their day-to-day needs and want wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is viewed as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, agrees. "People don't trust us, they don't think we have their backs on issues that are core to them, which are these kitchen table issues," Newsom said on his podcast in April. DEMOCRATS 'IMPATIENT' Democratic strategists who reviewed the poll's findings said they send a clear message. "Voters are very impatient right now," said Mark Riddle, who heads Future Majority, a Democratic research firm. "They want elected officials at all levels to address the cost of living, kitchen-table issues and affordability." The poll found a gap between what voters say they care about and what they think the party's leaders prioritize. It was particularly wide on the issue of reducing corporate spending in political campaigns, where 73% of Democrats said they viewed putting limits on contributions to political groups like Super PACs a priority, but only 58% believed party leaders prioritize that. That issue matters to Sam Boland, 29, a Democrat in Minneapolis, who views Super PAC money as a way to 'legally bribe' candidates. 'Politicians want to keep their jobs and are afraid of the impact that publicly funded elections might have,' Boland said. Along that line, 86% of Democrats said changing the federal tax code so wealthy Americans and large corporations pay more in taxes should be a priority, more than the 72% of those surveyed think party leaders make it a top concern. The Republican-controlled Congress is currently pushing forward with Trump's sweeping tax-cut bill that would provide greater benefits to the wealthy than working-class Americans. Anthony Rentsch, 29, of Baltimore, said he believes Democratic leaders are afraid to embrace more progressive policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy. 'A lot of Trump's success has been with populist messages, and I think there's similar populist message Democrats can have,' Rentsch said. Democrats' own priorities appeared more in line with party leaders on abortion rights - which 77% cited as a priority. NEW BLOOD Dissatisfaction over the party's priorities on several economic policies was stronger among younger Democrats like Boland and Rentsch. For example, only 55% of Democrats aged 18-39 thought the party prioritized paid family leave that would allow workers to care for sick family members and bond with a new baby, but 73% said it was a priority for them. Among older Democrats, the same share - 68% - that said the issue was a priority for them said it was a priority for party leaders. Rentsch said that criticizing Trump over his conduct won't be enough to win over skeptical voters. 'That can't be it,' Rentsch said. 'It has to be owning those issues that have an impact on their economic well-being and their physical and mental well-being.' Democratic respondents said the party should be doing more to promote affordable childcare, reduce the price of prescription drugs, make health insurance more readily available and support mass transit. They view party leaders as less passionate about those issues than they are, the poll found. Even so, some Democrats argue the party also needs to stand toe-to-toe with Trump. 'They gotta get mean,' said Dave Silvester, 37, of Phoenix. Other Democrats said the party sometimes over-emphasizes issues that they view as less critical such as transgender rights. Just 17% of Democrats said allowing transgender people to compete in women and girls' sports should be a priority, but 28% of Democrats think party leaders see it as such. Benjamin Villagomez, 33, of Austin, Texas said that while trans rights are important, the issue too easily lends itself to Republican attacks. 'There are more important things to be moving the needle on,' said Villagomez, who is trans. 'There are more pressing issues, things that actually matter to people's livelihoods.' Democratic strategists say that if Trump's trade and tax policies lead to higher prices and an increased budget deficit, the party needs to be ready to take full advantage in next year's elections, which will decide control of Congress. 'This recent polling data indicates Democrats have room for improvement on criticizing Trump on the economy and making it clear to voters that Democrats are the ones standing up for working people,' said Ben Tulchin, who served as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' pollster for his two presidential campaigns. The party needs to get beyond portraying itself 'as the lesser of two evils," Boland, the Minneapolis Democrat, said. 'It needs to transform itself into a party that everyday people can get excited about,' he said. 'That requires a changing of the guard.'
an hour ago
The US commemorates 250th anniversary of the 'great American battle,' the Battle of Bunker Hill
NEW YORK -- As the U.S. marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes," which came out in 2011. "But they can say that Gettysburg, D-Day, and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. "The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The US commemorates 250th anniversary of the 'great American battle,' the Battle of Bunker Hill
NEW YORK (AP) — As the U.S. marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes," which came out in 2011. "But they can say that Gettysburg,D-Day, and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. "The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'
