Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 501–513 | Cite as

Environmental regulations and sustainable mining in the semi-arid American southwest: perspectives from the National Environmental Protection Act process for the Rosemont mine project (Arizona)

  • Claude Le Gouill
  • Anne-Lise BoyerEmail author
  • Franck Poupeau
  • Lala Razafimahefa
Original Article

Abstract

Based on the case study of the Rosemont mine project in Southern Arizona, this paper explores the links between environmental regulations—the public response—and sustainable mining—the private response for balancing growth and environmental conservation. Since the 1990s, public participation in environmental issues has been promoted and is at the core of both public and private responses to environmental debates. We therefore analyze the public comments produced during the National Environmental Protection Act process which conditions the opening of the Rosemont mine. We ran a multiple correspondence analysis to determine who are the stakeholders involved in the definition of environmental regulations and sustainable mining and what their positions in the social spaces are. The results show a prominent role of science and expertise in the process which lead to the professionalization of the environmental debate; among those professionals, we can distinguish two groups that tend to shape Arizona political chessboard, pro-growth and anti-growth, but even though they failed to set up a compromise either through environmental regulations or sustainable mining, they seem to share a common vision of nature: a nature to domesticate—whether through productive or recreational activities—and the sharing vision of the American southwest desert and its specific lifestyle.

Keywords

Environmental laws Sustainable mining Public participation Arizona 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was (co)funded by the Labex DRIIHM, the French program "Investissements d'Avenir" (ANR-11-LABX-0010) which is managed by the National Agency for Research (ANR).

References

  1. Bakker K (2003) Archipelagos and networks: urbanization and water privatization in the south. Geogr J 169(4):328–341.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0016-7398.2003.00097.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballard C, Banks G (2003) Resource wars: the anthropology of mining. Annu Rev Anthropol 32(1):287–313.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bebbington A, Bury J (2009) Institutional challenges for mining and sustainability in Peru. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(41):17296–17301.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906057106
  4. Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Washington DC. Resources for the FutureGoogle Scholar
  5. Benites-Gambirazio E (2016) The social logic of urban sprawl: Arizona cities under environmental pressure in Poupeau et al. (eds) Water bankruptcy in the land of plenty, 121Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu P (1999) Une révolution conservatrice dans l’édition. ARSS 126(1):3–28.  https://doi.org/10.3406/arss.1999.3278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bridge G (2004) Mapping the bonanza: geographies of mining investment in an era of neoliberal reform. Prof Geogr 56-3:406–421.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.2004.05603009.x Google Scholar
  8. Brion DJ (1991) Essential industry and the NIMBY phenomenon. Quorum Books, WestportGoogle Scholar
  9. Budds J (2009) Contested H2O: science, policy and politics in water resources management in Chile. Geoforum 40:418–430.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.12.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Budds J, Linton J (2014) The hydrosocial cycle: defining and mobilizing a relational-dialectical approach to water. Geoforum 57:170–180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke JN, Gerlak A (1998) Environmental racism in the Sunbelt? A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Environ Manag 22:857–867.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Culhane PJ (2013) Public lands politics: interest group influence on the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Abingdon-on-Thames. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daneke G, Garcia M, Priscolin J (1983) Public involvement and social impact assessment. Westview Press, BouldereGoogle Scholar
  14. Dear M (1992) Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. J Am Plan Assoc 58(3):288–300.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeBano LH, Folliott PH, Ortega-Rubio A, Gottfried GJ, Hamre RH, Edminster CB (1995) Biodiversity and management of the madrean archipelago: the sky islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-264. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort CollinsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Devlin JF, Yap NT (2008) Contentious politics in environmental assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 26(1):17–27.  https://doi.org/10.3152/146155108X279939
  17. Dietz T, Stern PC (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Duncan CM, Mainhagu J, Virgone K, Ramírez DM, Brusseau ML (2017) Application of phytoscreening to three hazardous waste sites in Arizona. Sci Total Environ 609:951–955.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferguson C (2015) “This is our land”: grassroots environmentalism in the late-twentieth century. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer F (1993) Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: from theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sci 26(3):165–187. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4532286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fowler DD (2000) A laboratory for anthropology: Science and romanticism in the American Southwest, 1846–1930. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Giddings B, Hopwood B, O'Brien G (2002) Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustain Dev 10(4):187–196.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glucker AN, Driessen PP, Kolhoff A, Runhaar HA (2013) Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environ Impact Assess Rev 43:104–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Godoy R (1985) Mining: anthropological perspectives. Annu Rev Anthropol 14:199–217.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.14.100185.001215
  25. Hanchey JR (1998) Public involvement and dispute resolution. A reader of ten years experience at the Institute for Water Resources. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  26. Harvey D (2003) The new imperialism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Himley M (2013) Regularizing extraction in Andean Peru: mining and social mobilization in an age of corporate social responsibility. Antipode 45(2):394–416.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01001.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. HudBay (2014) Annual and CSR report. HudBay, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  29. Hyde CK (1998) Copper for America, the United States copper industry from colonial times to the 1990s. The University of Arizona Press, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  30. Kraft ME (2015) Environmental policy and politics. University of Wisconsin. PearsonGoogle Scholar
  31. Lafaye C, Thévenot L (1993) Une justification écologique ? Conflits dans l’aménagement de la nature. Rev Fr Sociol 34–4:495–524.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3321928 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laird FN (1993) Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Sci Technol Hum Values 18(3):341–361.  https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399301800305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lambert IB (2001) Mining and sustainable development: considerations for minerals supply. Nat Res Forum 25(4):275–284.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2001.tb00769.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Larkin M (2009) Labor’s desert: Mexican workers, unions and entrepreneurial conservatism in Arizona, 1917–1972. Dissertation for PhD in history, South Bend, University of Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  35. Lebaron F (1997) La dénégation du pouvoir [Le champ des économistes français au milieu des années 1990]. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 119-1:3–26.  https://doi.org/10.3406/arss.1997.3226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lorrain D, Poupeau F (2016) Introduction: what do the protagonists of the water sector do? In: Lorrain D, Poupeau F (eds) Water regimes: beyond the public and private sector debate. Earthscan, Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames, pp 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCarthy J (2002) First World political ecology: lessons from the wise use movement. Environ Plan A 34-7:1281–1302.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a3526 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Media World Bank Data Bank (2014) Databases: “Global Economic Monitor Commodities”, URL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=global-economic-monitorcommodities
  39. Miller C (2012) Public lands, public debates: a century of controversy. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  40. Morgan RK (2012) Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(1):5–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.661557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murphy J, Gouldson A (2000) Environmental policy and industrial innovation: integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation. Geoforum 31(1):33–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00042-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nash R (1964) Wilderness and the American mind. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  43. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2017) National Climate Report: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201713
  44. O'Faircheallaigh C (2010) Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30-1:19–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perreault T (2014) Minería, agua y justicia social en los Andes. Experiencias comparativas de Perú y Bolivia. Lima Justicia Hídrica PIEBGoogle Scholar
  46. Petts J (2003) Barriers to deliberative participation in EIA: learning from waste policies, plans and projects. JEAPM 5-3:269–293.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333203001358 Google Scholar
  47. Poole R (2016) A corpus-aided ecological discourse analysis of the Rosemont Copper Mine debate of Arizona, USA. Discourse Commun 10(6):576–595.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316674775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poupeau F, Gupta H, Serrat-Capdevila A, Sans-Fuentes MA, Harris S, Hayde LG (eds) (2016) Water bankruptcy in the land of plenty. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  49. Pretty JN, Bass S, Dalal-Clayton B (1995) Environmental planning issues 7. International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Brusseau ML, Artiola JF, Maier RM (2013) A greenhouse and field-based study to determine the accumulation of arsenic in common homegrown vegetables grown in mining-affected soils. Sci Total Environ 443:299–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reeds MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosemont Plan of Operation, 2007, Done for Augusta resources corporation by Westland resources Inc. URL: http://www.savethesantacruzaquifer.info/rosemontplan2007.pdf
  53. Rosner U (1998) Effects of historical mining activities on surface water and groundwater - an example from northwest Arizona. Environ Geol 33:224–230.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ross A (2011) Bird on fire: lessons from the world’s least sustainable city. Oxford Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  55. Rouanet H, Leroux B (2010) Multiple correspondence analysis. Paris sage: series quantitative applications in the social sciencesGoogle Scholar
  56. Seager R, Ting M, Held I, Kushnir Y, Lu J, Vecchi G, Huang HP, Harnik N, Leetma A, Lau NC, Li C, Velez J, Naik N (2007) Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 316(5828):1181–1184.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sheridan TE (2001) Cows, condos, and the contested commons: the political ecology of ranching on the Arizona-Sonora borderlands. Hum Organ 60(2):141–152. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.60.2.991hqu9q6ryf5aavGoogle Scholar
  58. Sheridan TE (2012) Arizona: a history. University of Arizona Press, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  59. Sonnichsen CL (1987) Tucson: the life and times of an American city. University of Oklahoma Press, NormanGoogle Scholar
  60. Sullivan T (2014) Environmental law handbook. Bernan Press, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  61. Swyngedouw E (2004) Social power and the urbanization of water: flows of power. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  62. Swyngedouw E (2009) The political economy and political ecology of the hydro-social cycle. JCWRE 142:56–60.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2009.00054.x Google Scholar
  63. Talpin J (2016) Améliorer le quartier ou changer la société ? À propos de deux expériences contrastées de community organizing à l’échelle californienne. Mouvements 85:129–137.  https://doi.org/10.3917/mouv.085.0129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Taylor DE (2016) The rise of the American conservation movement, power, privilege and environmental protection. Durham and London Duke University PressGoogle Scholar
  65. Valance N (2012) Not your father’s mine: the Rosemont Copper Mine and dry stack tailings. Ariz. J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 3–29:30–45. https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Valance+N+%282012%29+Not+your+father%E2%80%99s+mine%3A+The+Rosemont+Copper+Mine+and+dry+stack+tailings.+Arizona+Journal+of+Environmental+Law+and+Policy%+29%3A+30-45.&btnG=Google Scholar
  66. Van Tatenhove J, Leroy P (2003) Environment and participation in a context of political modernisation. Environ Values 12(2):155–174.  https://doi.org/10.3197/096327103129341270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vos H, Boelens R, Bustamente R (2006) Formal law and local water control in the Andean region: a fiercely contested field. Water Resour Dev 22-1:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. WCED (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Wexler MN (1996) A sociological framing of the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) syndrome. Int Rev Mod Sociol 91–110. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41421101
  70. Wondolleck JM (2013) Public lands conflict and resolution: managing national forest disputes. Springer Science & Business, New-YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Worster D (1992) Under Western Skies. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Yakovleva N (2005) Corporate social responsibility in the mining industries. Corporate social responsibility series. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  73. Zuniga-Teran A, Fisher L, Meixner T (2017) State of the watershed: using indicators and adaptive management to sustain one of the last perennial streams in southern Arizona, International Water Security Network, blog post on 15th, May 2017. http://www.watersecuritynetwork.org/state-of-the-watershed-using-indicators-and-adaptive-management-to-sustain-one-of-the-last-perennial-streams-in-southern-arizona/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Recherche et de Documentation des Amériques (CREDA, 7227, CNRS/Paris3)Observatoire Homme-Milieu Pima County (OHMI)ParisFrance
  2. 2.Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, OHMI Pima County (EVS 5600)LyonFrance
  3. 3.Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre de Recherche et de Documentation sur les Amériques (CREDA 7227), CNRS/Paris 3, OHMI Pima CountyParisFrance
  4. 4.Université Montpellier 3 Paul Valéry (Art-Dev 5281)MontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations