Leave it to Pima County Supervisor “Sugar” Ray Carroll to remind his fellow supes that they promised to do whatever they could to protect Davidson Canyon from mining interests after they dropped a lawsuit against the Arizona State Land Department in February. And leave it to his fellow supes to disregard Sugar Ray.

Last year, the land department had approved three mining leases in the area, including one from cement manufacturer California Portland Cement. Back in February, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry told the supes that the mining plan could still possibly be stopped, because California Portland was having trouble getting a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, an application designating Davidson Canyon as an outstanding waterway was still making its way through the state bureaucracy, which could eventually offer protections against mining.

Now Carroll is coming to the defense of community activists still reeling from the county’s July approval of a floodplain-use permit that makes way for California Portland to build a mining road through Davidson Canyon wash.

Carroll pushed for a revocation of the permit on Tuesday, Dec. 16, allowing the supervisors one more chance to show they care about protecting Davidson Canyon—and the supes voted it down.

Members of the Empire Fagan Coalition, who are fighting to save Davidson Canyon, note that earlier this month, the state approved Davidson Canyon’s outstanding water designation, and California Portland still hasn’t received its 404 permit—something they understood was required before a floodplain-use permit could be issued. They like to point out Davidson Canyon’s importance; the area southeast of Tucson near Vail is considered a major contributor to the water aquifer in the Tucson basin.

Carroll says the outstanding water designation and the lack of a 404 permit had given him hope that the county could easily revoke the permit.

This article appears in Dec 11-17, 2008.

3 replies on “Sugar Ray’s Fellow Supes Fail Davidson Canyon”

  1. Thanks again for the blog.

    Not a member of the Empire Fagan coalition, but a community supporter who understands that the necessary 404 did not need to be issued before the Floodplain Use Permit was approved and issued by Pima County. It did, however, have to be requested. It was not. That is very clear.

    The saddest thing of all is that the citizens were not allowed to present evidence.

    Here is the ordinance:

    16.20.060 Permit–Revocation.

    For failure to comply with the terms of the floodplain use permit, or, if the permit is found to not conform to the requirements of this title or another title, state or federal regulation, the County and the District shall be entitled to revoke the floodplain use permit. The Chief Engineer shall provisionally revoke the permit pending a hearing by giving written notice by registered mail or personal delivery to the applicant citing the reasons for revocation.”

    So, The Chief was there, the applicant was there, the County was there and they refused to hear our evidence for the temporary revocation.

  2. Mari: thank you for your important coverage in our efforts to save Davidson Canyon from mining by Arizona/California Portland Cement –there are many issues involved, but I would like to highlight one critically important fact.

    The posting above by “Empire Mountain Chigger” (great name, by the way) has accurately copied the Pima County code regarding revocation of county permits. However, the County Attorney’s office issued their legal interpretation at the meeting, which a majority of the board followed, that the Board of Supervisor’s had no authority to revoke the permit. Hence, Chairman Elias asserted that the topic could not be broached or dealt with by the Board, and the only action allowed was to have our constituetns wait until the end of the Board meeting to make comments at “Call to the Audience” where the Board just sits and listens and cannot respond. Yet the code cited above is clear:

    If the permit does not confirm to county requirements (of which there is much evidence to suggest, or at least consider) the code clearly states that “…the County and the District shall be entitled to revoke the floodplain use permit.”

    The Board of Supervisors is “the County” as well as being “the District” (the Supes also act as the Flood Control District Board).
    In other words, the Board unquestionably has the legal authority and every right to revoke the permit, in spite of whatever County
    Administrator Chuck Huckelberry or the County Attorney might claim.

    Although the Great American Homer Simpson once said: “facts are useless, they can be used to prove anything!” — the facts are still the facts.

    Sincerely,
    Scott Egan
    Executive Assistant to Ray Carroll
    District 4

Comments are closed.