Member since Nov 3, 2009



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “The Skinny

I sure do appreciate your excellent attention to details and unwinding the election mystery for us.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by NanFree on 11/14/2012 at 9:26 AM

Re: “Choice Politics

Could someone please explain why those who oppose abortion are the same ones who want to cut back government aid to the needy?

And Pammy, you are right about Camona. Will Arizonans take this wonderful opportunity to have a live, thinking, honest senator in Congress representing us??

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by NanFree on 08/30/2012 at 11:25 AM

Re: “We Call B.S.

WOW--I think this is the most straight-forward, best-researched news story about government I've ever read!
Thank you for your hard work and clear communication.
And that's no bullshit...

8 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by NanFree on 08/23/2012 at 8:49 PM

Re: “Stop This Mine

From the following, it is clear that the 1872 Mining Law does not enable this Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine project and it is fallacious to insinuate that it does.
Would you guys please read the 1872 mining law that we keep blaming for everything!!

The 1872 mining states:

Claimants are to be citizens of United States :

CHAP. CL. II --- As Act to promote the Development of the mining Resources of the Untied States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners, in the several mining-districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States .

The size of the claim is limited:

Sec.2. That mining-claims upon veins or lodes of quarts or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper, or other valuable deposits heretofore located, shall be governed as to length along the vein or lode by the customs, regulations, and laws in force at the date of their location. A mining-claim located after the passage of this act, whether located by one or more persons, may equal, but not exceed, one thousand five hundred feet in length along the vein or lode; but no location of a mining-claim shall be made until the discovery of the vein or lode within the limits of the claim located. No claim shall exceed more than three hundred feet on each side of the Middle of the vein at the surface, nor shall any claim be limited by any mining regulation to less then twenty five feet on each side of the middle of the vein at the surface, except where adverse rights existing at the passage of this act shall render such limitation necessary. The end-lines of each claim shall be paralleled to each other.

The non-mineral land that is used for milling, etc. can be patented, but it is not to exceed five acres per claim.

FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. II Ch. 152. 1872. 96

Sec. 15. That where non-mineral land not contiguous to the vein or lode is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for mining or milling purposes , such non-adjacent surface ground may be embraced and included in an application for a patent for such vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith , subject to the same preliminary requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable under this act to veins or lodes : Provided, That no location hereafter made of such non-adjacent land shall exceed five acres , and payment for the same must be made at the same rate as fixed by this act for the superficies of the lode. The owner of a quartz-mill or reduction-works, not owning a mine in connection therewith, may also receive a patent for his mill-site, as provided in this section.


The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 USC 29 and 43 CFR 3860, provides the successful mining claimant the right to patent (acquire absolute title to the land) mining claims or sites if they meet the statutory requirements. To meet this requirement, the successful claimant must:

For mining claims, demonstrate a physical exposure of a valuable (commercial) mineral deposit (the discovery) as defined by meeting the Department's Prudent Man Rule and Marketability Test.
For mill sites, show proper use or occupancy for uses to support a mining operation and be located on non-mineral land.
Have clear title to the mining claim (lode or placer) or mill site.
Have assessment work and/or maintenance fees current and performed at least $500 worth of improvements (not labor) for each claim (not required for mill sites).
Meet the requirements of the Department's regulations for mineral patenting as shown in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 3861, 3862, 3863, and 3864.
Pay the required processing fees and purchase price for the land applied for.…
From the 1872 Mining Law, we find four discrepancies with the current Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine project:

1) Augusta Resource Directors and stockholders are not U. S. Citizens.

2) It is clear that the mining claim for the individual prospector is limited.

3) Land intended for milling, etc. is to be patented.

4) Patented land intended for milling, etc. should not exceed five acres.

In addition, the BLM website outlines statutory regulations that would nullify any permitting of the Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine Mine project.

1) The company does not have clear title to the mill site. It is required by 1872 mining law that the land be patented by purchase.

2) The company must have done assessment work and/or maintenance fees of at least $500 for the life of the claim. Therefore, these claims were null and void at the time of their purchase from ASARCO. The records that show that Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine has fulfilled this obligation on all their claims must be shown—except for 5 acres allowed for mill sites.

3) The company has not paid the required processing fees and purchase price for the land they have applied for to be used as waste and tailings dumps.

17 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by NanFree on 02/23/2012 at 11:26 AM

Re: “Stop This Mine

You guys are forgetting the one major point--this is our National Forests, which were created from timber production and watershed. neither the original purpose or the multi-use criteria include mining. 33,000 mature trees, many of the old-growth oaks with be destroyed, eliminating watershed, wildlife habitat, and urban recreation possibilities.
We have planty of wastelands in Arizona to obtain copper--but of course it is not free land like the 900 acres of patented land where the pit will be and 3,600 acres of unpatented land.

31 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by NanFree on 02/23/2012 at 10:25 AM

Re: “Downing

I swear I have not read a comprehensive review of Rio Nuevo during the last 3 years--only scraps that made me realize I did not have a clue of what was going on. Thank you for the lucid, clear scenario.... now I get it.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by NanFree on 12/08/2011 at 10:14 PM

Re: “Battered State

thank you for the comprehensive report. It is hard to keep up with the chicanery. I ran into Antelori in the lobby of the House last year. When I told him we had just had a wake to lament the demise of the Tucson branch of Arizona Dept. of Water Resources. He pooped the suggestion. He said they were not closing the office; they were just moving it to Phoenix. Result: every single staff of Tucson office was let go, except one. She did have to move to Phoenix, and she is working on another project--not Tucson related. But revenge will come: Antenori does not know there are some slime-bag that can out do him. When Karl Poland of Robson Homes wrote the Groundwater Replenishment District legislation that effectively allowed development to skirt the sustainable rules of AZ statute, he did not even write in a word that the developers should help pay even a dime to bring water to their development.... so who has to pay? The innocent, unsuspecting homeowners. Of course, Antenori is not smart enough to figure it out--but Vail will be a seriously targeted area. His water bill will skyrock with CAP water prices (well that's another horror story*). Further, his kids are in Vail public schools--what kind of education will they get? This guy does not even have enough sense to take care of his own!!
*CAP, though ADD water, tried to get Phoenix's rights to ag water (that's another story) in McMullan and Butler Valley for their GRD oblications. They were going to drain the aquifers there even though GRD water specifically states the replacement water has to be from a renewable source, ie. Colorado River. (How we stopped that scheme is another story!) Next project on the CAP/GRD agenda is turning the Sea of Cortez into Dead Sea II with a de-sal and nuclear power plant at Rocky Point. What's that going to cost the water users in Tucson?? (Remember, Phoenix does not have the water problems we do--they have Saltwater Project and a half-dozen resevoirs that also serve for fishing and recreation--and all those man-made lakes.) However, the Mexican Government is balking. Can they make more money from tourism at Rocky Point than bribes??? Probably!!!

Signing off, the lady who knows too much

Posted by NanFree on 05/12/2011 at 10:50 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2019 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation