I am not opposed to development of mining. I am opposed to the plan to transport of the mined product to the cement plant via the only road from Skull Valley to Prescott. Rail transport should be used.
If the economics of the mine do not support the cost necessary to construct/maintain/upgrade the rail line, then so be it. The mine is not economically feasible and should not go forward.
If the mine is only economically feasible by inflicting economic/social/environmental cost on the local people/water supply/roads, then it should not go forward.
This is akin to allowing a manufacturing plant to be built despite its plan to dump its heavy metal waste into the adjacent river, on the argument that the plant provides for economic development but cannot not afford to manage its waste in any other fashion.
No, no, no on allowing Kirkland Mine to keep its operating costs low by ruining that beautiful and nicely maintained stretch of road, and degrading the lives of the people who live in and travel through that area.