In the village of La Lima, Guatemala, Elda Dinora Ramírez, 58, gazes at a small well located behind her residence. Dust-covered wooden boards cover the opening, hiding the faint shimmer of water deep beneath the surface. “The well is drying up again,” she observes.
Ramírez lives less than a mile from Era Dorada, a gold mining initiative that was taken over by the Canadian company Aura Minerals in January 2025. Following a period of dormancy, the project was revitalized this year when the Guatemalan government issued a construction permit to Aura.
The site originally began exploration in 1997 under Entre Mares, a subsidiary of Goldcorp, and has experienced considerable opposition throughout its nearly three-decade history.
Residents like Ramírez reported water shortages after excavation started in 2007, attributing the depletion to the mine’s extraction of large volumes of geothermal water that filled the tunnels during digging.
“The machinery they use taps into deep sources; they extract all the water, and the springs run dry,” she explains.
The mining project was put on hold in 2013 due to unfavorable market conditions, but water extraction from the site continued in subsequent years.
While operations were paused, local residents noted a recovery in their well water levels. The project, previously known as Cerro Blanco, was sold by Goldcorp to Bluestone Resources, based in Vancouver, in 2017. In 2021, Bluestone proposed a controversial plan to transform the site into an open-pit mine.
The following year, a community referendum in the nearby town of Asunción Mita resulted in a strong rejection of the proposal, with 88% of voters opposing it.
“It was a significant victory for the community,” remarks Yony Barrera, 51, a hardware store owner in Asunción Mita and vice-president of an activist group opposing the mine.
In 2024, the newly elected Guatemalan government revoked the environmental license for Bluestone’s open-pit mining project, just a few months after it was approved by the previous government. However, activists expressed concern that the project would not remain inactive indefinitely.
“I knew this wouldn’t be the end,” Barrera states. “This will only cease when they take the gold.”
Currently, the mining site is abuzz with activity. Heavy machinery moves past the rusted barbed wire demarcating the site, raising clouds of dust. Workers in hard hats and blue uniforms gather at the entrance.
The company anticipates an annual gold production of 111,000 ounces during the initial four years of operation. Aura has stated that industrial activities have not yet commenced, though construction and site preparation efforts are underway, with vegetation clearance authorized under its license and being conducted within the limits set by the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
“They are making rapid progress,” says Arnulfo Díaz, 43. “At the same time, we are heading toward our own destruction.”
Díaz was part of the excavation team in 2008 under Entre Mares and suffered an injury that left him deaf in one ear. He worries that the mine’s resurgence may have broader implications for his community.
“We fear losing access to water,” he states. “Where will we go?”
Ramírez reports that the impacts are already noticeable. Since the project’s reactivation in January, her well has been drying up, her fruit trees are failing due to drought, and her livestock are experiencing respiratory issues she attributes to dust from the mining operations.
Aura Minerals has assured that measures are in place to control dust at the site and claims that monitoring has not indicated any negative impact on air quality thus far.
Aura also states that it is committed to approaching the project with a renewed emphasis on sustainability, promising to develop it as an underground mine following over 1,000 hours of discussions with local communities. In a company statement, Aura’s president and CEO, Rodrigo Barbosa, highlighted plans for a water purification facility and the use of entirely recycled water.
Aura plans to recycle the water used in industrial processes in a closed-loop system with no discharge and to treat excess natural water from the mine to a drinkable standard for local residents. The company also emphasizes ongoing water quality monitoring both upstream and downstream of the operation, claiming that hydrogeological studies show no evidence of decreased water availability for local communities.
Despite these assurances, activists argue that the environmental safeguards in place are insufficient to mitigate the project’s adverse effects.
Opponents of Era Dorada contend that the project continues to operate under a contentious Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that was approved in 2007.
A 2023 report from the Central American Alliance Against Mining (Acafremin) indicates that experts from Guatemala’s Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources rejected the EIA in 2004 and 2005, but those experts were replaced, and the new head of the unit approved the EIA shortly thereafter.
Julio González from the Guatemalan environmental organization Madre Selva and other activists argue that these changes reveal past corruption and criticize the EIA for overlooking critical environmental factors, including the safe disposal of cyanide, a highly toxic chemical frequently utilized in mining operations.
