Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

We are involved in numerous legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business or are associated with environmental issues arising from legacy operations conducted over the years by Freeport Minerals Corporation (FMC) and its affiliates. We are also involved periodically in inquiries, investigations and other proceedings initiated by or involving government agencies, some of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. Management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of any legal proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition; although individual outcomes could be material to our operating results for a particular period, depending on the nature and magnitude of the outcome and the operating results for the period. Below is a discussion of our material water rights legal proceedings. Refer to Note 12 for discussion of our other material legal proceedings.

Water Rights Legal Proceedings

Our operations in the western United States (U.S.) require significant quantities of water for mining, ore processing and related support facilities. Continuous operation of our mines is dependent on our ability to maintain our water rights and claims and the continuing physical availability of the water supplies. In the arid western U.S., water rights are often contested, and disputes over water rights are generally time-consuming, expensive and not necessarily dispositive unless they resolve both actual and potential claims. The loss of a water right, loss of continued use of a currently available water supply, or inability to expand our water resources could materially and adversely affect our mining operations by significantly increasing the cost of water, forcing us to curtail operations, preventing us from expanding operations or forcing premature closures, thereby increasing and/or accelerating costs and foregoing profitable operations.

At our North America operations, certain of our water supplies are supported by surface water rights, which give us the right to use public waters for a statutorily defined beneficial use at a designated location. In Arizona, where our operations use both surface and groundwater, we are a participant in two active general stream adjudications in which the Arizona courts have been attempting, for over 40 years, to quantify and prioritize surface water claims for two of the state's largest river systems, which affect four of our operating mines (Morenci, Safford, Sierrita and Miami). The legal precedent set in these proceedings may also affect our Bagdad mine. The adjudications are addressing the state law claims of thousands of competing users, including us, as well as very significant federally based water claims of U.S. interests in Arizona that are potentially adverse to the claims of surface water and groundwater users under state law. Groundwater is treated differently from surface water under Arizona law, which historically allowed land owners to pump at will, subject to the doctrine of reasonable use. However, court decisions in one of the adjudications have concluded that groundwater pumping may affect surface water, thereby effectively making it surface water and bringing the pumping within the jurisdiction of the general stream adjudications. The effort to define the boundaries between groundwater and surface water remains contested and is currently the principal focus of one of those adjudications. Because groundwater accounts for approximately 40 percent of Arizona's water supplies, the re-characterization of any significant portion of that water as surface water could jeopardize the ability of consumers, farmers, ranchers, municipalities, and industrial users like us, to continue to access water supplies that have been relied on for decades. Additionally, the adjudication court is currently addressing the quantification of several U.S. federal water rights claims. The legal precedent in these proceedings may affect the adjudication of federal water right claims near our Arizona operations. Because we are a significant user of both groundwater and surface water in Arizona, we are an active participant in the adjudication proceedings.

In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Little Colorado Water System and Sources, Apache County, Superior Court, No. 6417, filed on or about February 17, 1978. The principal parties, in addition to us, include: the state of Arizona; the Salt River Project; the Arizona Public Service Company; the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Indian Tribe; the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe; and the U.S. on behalf of those tribes, on its own behalf, and on behalf of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. This case involves adjudication of water rights claims, including federal claims, in the Little Colorado River watershed.

In Re The General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Sources, Maricopa County, Superior Court, Cause Nos. W-1 (Salt), W-2 (Verde), W-3 (Upper Gila), and W-4 (San Pedro). This case was originally initiated in 1974 with the filing of a petition with the Arizona State Land Department and was consolidated and transferred to the Maricopa County Superior Court in 1981. The principal parties, in addition to us, include: the state of Arizona; the Gila Valley Irrigation District; the Franklin Irrigation District; the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District; the Salt River Project; the San Carlos Apache Tribe; the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC); and the U.S. on behalf of those tribes, on its own behalf, and on behalf of the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the

Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and the Payson Community of Yavapai Apache Indians.

Prior to January 1, 1983, various Indian tribes filed suits in the U.S. District Court in Arizona claiming superior rights to water being used by many other water users, including us, and claiming damages for prior use in derogation of their allegedly superior rights. These federal proceedings have been stayed pending the Arizona Superior Court adjudications.

The Maricopa County Superior Court issued a decision in 2005 in the Gila River adjudication that directed the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to prepare detailed recommendations regarding the delineation of the “sub-flow” zone of the San Pedro River basin, a tributary of the Gila River. According to the court, the sub-flow zone is the subsurface area adjacent to the river where the court may find that groundwater is connected to the surface water such that groundwater pumping may reduce surface flows in violation of rights of holders of surface water rights. Although we have minimal interests in the San Pedro River basin, a decision that re-characterizes groundwater in that basin as surface water may set a precedent for other river systems in Arizona that could have material implications for many commercial, industrial, municipal and agricultural users of groundwater, including our Arizona operations.

ADWR produced its recommendations in June 2009 which were objected to by numerous parties. Following a three-day hearing held in January 2012, the court directed ADWR to submit a further report detailing the additional work it deemed necessary to properly delineate the San Pedro River basin subflow zone. On January 10, 2013, the court issued an order instructing ADWR to complete additional technical work and submit a new report. ADWR submitted its revised report on April 1, 2014, and on October 1, 2014, the parties submitted their comments to the revised report. Also on October 1, 2014, as directed by the court, ADWR submitted a proposal for the next projects that ADWR believes should be undertaken in the case. Among these next projects is the development of procedures for "cone of depression" analyses in the San Pedro River watershed to determine whether a well located outside of the subflow zone creates a cone of depression that intersects the subflow zone and causes a 0.1 foot or greater drawdown in the subflow of the river. Based on the cone of depression analyses, wells outside of the subflow zone could be determined by the court to be subject to the jurisdiction of the adjudication court, which may require the owners of those wells to either demonstrate a valid surface water claim to support such pumping or potentially be subject to compliance or damages claims. On November 6, 2014, the court held a hearing to address the parties’ comments to ADWR’s revised report and to discuss ADWR’s proposal for next projects. During that hearing, ADWR agreed to provide additional information to the parties by February 13, 2015, to facilitate better evaluation of ADWR’s methodologies and decision-making resulting in the revised report. Given the legal and technical complexity of this adjudication, its long history, and its long-term legal, economic and political implications, it is difficult to predict the timing or the outcome of this issue or of the overall adjudication. If we are unable to satisfactorily resolve the issues being addressed in this adjudication, our ability to pump groundwater could be diminished or curtailed, and our operations at Morenci, Safford, Sierrita, Miami and Bagdad could be adversely affected.

As part of the Gila River adjudication, the U.S. has asserted numerous claims for federal non-Indian reserved surface water and groundwater rights throughout Arizona. These claims are based on reservations of federal land for specific purposes (e.g., national parks, military bases and wilderness areas). Unlike state law-based water rights, federal reserved water rights are not based on a history of beneficial use of specific amounts of water. Instead, these rights are given priority in the prior appropriation system based on the date the land was reserved, not the date that water was first used on the land. As a result, these federal water rights can be very disruptive to existing state law-based water rights and uses, particularly groundwater uses.

Because federal reserved water rights have not been quantified, the task of determining how much water each federal reservation may use has been left to the Gila River adjudication court. Several “contested cases” to quantify reserved water rights for particular federal reservations are currently pending in the adjudication. In multiple instances, the U.S. asserts a right to all water in a particular watershed that was not effectively appropriated under state law prior to the reservation. This creates risks for both surface water users and groundwater users because such claims can severely impede current and future uses of water within the same watershed.

Federal reserved rights present additional risks to water users aside from the significant quantities of water claimed by the U.S. Of particular significance, federal reserved rights enjoy greater protection from groundwater pumping than is accorded to state law-based water rights.

Because there are numerous federal reservations in watersheds across Arizona, the reserved water right claims of the U.S. pose a significant risk to multiple operations, including Morenci and Safford in the Upper Gila River watershed, Sierrita in the Santa Cruz watershed, and Bagdad in the Bill Williams River watershed. Although the Bill Williams watershed is not part of the Gila River adjudication, decisions made in the Gila River adjudication may be asserted as precedents for similar federal claims in the Bill Williams watershed. Because federal reserved water rights may adversely affect water uses at each of these operations, we have been actively involved in litigation over these claims.