iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Grand Canyon Uranium Mining Halted

Grand Canyon

JOAN LOWY and FELICIA FONSECA   07/20/09 08:45 PM ET   AP

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — Thousands of mining claims dot 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says his department has a responsibility to ensure those resources are developed in a way that protects communities, treasured landscapes and watersheds.

The Interior Department announced Monday that it is barring the filing of new mining claims, including for uranium, on the acreage for two years. Meanwhile, his department will study whether the land should be permanently withdrawn from mining activity.

"Over the next two years, we will gather the best science and input from the public, members of Congress, tribes and stakeholders, and we will thoughtfully evaluate whether these lands should be withdrawn from new mining claims for a longer period of time," Salazar said in a statement.

Environmentalists applauded the decision, while some members of Congress and the mining industry said it would cost jobs and further harm the economy.

The land being set aside covers 633,547 acres under the control of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and 360,002 acres in Kaibab National Forest.

The protections offered by the Interior Department won't affect uranium mining claims already filed. It's not possible to prevent existing claims from being developed under the General Mining Act of 1872 unless Congress appropriates money for the department to buy them.

The announcement comes ahead of Tuesday's congressional hearing on a bill to set aside more than 1 million acres of federal lands north and south of the canyon. The bill's sponsor, Democratic U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, and environmental groups had been looking to Salazar for temporary protections at the Grand Canyon while the legislation is pending.

The announcement drew an immediate objection from the mining industry. National Mining Association Vice President Luke Popovich said current laws and regulations are effective for protecting the environment from mining activity.

"So this decision appears on its face to be wholly unjustified and even dumbfounding in view of the near 10 percent jobless rate," Popovich said.

Environmentalists, who contend mining leaves the Grand Canyon vulnerable to environmental damage, praised the decision but said that permanent protection is the goal.

"This decisive action to protect the Grand Canyon sends an important signal that President (Barack) Obama is committed to prioritizing the public interest when it comes to managing America's natural resources," said Jane Danowitz, U.S. public lands program director at the Pew Environment Group.

There are as many as 10,000 existing mining claims on BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands near the Grand Canyon for all types of hard-rock exploration. Some 1,100 uranium mining claims are within five miles of the Grand Canyon National Park.

Most of the claims for uranium are staked in the Arizona Strip, a sparsely populated area immediately north of the Grand Canyon National Park known for its high-grade uranium ore.

Operations in the area ceased some 20 years ago, when the price plummeted for uranium used for nuclear energy, weapons and medicine. With prices now around $55 a pound because of renewed interest in nuclear energy, the industry is eyeing restarting operations.

Toronto-based Denison Mines Corp. is about a year away from mining at a site about 20 miles from the canyon's northern border if it secures an air permit with Arizona state officials. A public hearing is being held this week.

The Interior Department under President George W. Bush was unresponsive to efforts to ban new uranium mining claims. The House Natural Resources Committee invoked a little-used rule to stop any new claims for up to three years, but Interior officials refused to recognize the action and continued to authorize additional mining claims.

A coalition of environmental groups sued, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management later rescinded Congress' right to withdraw lands from mining and other activities in emergencies.

Since then, environmentalists and Grijalva have been hanging their hopes on Salazar for temporary protections.

Any companion bill to Grijalva's in the Senate is unlikely to come from Arizona's two U.S. senators. Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl told Grijalva in a letter last month that adequate protections already exist.

___

Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy reported from Washington.

__

On the Net:

http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-17293(underscore)PI.pdf

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by Katherine Goldstein  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 301
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
03:06 PM on 07/21/2009
WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
01:12 PM on 07/21/2009
Please refer to Dr. Helen Caldicott's web page for a wealth of information on the dangers of uranium mining. IF YOU LOVE THIS PLANET stop all uranium mining now.

HelenCaldicott.com
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
urweatherman
01:36 AM on 07/21/2009
How about no more construction anywhere? Building of any kind ruins the landscape and has possible environmental impact. No new houses or roadways unless others are cleaned up! For those advocating solar power, all it takes is one bad year for volcanoes and we are all screwed!
11:38 AM on 07/21/2009
BioFuels can supply our energy needs till the sun comes back. rooftop solar does no environmental damage. rooftop solar is the cheapest electricity you can buy at 3 cents per kwh. see my profile.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BradSmith
12:21 PM on 07/21/2009
So how do you produce all these solar panels without haveing an impact on the environment?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
12:38 AM on 07/21/2009
Why can't everyone make their own energy with solar and wind and algae fueled generators? Why can't we have net metering everywhere so people can share energy so that there is an endless supply? Then we don't need coal or uranium. Now, if the government has to subsidize other energy producers, why not subsidize individuals who convert their homes into generators of power to share with others? We can call it US infrastructure and it helps to keep this country going for everyone. Take out the middle man. We don't need him. And it is clean and it will provide American jobs, as long as we don't put illegal immigrants to work on this, so it has to be regulated to prevent that and that would be okay too
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BradSmith
03:31 AM on 07/21/2009
"why not subsidize individuals who convert their homes into generators of power to share with others"? Actually they already do. And the reason it's a bad idea is that the government is subsidizing with money they have stolen from someone who may or may not be involved. Sharing or bartering with your neighbors is great but please keep the government out they will only steal as much as they can and then where are you? Right back where you started right?
11:44 AM on 07/21/2009
tax pollution 1$ per carbon ton equivalent. Polluters of the commons, SHOULD pay, right?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
12:10 PM on 07/21/2009
See, I don't have this knee jerk thing about the government. If the people get involved in the governing more, which they have since the Bush catastrophe, then things go much better. The government is the only way to get this going. Corporations are largely far less worthy of trust and they are not good at stuff like this. Churches are controversial. Even if an organization like Habitat for the Humanities was used, it would still have to have government backing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Organic-Guy
Organic Gardener, Carpenter, Philosopher, Agitator
10:50 PM on 07/20/2009
The General Mining Act of 1872? Maybe we need a new one.
05:57 PM on 07/20/2009
Any new mining permit should require that an old mine be cleaned up.

Yep, if you want to mine anything, you have to find a closed, or abandoned, mine to clean up (restore, make safe, etc.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
07:59 PM on 07/20/2009
I vote for ending the mining. It is far too destructive, especially mountaintop removal. But then using what is mined ends up a problem as well. There is no way presently to clean it up.
08:04 PM on 07/20/2009
It doesn't have to be that bad...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf27.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
patianneb
toothed night fury
05:22 PM on 07/20/2009
Thank you.
04:46 PM on 07/20/2009
No one lives in the Grand Canyon? The Havasupai have lived there for centuries.

And there is one additional feature that millions of people depend on - the Colorado River which drains the entire Grand Canyon and the surrounding plateau. Downstream, the water goes to Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Tucson and Mexico.

Uranium mining could have a great effect throughout the desert SW.
03:12 PM on 07/20/2009
YAAAAAAY!!!!
02:58 PM on 07/20/2009
Good!, Nukes are Insane. ANY reactor work promotes proliferation.

Nukes can't even pay their own insurance, the Taxpayers yet again insure the catastrophic events that WILL happen if we continue nuke power.

Solar is ready NOW!
3 cents per KWH
1.85 per peak watt! retail!
http://www.atensolar.com/14.html
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
see my profile for more links and details.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:45 PM on 07/20/2009
France, arguably the most advanced user of nuclear power, can't even solve the spent fuel problem. As a matter of fact, the reprocessed fuel is even more insidious than the original. I don't quite get what all the clamor is about. Until the problem of spent fuel is resolved, it remains just another unresolved problem.

Jump right in here, neocons, and tell us why I've got it all wrong.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:47 PM on 07/20/2009
As long as the French have an African dictator willing to take a bribe, they know where to dump their radioactive waste and there is no problem at all, ask Sarko... ;)
07:51 PM on 07/20/2009
Not a neocon...

Sweden is addressing the problem...

http://www.thelocal.se/19824/20090602/
08:14 PM on 07/20/2009
The insurance claim is a canard.

A newspaper - The Age - published a short letter saying "Insurance companies, I believe, won't touch nuclear power stations. Could there be a more eloquent statement of doubt from a capitalist institution?"
To which the reply: your correspondent (25/11/06) "is wrong in believing that insurers will not touch nuclear power stations. In fact, wherever they are available to private sector insurers, Western-designed nuclear installations are sought-after business because of their high engineering and risk management standards. This has been the case for fifty years."

Much more...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html
02:39 PM on 07/20/2009
The government intervening yet again to stifle enterprise. Good thing they are cancelling at least 2 years of drilling....meaning that is x amount of more jobs lost under the Obama administration. Way to go greenies. Green is socialism....one big faleshood of an agenda.

News for you people....no one lives in the Grand Canyon.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:50 PM on 07/20/2009
News for you - no one live on Mars.
04:42 PM on 07/20/2009
But the Havasupi do live in the Grand Canyon

And why not ask the Hualapai while you are at it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:50 PM on 07/20/2009
...lives...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
02:27 PM on 07/20/2009
Mining should never have been allowed in that tourist dense area. It is a health hazard to say the least. Probably people didn't know that and were not told, which demonstrates more of the secrecy of the Bush/Cheney admin. It points out once again, that under republican rule, mining interests, along with the associated energy industry and weapons industry, banks, insurance and pharmaceuticals were determining the policies of our country. They had free reign and just went crazy with power, forgoing all other concerns.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:36 PM on 07/20/2009
If you read it, 90% of the mining sites are over 5 miles from the canyon. How far away do they have to be? 10 miles? 50 miles?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
04:07 PM on 07/20/2009
Once the tailings get in the water, it will do a lot of damage and as far as particulate matter getting up in the wind, it can carry quite a distance, certainly enough to impact the tourists and apparently, people do live in that area as well. I'm sure Bush ignored the studies. That land like other National Parks was set aside for the enjoyment of tourists, not for mining. Of course, that is of little concern to Bush and Cheney and the other people who are just in it for greed appeasement.
04:44 PM on 07/20/2009
Outside of the watershed.

Jeez.

Ever been in the Grand Canyon? Do you have a clue just how valuable the springs and streams are.

Or how rare.

Or how far the water travels before it emerges from solid rock in the coolest waterfalls anywhere on earth?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bitsko
He of the smoldering eyes
02:17 PM on 07/20/2009
Rep. Raul Grijalva is an American hero.
02:22 PM on 07/20/2009
True, I wonder where Franks stand on this one - wait he's a Republican, it doesn't matter.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bitsko
He of the smoldering eyes
02:25 PM on 07/20/2009
Which Franks?
02:12 PM on 07/20/2009
I'm with kburlz, see above. There are ways to be cool yet clean, we just have to try harder.
02:01 PM on 07/20/2009
Thank you to the Obama administration.