Few places inspire like the Grand Canyon.
Not only is it a geological wonder, it's also one of the most biologically diverse national parks in the United States -- home to more than 1,000 species of plants, 76 species of mammals, 299 bird species, 41 reptiles and amphibians and 16 species of fish.
That's why it's so astonishing that some members of Congress would put this world-famous icon in jeopardy.
As early as today, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a budget rider that would halt years of work to protect the Grand Canyon and the surrounding area from dangerous uranium mining. The budget rider would prohibit the Department of the Interior from enacting a ban on new mining claims -- and mining on the vast majority of existing claims -- across 1 million acres of public land that form Grand Canyon National Park's watershed.
If the rider passes, the iconic wildlands around Grand Canyon would be dramatically transformed. Roads and mines would be built. Wildlife habitat would be destroyed. The risk of pollution in streams, creeks, seeps and springs would skyrocket. The place that millions consider a national treasure could become a radioactive industrial zone.
Unfortunately, pollution from past uranium mining already plagues springs, creeks and soil in and around Grand Canyon National Park.
Hydrologists warn that more mining would further pollute and deplete aquifers feeding Grand Canyon's springs and creeks -- pollution that would be impossible to clean up. Almost all the Grand Canyon's perennial surface water, aside from the Colorado River, comes from aquifer-fed springs; these team with life, supporting up to 500 times as many species as adjacent uplands, including rare, endemic, threatened and endangered species -- like white-flowering redbud trees, humpback chub and Kanab ambersnails.
The prospect of more uranium mining has already prompted protests, litigation and proposed legislation. Scientists, tribal and local governments, water municipalities and businesses groups have all voiced opposition to new mining.
In July 2009, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar placed a two-year moratorium on new uranium mines across 1 million acres at the Grand Canyon. Last month, he extended the ban until the end of this year and announced support for a 20-year ban as the Department's "preferred alternative" in its long-term policy for the region.
But some in Congress want to make pork of public lands by handing the Grand Canyon's watershed over to the uranium industry. Their rider would foreclose any possibility that these 1 million acres -- acres that belong to the public and are cherished for their beauty and ecological importance -- get the protection they deserve.
Left unchecked, this proposal will ultimately convert one of the most extraordinary landscapes on the planet into just one more place scarred by industrial greed and burdened with a long, polluted legacy. That's hardly a fate that befits this national treasure.
You are missing a few facts. There will actually be no mining in Grand Canyon National Park, but the federal lands around the park. If you don't want mining around the Grand Canyon, you should petition to expand the boundaries of the National Park.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) imposed a two year ban on new mining claims on more than 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon to “study” the problem “to protect the Grand Canyon watershed from adverse effects of locatable hard rock mineral exploration and mining.” This led to a 900 page Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) released in February 2011. In the DEIS, the BLM failed to prove that uranium mining has threatened the Grand Canyon, or the Colorado River Watershed, nor why this valuable resource should be locked up.
If the mining ban goes through, Arizona could lose out on an estimated 2.6 billion pounds of undiscovered uranium. According to the Acert Group, Uranium mining in Arizona could produce over 1,700 new jobs and $29.4 billion in payout over 42 years. Not to mention the US is 90% dependent on uranium imports today.
This is a decision that should be made by the local governments of Arizona, not by people who don't live near the Grand Canyon and where this ban will not affect their economy and life.
To learn facts about how mining benefits your daily life & the US economy, visit themoreyoudig.com & follow us at twitter @TheMoreYouDig.
It appears that you are missing a lot of facts. Like the fact the Uranium used in nuclear power plants remains highly radioactive for thousands of years. Or that fact that nobody will take possession of spent uranium so it is entombed on-site in nuclear plants across the country. In Vermont alone, 650 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste sits on the banks of the Connecticut River, some of it seeping into the ground water.
Or the fact that a small group of billionaires controls the mining in the US and spends millions on people like you to spread their propaganda. Or the fact that these same billionaires fund politicians such as Republican congressman Jeff Flake who try to sneak this stuff through when the country is focused on the debt ceiling crisis.
One way to put an end to Uranium mining close to national parks is to close the aging nuclear plants that use them. Please support our fight to close Vermont Yankee by clicking on the Like button at the top of our Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/CloseVermontYankee
And Izzy, get a real job...
Thank you for giving us all a redundant science lesson on uranium being radioactive. The only part of your response that needs a proper attention is the mention of the nuclear waste on the Connecticut River.
Currently, waste that is stored at the 104 plants in the U.S. would occupy about a football field, 13 55-gallon barrels high. That's not very much if you consider that nuclear energy supplies 20% of US electricity and releases no greenhouse gases. Here's a good editorial on nuclear power being safe: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/23/nuclear-power-is-extremely-safe-thats-truth-about-what-learned-from-japan/
If there is leakage, the State would know and it would be all over the media. Has this supposed contaminated ground water migrated beyond the site boundary? I cannot find any source to back up your claims, but would love to read about it if you would give me a link. Instead of attempting to belittle me with insults and ideology that has no factual basis, let's give the readers the information to make their own educated decision.
Follow us on Twitter if you want to learn facts about the benefits of mining: https://twitter.com/#!/TheMoreYouDig
Thanks for your response.