How strong is the market for uranium? Is nuclear energy a key component of the nation's energy future? How many jobs would be created by allowing mining of uranium around the Grand Canyon National Park?
Those are some of the questions to be asked as the House of Representatives moves, possibly as soon as Monday, to vote on a measure that would prevent Interior Secretary Ken Salazar from placing a moratorium on new mining claims on some 1 million acres surrounding the national park.
Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake put a rider on the Interior Department's appropriations bill to tie the Interior secretary's hands.
"Uranium mining outside of Grand Canyon National Park can create jobs and stimulate the economy in northern Arizona without jeopardizing the splendor and natural beauty within the park," the congressman said in a statement posted on his website. "That's why the proposed moratorium on new uranium claims is opposed by state and local officials in Arizona."
Now, as we pointed out earlier, Rep. Flake's comments about Arizona opposition to the moratorium isn't exactly accurate. Officials for the Central Arizona Project, which uses a 336-mile-long aqueduct system to provide water to nearly 80 percent of Arizona's 6.5 million residents, have expressed concern over uranium mining around the park in a joint letter cosigned by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
And, a number of sportsmen's groups oppose mining on the lands. Indeed, multiple local and national sportsmen’s organizations sent a letter to Secretary Ken Salazar to thank him for upholding the temporary moratorium on new uranium mining claims, and requested that he extend the ban to 20 years when his agency’s analysis is completed this fall.
“Wildlife, fisheries and the water that supports us are not partisan issues,” the group letter states. “Uranium mining near Grand Canyon National Park is wholly unacceptable given the best science available and the potential impacts not only to our natural resources but to the economy of Northern Arizona and the communities that drink Colorado River water.”
The Arizona Council of Trout Unlimited, Arizona Antelope Foundation, Arizona Deer Association, Arizona Wildlife Federation, Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club, Arizona Elk Society, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Anglers United Inc., and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership signed the letter. The organizations pointed to the risk of contamination to water supplies for people and wildlife, and warned that mining operations near Grand Canyon would fragment habitat for big game, including mule deer: “one of the most famous and studied deer herds in the world.”
Citing concerns for wildlife habitat, the bipartisan Arizona Game and Fish Commission has also endorsed the Interior proposal to withdraw 1 million acres surrounding the Grand Canyon from new uranium mining for the next 20 years.
The issue could come up in the House as soon as Monday when the chamber takes up the Interior appropriations bill. The National Parks Conservation Association has been working on Capital Hill and with an outreach campaign to alert park advocates of the upcoming vote.
What’s At Risk? The future of one of our nation’s, and the world’s, most revered treasures, and the legacy we will leave for our children and grandchildren. This policy rider would directly threaten one of the top 20 US travel destinations (according to Forbestraveler.com) and America’s only one of seven natural wonders of the world. It also threatens the quality of the Colorado River’s water on which more than 25 million people in Arizona, Nevada and California depend, and the surrounding economies that depend on the nearly 5 million visitors to the Grand Canyon each year. Further, area Native American groups would be affected, and are unified in support of the Sec. Salazar’s action to limit new uranium mining surrounding the Grand Canyon.
You can help by contacting your congressional representative and letting them know where you stand on the matter.
Comments
Mr. Dalton, I have a small uranium exploration company call the Northern Arizona Uranium Project, LLC (myself and two other small investors). If you use the link associated with my name on any of my posts, it will take you to my NAU Project website. This link is the reason I don't identify my props, so to speak. My website has a lot of content regarding my various projects including the two mining claims that are currently in the withdrawal area.
I have about $40,000 invested in finding and evaluating these two claims. I also have Arizona State mineral exploration leases that I am working on. I have a mechanical engineering degree from Arizona State University and worked as a Nuclear Test Engineer.
I have been investigating breccia pipes deposits for uranium for the last five years or so. Since I am not a geologist, I spent the better part of a year studying everything in the public domain published by the USGS and mining companies regarding these deposits. After the "anti-uranium" groups started their dis-information campaign regarding uranium exploration and mining outside the Grand Canyon and threatened my investment, I studied even harder.
I base my conclusions on facts. I can provide citations or documentation for everything that I say.
For example, one of the reasons for the emergency withdrawal cited by Secretary Salazar was the "alarming number of mining claims filed" around the Grand Canyon in recent years. The number cited is generally between 8500 and 10,000 claims. That sounds like alot, but after the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 was passed and the lands designated for uranium mining were established the number of mining claims peaked at over 27,000.
It doesn't seem to me that 8 to 10 thousand claims is much of an emergency.
As for Salazar not acting on his own, you are somewhat correct and I may have not been clear in my brevity. Secretary Salazar acts on behalf of the President, as he is a Secretary in the Presidents Cabinet. Under the Law the Secretary of the Interior, on his authority as previously provided by Congress, can remove from mineral entry for up to 20 years lands under an emergency withdrawal action. Because of the size of the withdrawal, he is required to perform an EIS that informs (not necessarily supports) the withdrawal action.
On the Secretary's authority alone, the lands he segregated can be withdrawan for up to 20 years. He is then required to report to the Congress his decision, and Congress has 30 days (I think) to vote to over turn his decision.
The problem is this, nothing in the Draft EIS supports a withdrawl action. Secretary Salazar has made plain his intention to do the withdrawal anyway. Industry has never had a seat at the table in this process. Interior has taken on the deceitful talking points of the anti-uranium groups and speaks them as though they were the truth, even though the Draft EIS does not support them. The Draft EIS is a mess because it was so badly biased against the no action alternative in an attempt to make the lies that have been told have any kind of merit at all. Because making lies into truth where you have to have some objective data or scientific rational for you lies is impossible to do, the resulting DEIS is pathetic as EIS's go.
I have over 100 pages of written analysis and comments on the Draft EIS on my website. Feel free to look them over. Just click on the link associated with my name at the top of this comment.
My I am confused by many of the statements in the article. Take for instance the concern of CAP, since the Colorado River already carries 1% uranium and the mining of the breccia pipes would pull that out of the water, wouldn't that actually make it SAFER for the 80% who rely on the river for its water? As for the fishing, camping, hunting, etc. how is that widlerness/wildlands designation working out for ya in those areas now? Seems to me that you either think this wont affect you or you don't realize that it isn't just mining that will be affected. Mutli-purpose uses, commercial/recreational means public uses from fisherman/ hunters to cattle grazers/farmers oh and miners. Take one use away and you take it ALL away. BTW, since the federal government already own 51%+ of the land mass of Arizona, how much do they really need and what are they going to use it for?