By Jessica Goad

Today the Center for American Progress and the Sierra Club released a series of short documentary videos called “Public Lands, Private Profits.”

One of the stories, “A Grand Threat,” profiles the new rush to extract uranium around Grand Canyon National Park. A Canadian company is currently excavating uranium at one mine on the north rim of the canyon, and it has plans for more mines in the near future.

Although Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar set one million acres off-limits to mineral extraction this past January, that decision applied only to new mining claims, not those already in existence.  There are approximately 3,500 mining claims that may be valid — potentially resulting in up to 11 uranium mines near the Grand Canyon.

Shockingly, these new mines are moving forward under environmental studies and plans of operation last approved in the 1980s. Although the Interior Department and the Forest Service have full authority to demand updated environmental reviews, they have not taken that step.

And just two weeks ago, Kaibab National Forest Supervisor Mike Williams agreed to let Denison move forward with its plans to develop the Canyon Mine (featured in the video) under environmental and cultural impact studies from 1986.

Last week, Denison Mines sold its U.S. assets to Energy Fuels Incorporated. Denison declined to comment, but Energy Fuels explained that it is “highly cognizant” of the responsibilities of mining in the region.

Opponents of uranium mining fear that any water pollution could take years to clean up. To find out more about this issue or to take action, visit the Sierra Club’s website.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

By Jessica Goad, Manager of Research and Outreach, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The House of Representatives is considering a behemoth surface transportation bill this week, designed to fund the roads, highways, and bridges that connect our country.  It has nothing to do with the public lands that belong to all of us, but that didn’t stop three Republicans from Arizona from filing an amendment to the bill that would override Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s January decision to protect 1 million acres around Grand Canyon National Park from new uranium mining requests.

Reps. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) penned the amendment:

SEC. __ . TERMINATION OF PUBLIC LAND ORDER 7787.

Public Land Order 7787 (77 Fed. Reg. 2563) and the withdrawal of lands by that Public Land Order shall have no force or effect, and the provisions of the land use plans applicable to such lands immediately before the issuance of such Public Land Order shall remain in effect.

If this sounds familiar, it is because this trio of lawmakers has tried three times in the last two years to undo new protections for one of our nation’s great places.  Here is a list of their other attempts to do the National Mining Association’s bidding:

– They added roll back language in the text of last year’s budget bill (which did not pass) where it was dubbed “the Flake earmark for the mining industry.”

– In October, Franks introduced the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011, an attempt to halt the mineral withdrawal.

– Franks introduced legislation in the last Congress to stop the mineral withdrawal.

As ThinkProgress has outlined before, the Grand Canyon is incredibly important to the economy of Arizona.  Tourists spending money in and around the Grand Canyon create jobs. Headwaters Economics found that Grand Canyon National Park supported over 6,000 jobs in 2009 and those tourists spent more than $400 million.

In addition, mining for uranium around the canyon poses risks to drinking water for 25 million people reliant on the Colorado River, as seen in the legacy of old, abandoned, and hazardous mines.     

It remains to be seen whether Congressional rules will allow the amendment to be considered.  But House Republicans have made their position clear—despite the fact that the battle over the Grand Canyon has been fought, and these three Congressmen lost, they will keep fighting another day.  Franks recently stated to E&E News that “anything that we can do to promote the legislation we will.”

By Jessica Goad, Manager of Research and Outreach, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

As ThinkProgress reported yesterday, Republican members of Congress have been waging a war to open 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon to uranium mining. Last week Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar took one of the last steps in withdrawing the area from new mining claims. But in response, Republicans have introduced H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011, to keep the decision from moving forward. The issue has become “one of the top legislative priorities of Republicans in Congress” as Energy and Environment Daily reported this morning.

At a hearing yesterday on the bill in the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands, Republicans called a witness to the stand who is a retired United States Geological Survey scientist. Dr. Karen Wenrich noted in her testimony supporting the bill that the Bureau of Land Management has “vastly overstated the environmental harm caused by past and potential uranium development.”

However, under questioning from Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), it became clear through public Securities and Exchange Commission filings that Wenrich stands to make $225,000 by selling 61 uranium claims that she owns only if the Interior Department’s withdrawal does not go forward.

Read more

By Jessica Goad, Manager of Research and Outreach, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Last week, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced plans to withdraw 1 million acres around Grand Canyon National Park from new mining claims for 20 years. After a two-year stakeholder involvement process, nearly 300,000 public comments were received on this proposal, 90 percent of which were in favor of the full withdrawal according to Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey. But that has only caused Republicans from both chambers to hurriedly introduce bills that would prevent the Department of the Interior from taking this action and throw open the areas to new mining.

One such bill is Congressman Trent Franks’ (R-AZ) Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011. This morning the House’s Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands held a hearing on the bill, and Rep. Rob Bishop, chairman of the subcommittee, downplayed the threat of mining near the Grand Canyon. He described the great distance between the Grand Canyon National Park and the new mining claims by stating that the administration’s decision to withdraw 1 million acres around it was:

…something akin to saying that if there was a terrorist threat to the Statue of Liberty they would close down the boardwalk of Atlantic City.

As this map from the Pew Environment Group shows, mining claims have actually been staked right up against the border of the park. Indeed, exploratory mining on one claim just three miles from a lookout into the park began in 2008. Much closer than the 122 miles that separate Liberty Island and Marvin Gardens.

Republicans have been on a warpath in their efforts to allow uranium and other mining around the Grand Canyon to continue. Indeed this is the third time a bill or amendment has been introduced in this Congress to achieve such a purpose — others are S. 1690 from Senator John McCain (R-Z) and a portion of the budget bill H.R. 1 inserted by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). Because Flake proposed throwing open 1 million acres to mining companies on a budget bill, Rep. Jesse Jackson referred to that section of the bill as the “Flake earmark for the mining industry.” Flake has already accepted $47,750 from mining interests in the 2012 election cycle.

ThinkProgress reported last week that Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), chairman of the subcommittee in charge of this bill, called the size of the area that would be mined under Frank’s bill “the size of the state of New Jersey” and that “whether we mine or not will have no impact on the Grand Canyon water or tourism that happens to be there.” In today’s hearing Flake called the administration’s decision to protect the Grand Canyon “regulatory overreach based on specious environmental concerns.”

Contamination and discarded waste from uranium mining in the Colorado River and surrounding areas has plagued the national park for years — the contaminated water leaking from the Orphan Mine Site on the South Rim of the canyon is just one example of the legacy of uranium mining. Additionally, in May, the representatives from water authorities in Arizona, California, and Nevada wrote to the committee saying “federal agencies with oversight over mineral exploration and mining operations in the Lower Colorado River Basin must use their authority to prevent any potential for deterioration of this critical water supply for millions of people.”

Lawyers Make Insurance Claim in Bid to Prove Damages From Climate Change

In the face of courts hostile to the idea of awarding damages against major greenhouse gas emitters over the impacts of climate change, creative plaintiffs lawyers are placing their faith in the driest of subjects: insurance.

Courts — including the Supreme Court — have been reluctant to recognize common law public nuisance claims against utilities and oil companies due to the difficulty of attributing blame among thousands of emitters and the sense that it is a global issue that should be tackled at the international level.

But some plaintiffs lawyers think they can prove a concrete injury by showing that their clients’ insurance rates have increased as a direct result of climate change.

That is exactly what attorneys representing clients in Mississippi affected by Hurricane Katrina, who recently refiled a high-profile suit against various greenhouse gas emitters, are trying to do.

The complaint (pdf) in Comer v. Murphy Oil USA Inc. alleges that “as a result of defendants’ activities, plaintiffs’ insurance premiums for their coastal Mississippi property have risen dramatically.”

Fight Over Mining Near Grand Canyon, Other Riders Will Return After Recess

Read more

By Jessica Goad, Manager of Research and Outreach, Public Lands Project, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Today the House Appropriations Committee is debating the FY 2012 spending bill for the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. No less than 25 anti-environment riders — policy provisions not related to spending — were included in the bill. In his opening statement, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), ranking member on the subcommittee, called the bill a “virtual dump truck of special interest legislative riders.”

 

As ThinkProgress reported on its introduction, the base text of this appropriations bill includes a provision that would block the Department of the Interior from protecting one million acres of land around Grand Canyon National Park from uranium mining. This rider was added by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) as a response to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar’s announcement a few weeks ago of a temporary withdrawal for these lands from mineral development while an environmental analysis is completed.

Moran offered an amendment to strip this rider from the bill, but Republicans rejected it by a 26 to 23 vote. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) stated:

This is the Flake earmark for the mining industry.

The provision has nothing to do with appropriations. Flake and leadership on the committee have received mining industry financial support in the past:

- Flake received contributions from an international mining company in the last election cycle.

- Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), the chairman of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee, accepted $13,250 from mining industry in 2010 cycle, including $5,000 from the mining industry’s large PAC.

- Hal Rogers (R-KY), chairman of the entire appropriations committee, has received $331,475 in contributions from the mining industry over the course of his career, his number-one contributor.

Nonetheless, Flake continued to denounce the Department of the Interior’s attempt to protect the Grand Canyon as a political move, “What is ‘special interest,’ if anything, if taking one part of this, uranium mining, and removing it for 20 years.”

Flake did not seem to take into account that the Interior Department is acting on advice from the 300,000 comments that it received on its draft withdrawal plans, many of which were in favor of the decision including the Sedona Chamber of Commerce.

The Grand Canyon is one of our nation’s most visited and economically important national parks. The park provided over 5,000 jobs and $412 million in economic returns in 2009, from the over 4 million visitors who came to the park that year. If this rider moves forward, tourism from many sectors could be greatly impacted. As Jim Stipe, chairman of the Arizona Council of Trout Unlimited stated today, “Uranium mining threatens to pollute our clean water and spoil habitat for fish and big game near the Grand Canyon. Fishing and hunting are big business in Arizona, especially near the Grand Canyon, and have been for generations.”

By Jessica Goad, manager of research and outreach, Public Lands Project, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Republicans on the House Interior and Environment Appropriations subcommittee just released a spending bill they will debate tomorrow and next Tuesday. Along with a handful of nasty riders that ThinkProgress has explained in more detail, the GOP included a new provision (Sec. 445) that would prevent the Secretary of the Interior from withdrawing 1 million acres from mineral development around the canyon. This policy proposal does not address spending in any way:

SEC. 445. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the approximately 1,010,776 acres of public lands and National Forest System lands described in Public Land Order No. 7773; Emergency Withdrawal of Public and National Forest System Lands, Coconino and Mohave Counties; AZ (76 Fed. Reg. 37826) may be withdrawn from location and entry under the General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.) except as expressly authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act that refers to this section.

Instead, this action is in response to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar’s announcement three weeks ago that the Interior Department would withdraw lands around the canyon from uranium and other mineral mining for six months while an environmental study is finalized. The announcement came after 300,000 comments were submitted by the public, many of which requested that the government protect the Grand Canyon from the recent mining boom. The rush to develop minerals under the outdated 1872 Mining Law has intensified over the last few years, and the New York Times reported that between 2005 and 2008, more than 1,000 uranium claims were staked in just one national forest adjacent to the national park.

The Grand Canyon provides an incredible place for recreation, and the Colorado River that runs through the national park provides drinking water to 25 million Americans. It is estimated by Headwaters Economics that in 2009, Grand Canyon National Park created $411 million and over 6,000 jobs in the region.

Immediately after Salazar’s decision, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) threatened to use the appropriations process to stymie the withdrawal. As a member of the subcommittee that wrote this bill, it seems obvious that he was successful. This is just the latest attempt by conservative lawmakers to trade our parks for corporate profits. Flake received contributions from a multi-national mining company in the last election cycle. Additionally, he has been endorsed by the pro-industry, right-wing Club for Growth and FreedomWorks in his campaign for U.S. Senate in 2012.

Today, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar demonstrated his conservation leadership by halting the race to mine uranium at the edge of the Grand Canyon National Park for six months, and setting the stage for a full 20-year withdrawal. As John Podesta and other conservation leaders stated in their request several weeks ago, this move by the administration is necessary to protect one of America’s greatest assets and one of the world’s natural treasures.

For those of you that do not follow the politics of our public lands, this might seem like an obvious choice, made simply to capture headlines about protecting Grand Canyon National Park. However, when it comes to public lands these days, it requires a fight to protect even the greatest of places.

Back in 2008, the New York Times broke the story that a British company had begun exploratory drilling just miles from one of the main entrances to Grand Canyon National Park. This shined a national spot light on a mining boom that was growing across the West.

Many of the foreign-owned mining companies responsible for the boom were staking claims right outside national parks. The Pew Environment Group’s Ten Treasures at Stake report depicts in great detail the growing threat. Data from the Bureau of Land Management cited in the report shows that in 1995 there were less than 100 mining claims in uranium-rich areas near the Grand Canyon. By 2007, that number grew to more than 6,000 mining claims, and today there are more than 8,000.

In 2009, Salazar temporarily stopped new claims by issuing a two-year moratorium so the Department of the Interior could study the impacts of uranium mining on Grand Canyon National Park. Without today’s announcement, the clock would have run out at the end of this month. Salazar issued today an emergency withdrawal order that extends the moratorium another six months, until a final environmental impact statement can be issued. Salazar also announced that he has directed the preferred alternative in the final rule to be a full 20-year withdrawal of the threatened lands around the Grand Canyon.

Politicians had lined up on both sides of the debate. More than 60 Democrats, led by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), sent a letter asking Secretary Salazar to fully withdraw 1 million acres for 20 years in order to stop new mining claims. At the same time, Republicans Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Trent Franks (R-AZ) requested that Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) hold a hearing questioning “the Administration’s perceived environmental concerns” about uranium mining creating a “serious national security threat.”

This political divide should come as no surprise, especially when one considers that the National Mining Association donates three times more to Republicans than it does to Democrats.

However, Gosar was quick to capitalize on the Grand Canyon’s popularity to promote the oil industry agenda. “Arizona’s First Congressional District is home to countless popular vacation destinations such as the Grand Canyon National Park,” he wrote in a press release. “If gas prices continue to soar, our local communities could be hit hard by decreased tourism and fewer visitors.”

Where is that concern for the tourism impact that would be caused by countless mines popping up next to Grand Canyon National Park? What about the impact on the Colorado River that sustains the National Park and provides drinking water to 25 million Americans? The list of reasons for protecting Grand Canyon National Park is long and wide ranging.

Still, some conservative leaders feel it’s better to play up fears of government overreach than recognize that some places should be protected.

The Bush Administration is rushing forward with plans to mine the Grand Canyon for uranium, ignoring a command from Congress to cease such operations. Since 2003, mining interests have staked out over 800 uranium claims within five miles of Grand Canyon National Park. As Mineweb reports, “The Bureau of Land Management has published a proposed rule which rejects the House Natural Resources Emergency House Resolution enacted in June that bans uranium mining and exploration near the Grand Canyon National Park.” The Arizona Republic explains what’s at stake:

Never mind that the drinking water of more than 25 million people, served by the Colorado River, is at risk.

Or that Arizona Game and Fish warns about the impact on wildlife.

Or that Grand Canyon National Park is still dealing with the toxic mess from past mines.

The proposed BLM rule would not only reject the House’s emergency withdrawal of over one million acres of federal land near Grand Canyon National Park from new uranium mining, but also eliminate the provisions that allow Congress to make such withdrawals in the future. The proposed rule, published on Friday, has a remarkably short comment period, closing in less than two weeks on October 27. House Parks Subcommittee Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) blasted BLM’s action, saying, “This last-minute move by this ‘see if we can get it under the clock‘ administration is cowardly.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been strangely silent on this issue, despite his claimed commitment to protecting the Grand Canyon from drilling:

But McCain’s claim to Roosevelt-style environmentalism has been badly bruised by his silence on uranium mining near the park and on the Navajo Nation.

“McCain gave us hope that he might be a Teddy Roosevelt type of Republican,” said Roger Clark, air and water director for The Grand Canyon Trust, a Flagstaff, Ariz., environmental group. “Since the beginning of his run for president, including 2000, that has kind of crumbled.”

The Arizona Republic’s editorial concludes that it’s “legacy time at the administration”:

Surely President Bush doesn’t want his to include tainted water and a contaminated landscape. We must keep the temporary ban on uranium mining near Grand Canyon.

Written comments should be submitted online or sent to Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, 1620 L St., NW, Room 401, Washington, DC 20036, Attention: RIN 1004-AEO5.