Comment: No uranium mining and milling anywhere!!Environment and Energy (DC)
By Eric Bontrager
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Arizona's two GOP senators are questioning whether a proposal from Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) to withdraw more than 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon from future uranium mining is necessary given similar legislation passed 25 years ago.
In a letter sent to the congressman earlier this week, Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl said they were concerned Grijalva's legislation may undermine existing and future energy development in the region by unraveling an agreement brokered in the early 1980s that has allowed "decades of balanced, responsible resource development and wilderness protection near Grand Canyon National Park."
Grijalva's legislation, H.R. 644, would prohibit new uranium leasing near 1.1 millions acres of land surrounding the park.
Mining activity on those lands, including areas in Kaibab National Forest and the House Rock Valley, are governed under the 1872 hardrock mining law, a law Grijalva claims provides neither adequate returns to the government for mined minerals nor mandates for any environmental protections.
But the senators said an agreement brokered between the mining industry and the environmental community by late House Interior Committee Chairman Morris Udall (D-Ariz.) that produced the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 was meant to achieve a balance between protection and development.
The legislation designated 290,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands and 834,000 acres of Forest Service lands near the park as wilderness, thereby protecting them from future mining operations.
The act, according to the letter, also provided for the release of 490,000 acres of BLM lands and 50,000 acres of Forest Service lands from wilderness study "with the full understanding and intention that this action would allow uranium mining on the Arizona Strop and the Kaibab National Forest."
They argued that while Grijalva's proposal would only apply to new mining claims, it would have a chilling effect on investment and financing for mining projects and could also make validation of existing mining claims in the area problematic.
But Mark Trautwein, who worked for Udall when he was chairman and was instrumental in the development of the 1984 bill, said the letter mischaracterizes the 1984 wilderness act and the work to get it passed.
He said that while there was some interest among wilderness opponents to include language in the bill that would have eased development on those lands released from wilderness designation, the late chairman resisted and the provisions were omitted.
Ultimately, the language in the bill -- and in most wilderness bills thereafter -- only released the tracts of land from wilderness study but did not exclude them from any other federal land management law, Trautwein said.
"To go back and now suggest that somehow that [Udall] or the wilderness act says he was party to this presumption that development would proceed, that future generations didn't have a right to debate what happens to those undesignated lands, is simply not correct," Trautwein said.
Roger Clark, air and energy program director for the Grand Canyon Trust, said comparing the Udall wilderness bill with Grijalva's proposal was irrelevant because while the 1984 legislation was a wilderness agreement, Grijalva's legislation is only focused on limiting new uranium development on certain public lands.
"The issue today doesn't have anything to do with wilderness, it has to deal with an exponential increase of [uranium] claims near the Grand Canyon," he said, noting that Grijalva's legislation would not prohibit other forms of minerals development. "It's apples and oranges."
More than 1,100 uranium mining claims have been filed for sites within 5 miles of the park in recent years as a result of high uranium prices, but Grijalva said in an interview that new mining near the Arizona icon could contaminate regional water systems in a way unforeseen when Udall moved the wilderness legislation.
"This was an understanding 25 years ago," Grijalva said. "The world has shifted, reality has shifted."
Grijalva said he plans to announce a markup for the bill before the end of the week but hopes the letter will not deter the Interior Department from completing a review the congressman requested of the lands proposed for withdrawal in the bill.
An Interior spokeswoman said the department is still reviewing the issue.
Kyl said yesterday that the ultimate goal of the letter was not to dissuade Grijalva from moving forward with his legislation, adding that he has not had conversations with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on the proposal.
"We're trying to find out what kind of reach [Grijalva] wants to impose here since there are areas far from the Grand Canyon that are being impacted by his proposal as we understand it," Kyle said. "Neither John McCain or I think that's appropriate."
Source URL (retrieved on 06/10/2009 - 10:42pm): http://www.leaveitwild.org/news/daily_clips/1814
http://www.leaveitwild.org/news/daily_clips/1814
In a letter sent to the congressman earlier this week, Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl said they were concerned Grijalva's legislation may undermine existing and future energy development in the region by unraveling an agreement brokered in the early 1980s that has allowed "decades of balanced, responsible resource development and wilderness protection near Grand Canyon National Park."
Grijalva's legislation, H.R. 644, would prohibit new uranium leasing near 1.1 millions acres of land surrounding the park.
Mining activity on those lands, including areas in Kaibab National Forest and the House Rock Valley, are governed under the 1872 hardrock mining law, a law Grijalva claims provides neither adequate returns to the government for mined minerals nor mandates for any environmental protections.
But the senators said an agreement brokered between the mining industry and the environmental community by late House Interior Committee Chairman Morris Udall (D-Ariz.) that produced the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 was meant to achieve a balance between protection and development.
The legislation designated 290,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands and 834,000 acres of Forest Service lands near the park as wilderness, thereby protecting them from future mining operations.
The act, according to the letter, also provided for the release of 490,000 acres of BLM lands and 50,000 acres of Forest Service lands from wilderness study "with the full understanding and intention that this action would allow uranium mining on the Arizona Strop and the Kaibab National Forest."
They argued that while Grijalva's proposal would only apply to new mining claims, it would have a chilling effect on investment and financing for mining projects and could also make validation of existing mining claims in the area problematic.
But Mark Trautwein, who worked for Udall when he was chairman and was instrumental in the development of the 1984 bill, said the letter mischaracterizes the 1984 wilderness act and the work to get it passed.
He said that while there was some interest among wilderness opponents to include language in the bill that would have eased development on those lands released from wilderness designation, the late chairman resisted and the provisions were omitted.
Ultimately, the language in the bill -- and in most wilderness bills thereafter -- only released the tracts of land from wilderness study but did not exclude them from any other federal land management law, Trautwein said.
"To go back and now suggest that somehow that [Udall] or the wilderness act says he was party to this presumption that development would proceed, that future generations didn't have a right to debate what happens to those undesignated lands, is simply not correct," Trautwein said.
Roger Clark, air and energy program director for the Grand Canyon Trust, said comparing the Udall wilderness bill with Grijalva's proposal was irrelevant because while the 1984 legislation was a wilderness agreement, Grijalva's legislation is only focused on limiting new uranium development on certain public lands.
"The issue today doesn't have anything to do with wilderness, it has to deal with an exponential increase of [uranium] claims near the Grand Canyon," he said, noting that Grijalva's legislation would not prohibit other forms of minerals development. "It's apples and oranges."
More than 1,100 uranium mining claims have been filed for sites within 5 miles of the park in recent years as a result of high uranium prices, but Grijalva said in an interview that new mining near the Arizona icon could contaminate regional water systems in a way unforeseen when Udall moved the wilderness legislation.
"This was an understanding 25 years ago," Grijalva said. "The world has shifted, reality has shifted."
Grijalva said he plans to announce a markup for the bill before the end of the week but hopes the letter will not deter the Interior Department from completing a review the congressman requested of the lands proposed for withdrawal in the bill.
An Interior spokeswoman said the department is still reviewing the issue.
Kyl said yesterday that the ultimate goal of the letter was not to dissuade Grijalva from moving forward with his legislation, adding that he has not had conversations with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on the proposal.
"We're trying to find out what kind of reach [Grijalva] wants to impose here since there are areas far from the Grand Canyon that are being impacted by his proposal as we understand it," Kyle said. "Neither John McCain or I think that's appropriate."
Source URL (retrieved on 06/10/2009 - 10:42pm): http://www.leaveitwild.org/news/daily_clips/1814
http://www.leaveitwild.org/news/daily_clips/1814
No comments:
Post a Comment