Why Pay for Something We Never Wanted?

Published: April 4, 2009

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Re: your editorial "Stonewalling," those of us opposing last year's legislative uranium study cited facts and figures showing the abysmal failure of the uranium mining and milling industry in the West to protect the environment and human health.

Our research finds little has changed; we are concerned about lifting the moratorium to mine and mill uranium in Virginia.

This would make ours the first state east of the Mississippi to allow mining.

Virginia's conservation community opposed the 2008 legislative study as a first step toward lifting the moratorium.

Now that the Coal and Energy Commission study is going forward, we are participating in the process.

However, since we did not want the study in the first place, why would we pay for it?

Donors to our nonprofit organizations expect their donations to go toward statewide protection of natural resources.

Ideally, the commonwealth would pay for a study, but the state doesn't have the funds and it is unlikely a million-dollar study of uranium mining would be among its top priorities even if times were less tight.

Moreover, the study exists only because of heavy lobbying ($95,434 during the 2008 General Assembly) by Virginia Uranium, Inc.

Thus, the commonwealth should look to VUI to ensure that it receives sufficient funds for a National Academy of Sciences study.

These funds should be placed in an account and dispensed only by commonwealth officials, with no further input by the corporation.

Kay Slaughter, Southern Environmental Law Center,Charlottesville;

Lisa Guthrie, Virginia League of Conservation Voters, Richmond;

Dan Holmes, Piedmont Environmental Council, Warrenton.