SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
May, 08 2009, 11:44am EDT
Contact:
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological
Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Richard Mayol, Grand Canyon Trust, (928)
774-7488
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club Grand Canyon
Chapter, (602) 999-5790
Suit Challenges New Uranium Exploration That Threatens the Grand Canyon
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, and Sierra Club
today amended
their lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of
the Interior to challenge newly authorized uranium exploration near Grand Canyon National Park. The new uranium
projects are located within a 1-million acre area that was required to be
immediately withdrawn from new mining claims and exploration by a June 25,
2008 emergency resolution of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources.
Today's amendment challenges new uranium projects authorized by the
Bureau of Land Management on April
23 and April
27, 2009. While the Bureau initially denied that new uranium
exploration activities had been authorized, it has since acknowledged that
exploration on the lands in question could begin whenever the companies
wish.
"The
Bureau's new uranium exploration runs afoul of both the law and a
congressional resolution protecting Grand Canyon,"
said Taylor McKinnon, public lands program director at the Center for
Biological Diversity. "This is an agency in dire need of leadership
from the new administration -- the Grand Canyon
deserves it."
The
U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Natural Resources on June
25, 2008 voted 20-2 in favor of an emergency resolution
requiring the secretary of the interior to immediately withdraw 1 million
acres of public lands surrounding Grand Canyon
from new uranium claims and exploration. New exploration authorized by
then-Secretary Kempthorne violated the required withdrawal and prompted
conservation groups to file the suit in September 2008. The suit cites
violations of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National
Environmental Policy Act, and other laws. Today's amendment
incorporates the Bureau's new uranium-drilling authorizations based
on the same violations.
Emergency
withdrawals have been enacted four times prior to this, most recently in
1981 and 1983 by the late Arizona Congressman Mo Udall and the House
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee to halt public lands mineral- and
energy-leasing programs pursued by Interior Secretary James Watt.
Congressman Raul Grijalva also introduced the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act
in March of 2008 and again in 2009, legislation that would permanently
withdraw from mineral extraction the same 1 million acres encompassed by
the Committee resolution.
"The
Grand Canyon Trust encourages the Secretary of the Interior to take
immediate action on the emergency withdrawal of these lands in order to
allow time for the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 2009 to make its way
through the legislative process," said Richard Mayol, the Trust's
spokesperson.
Spikes
in the price of uranium in recent years have caused thousands of new
uranium claims, dozens of exploratory drilling projects, and movement to
open several uranium mines on public lands immediately north and south of Grand Canyon. Concerns about damage to wildlife
habitat as well as surface- and groundwater contamination of Grand Canyon
National Park and the Colorado River have been expressed by previous
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano; the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California; the Southern Nevada Water Authority; the Arizona Game
and Fish Department; the Navajo, Hopi, Havasupai, Hualapai, and Kaibab
Paiute nations; and the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.
"It
is just outrageous that the Bureau is putting the short-term profits of
these mining companies ahead of protection of one of the most amazing
places in our nation, Grand Canyon, risking our water resources, and
flaunting the law," said Sandy Bahr, chapter director of the Sierra
Club's Grand Canyon Chapter.
Plaintiffs
are being represented by attorneys Marc Fink of the Center for Biological
Diversity, Neil Levine of Grand Canyon Trust, and Roger Flynn of Western
Mining Action Project.
Click
on the links below to view the following documents:
April
23, 2007 Bureau of Land Management uranium exploration authorizations
April
27, 2009 Bureau of Land Management uranium exploration authorizations
Map
of newly authorized uranium exploration in violation of emergency
withdrawal
Map
of all uranium exploration authorized since and in violation of emergency
withdrawal
Conservationists'
lawsuit against Kempthorne
Map
of previous uranium exploration authorized in violation of emergency
withdrawal
Map
of uranium claims, seeps, and springs in withdrawal area
Letter
by former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano
Letter
by Los Angeles Water District
Coconino
County Grand Canyon uranium resolution
Testimony
of Dr. Larry Stevens
Testimony
of Dr. Abe Springer
Testimony
of Robert Arnberger, former Grand Canyon National Park superintendent
Testimony
of Roger Clark
Testimony
of Chris Shuey
Supplement
to Chris Shuey Testimony
Letter
dated July 15 from Department of Interior
Letter
dated July 16 by Congressman Rahall
The
Grand Canyon Trust is a regional,
nonprofit conservation organization
committed to protecting and restoring the Colorado Plateau.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Progressive Caucus Leader Urges 'Yes' Vote on Amendment to End US Military Aid to Israel
"The American people are crying out for an end to US tax dollars subsidizing Israel's military."
Jul 14, 2026
After House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries blew what one organizer called “a real opportunity... to show he’s listening” to the Democratic Party’s base by opposing an amendment to end US military aid to Israel, the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Tuesday urged colleagues to support the measure.
As Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday, Jeffries (D-NY) announced in a "dear colleague" letter that he would oppose Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-Ky.) amendment to a national security spending bill that would eliminate the $3.3 billion in annual foreign military financing provided to Israel’s military under a memorandum of understanding signed by then-President Barack Obama in 2016.
The US has also given billions of dollars in additional armed aid to Israel since it began waging its US-backed war on Gaza after the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
The minority leader called the amendment "overly broad" and said it would limit the US' ability to "confront Hamas."
Jeffries' letter came "just weeks after his fundraising committee received the largest earmarked disbursement in the history of AIPAC's political action committee," Sludge's Donald Shaw reported Tuesday, referring to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the congressman's single-largest campaign donor.
Massie's effort comes just weeks after the Republican-controlled House of Representatives blocked a separate amendment introduced by the Kentucky Republican and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to remove a provision of the proposed $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2027 that would establish a formal “United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative," which critics argue deepens military integration between the two allies under the guise of reducing aid.
Responding to Jeffries' letter, Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) sent one of his own, contending that "the American people are crying out for an end to US tax dollars subsidizing Israel’s military."
"At a time when millions are struggling to make ends meet, we are sending billions of dollars to a military that has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, destabilized the region, and helped lead us into war with Iran," Casar noted.
"Over the weekend, the Israeli military detained a member of Congress attempting to conduct oversight in the West Bank," his letter continues, referencing a recent incident involving Khanna. "We cannot continue to subsidize this."
Israel's war on Gaza alone has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead or wounded (including people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble) and around 2 million others forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, while the International Court of Justice is weighing a genocide case filed against Israel by South Africa and formally backed by nearly 20 nations.
United Nations experts; Israeli and international scholars, jurists, and human rights groups; and US lawmakers including Casar are among those who have concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
"At its best, the Progressive Caucus’ role is to be an independent voice and lead on important issues of peace and human rights," Casar's letter asserts. "After the Israeli government has killed more than 70,000 people in Gaza and helped lead the United States into a destabilizing, deadly war with Iran, we are called to act."
"The Democratic Party needs a new approach to Israel and Palestine," Casar stressed. "When Democrats retake the majority in November, I hope the Progressive Caucus can help lead our party toward a position that secures safety, dignity, and self-determination for Palestinian and Israeli civilians alike."
Both Casar and the CPC are supporters of the Block the Bombs Act, first introduced in May 2025 by Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Ill.) and now backed by more than 60 lawmakers. The CPC has also endorsed Massie's amendment.
US public opposition to Israel has grown alongside the death toll in Gaza. More than half of Democratic voters surveyed for an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll published last week said they believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. An August 2025 Quinnipiac poll found that 60% of respondents opposed additional military aid to Israel, while just 32% supported it. Opposition was especially high among Democrats (75%) and independents (66%).
Noting these figures, the progressive grassroots group RootsAction said Tuesday that "Jeffries has turned his back on nearly 75% of Democrats who say they want military aid to Israel to be halted" and "has chosen instead to side with the Democratic Party old guard—the same dominant faction that lost twice to [President] Donald Trump."
"Jeffries’s stance is morally unconscionable and politically myopic," RootsAction added. "For nearly three years, Israel has committed genocide in Gaza in full view of the world. Polling has shown that the Democratic Party leadership’s inability to distance itself from the onslaught in Gaza cost its candidates many votes in 2024. This pattern will repeat if the party is unable to change its stance."
Later on Tuesday, US senators voted 50-46 almost entirely along party lines to block debate on the 2027 NDAA over the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran and proposed US-Israeli military integration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After NYT Subpoenas, Senate Dems Urged to Oppose Clayton for Trump Spy Chief
"Rewarding an official who is actively executing the White House's war on an independent press with the keys to the intelligence community would be a catastrophic mistake."
Jul 14, 2026
A coalition of progressive groups is pressuring Senate Democrats to oppose President Donald Trump's nomination of Jay Clayton III to lead America's spy agencies over his role in helping the administration use the legal system to attack journalists.
Over the weekend, The New York Times reported that Clayton, who currently serves as the US attorney for Manhattan, had issued subpoenas to four of its journalists after they'd reported on security concerns related to the luxury jet gifted by the Qatari government, which Trump has begun to use in place of Air Force One against the wishes of the Secret Service.
The US Department of Justice said in a statement that the goal of the investigation was to prosecute leakers who spoke to the press about the plane's lacking security features. According to the Times, the FBI requested that it hold off publishing the story and reveal the names of its anonymous sources, which it refused to do.
A top newsroom lawyer for the Times described the subpoenas as "an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs.”
On Monday, the group Demand Progress and nearly three dozen other progressive advocacy groups sent a letter to Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.).
It urged them to oppose the nomination of Clayton to serve as director of national intelligence, a role previously held by Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned in May.
"The committee need not speculate how Clayton would exercise the enormous powers of the federal government: He is demonstrating it now," the coalition wrote. "A federal prosecutor who will weaponize the grand jury process against reporters—and their sources—to punish disclosures unwelcome to the president has shown the Senate the precise instinct that is disqualifying in a director of national intelligence."
"Rewarding an official who is actively executing the White House's war on an independent press with the keys to the intelligence community would be a catastrophic mistake," the letter continued.
The coalition emphasized that Clayton, whose confirmation hearing in the Senate is scheduled for Wednesday, has no experience in intelligence work, having spent most of his career as a corporate lawyer on Wall Street. He was tapped to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump's first term and then to serve as US attorney for the Southern District of New York in his second.
"More troublingly," it said, "Clayton has spent his time in this position weaponizing his authority on behalf of the president, particularly by politicizing high-profile investigations."
As Trump came under fire for his relationship with the late child sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, Clayton was assigned to "take the lead" of a Department of Justice probe that selectively targeted a list of the president's enemies.
Clayton also oversaw the process of redacting files related to Epstein before their release to the public, which was met with criticism for including identifying information of abuse survivors, including nude photos, while blacking out the names of Trump and other prominent individuals despite a mandate from Congress.
The letter also notes Clayton's amplifying of Trump's debunked theories of election fraud in California as part of efforts to restrict mail-in voting, as well as his defense of Trump's $1.8 billion "slush fund," which a judge ruled this week constituted an improper act of self-dealing.
"We are living with the serious consequences of unqualified Trump loyalists, blindly pursuing the "MAGA" agenda at agencies like the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Education, Health and Human Services, and more," the letter concludes. "Adding the [intelligence community] to this list—especially in light of Clayton's shocking willingness to weaponize federal power to satisfy the president's political grievances... will have devastating consequences for our national security and the civil liberties of Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Conservation Groups Sue Over Trump Killing Habitat Protections for Endangered Species
"Preventing harm to wildlife by protecting where they live, eat, and sleep is a basic foundation of the Endangered Species Act," said Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles.
Jul 14, 2026
A coalition of conservation groups sued the Trump administration in federal court on Tuesday over its move to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act so that extractive industries can degrade crucial habitats.
"Since 1973, the ESA has served as the nation's most effective conservation law, saving numerous imperiled species from extinction and moving them toward recovery," states the complaint, filed in the District of Washington state. It argues that the rescission "defies the text and purpose of the statute, 50 years of administrative policy, and US Supreme Court precedent."'
The coalition is made up of the Center for Biological Diversity, Columbia Riverkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians, and is represented by Earthjustice.
"Preventing harm to wildlife by protecting where they live, eat, and sleep is a basic foundation of the Endangered Species Act," said Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles in a statement, also stressing that the decision conflicts with not only the ESA but also decades of legal precedent. "Now more than ever, imperiled fish, birds, and wildlife need protection to survive and recover."
Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at Sierra Club, warned that "without the habitat protections offered by the harm rule, countless species would be forced onto a path towards extinction."
For example, "roads built for logging and other human access destroy grizzly bear habitat and the bear's ability to safely use its habitat," said Swan View Coalition chair Keith Hammer. "Weakening the harm rule will allow industry to devastate the habitat grizzly bears and many other wildlife species depend on for their survival."
Noah Greenwald, endangered species co-director at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed to not only grizzlies but also some of the other specific species that could be impacted by the administration's decision.
"It's beyond tragic that as the world's scientists warn us of an extinction crisis threatening to unravel our shared future, the Trump administration is yanking basic protections from our most endangered wildlife," Greenwald said. "There's just no way to protect endangered animals like spotted owls, Florida panthers, or grizzly bears without protecting the places they live."
In fact, as Oregon Wild staff attorney John Persell, noted, "habitat loss is the leading driver of extinction."
"This gutting of the Endangered Species Act is part of a broader assault on our bedrock environmental values," Persell also emphasized. "From public lands to wildlife to clean air and drinking water, the Trump administration is determined to waste, loot, and pollute America's natural heritage."
Separately, the group Defenders of Wildlife sent a letter to the departments of Commerce and the Interior about its intent to sue over the ESA rescission, which was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday by their respective agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
"The law has been clear for decades," said Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. "Rescinding this definition is wholly out of bounds and misaligned with the vast majority of Americans who support protecting and recovering endangered species."
"We will use the full force of the law to fight back and prevent industry from unfettered destruction of critical forests, streams, deserts, oceans, and coastlines," Davenport pledged.
The rescission came just a day after President Donald Trump signed proclamations dramatically shrinking the size of two national monuments in Utah, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.
As with Trump's repeated attacks on the ESA, his targeting of the two monuments dates back to his first administration.
Taylor McKinnon, Southwest director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said Monday that "gutting Utah’s national monuments to enrich polluting extractive corporations shows Trump's extreme disdain for Americans' shared natural heritage. It's a national embarrassment. These monuments protect some of America's most iconic landscapes and rich biodiversity. We'll fight like hell to safeguard their future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular