November, 16 2009, 12:49pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Taylor
McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust, (928) 774-7488
Sandy
Bahr, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, (602)
999-5790
Lawsuit Challenges Uranium Mine That Threatens Water and Wildlife of the Grand Canyon
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz.
Today the Center
for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, and Sierra Club
filed suit in
an Arizona federal court challenging the Bureau of Land Management's
approval of the restart of a defunct uranium mine just north of
Grand Canyon National Park.
The conservation groups are suing over
the Bureau's failure to update 1980s-era environmental reviews and
mining plans prior to allowing Denison Mines Corporation to begin
mining at the "Arizona 1" mine. The mine was partially constructed
in the late 1980s and early 1990s but was closed due to market
conditions in 1992 without producing any uranium ore. The Bureau of
Land Management did not respond to a September legal notice from
conservation groups urging the agency to correct course in order to
avoid today's litigation. The mine is within the same area that
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar placed off-limits to new mining
claims and operations in an order issued in July of this year.
Today's suit cites violations of National
Environmental Policy Act provisions that require the land-management
agency to consider new information regarding the hydrology, spring
ecology, and biodiversity of the area in order to accurately
evaluate the impacts of the mine. An update to an outdated 1988
environmental assessment, as well as a more thorough analysis, is
warranted given new information, circumstances, and public
controversy about renewed uranium mining near Grand Canyon. The suit
also cites violations of the Endangered Species Act in the federal
government's failure to ensure that new mining will not jeopardize
threatened and endangered species or their critical habitat -
including Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, razorback
sucker, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Mexican spotted
owl.
"The Bureau of Land Management's refusal
to redo outdated environmental reviews is as illegal as it is
unethical," said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director at
the Center for Biological Diversity. "It should be eager to protect
the Grand Canyon and its endangered species; instead, it has chosen
to shirk environmental review on behalf of the uranium
industry."
The suit also cites violations of mining
laws and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act over the
agency's failure to require validity exams for the mine's claims and
a new plan of operations for the mine; the old plan expired with the
mine's 1992 closure. The Interior Department's July 2009
one-million-acre land segregation
order, now in force, and its proposed 20-year mineral withdrawal prohibit new mining claims and the exploration and mining of
existing claims for which valid existing rights have not been
established. Although the Arizona 1 mine falls within the
segregation boundary, valid rights have not been established for the
mine's claims.
"Arizona 1's original mine owners went
bankrupt and thus never established an economically viable uranium
deposit required to establish a valid and existing right," noted
Roger Clark with the Grand Canyon Trust. "It's time for the BLM to
serve the public interest by complying with the law."
Spikes in uranium prices have caused
thousands of new uranium claims, dozens of proposed exploration
drilling projects, and proposals to reopen old uranium mines
adjacent to Grand Canyon. Renewed uranium development threatens to
degrade wildlife habitat and industrialize now-wild and iconic
landscapes bordering the park; it also threatens to deplete and
contaminate aquifers that discharge into Grand Canyon National Park
and the Colorado River. The Park Service warns against drinking from several creeks in the Canyon exhibiting elevated
uranium levels in the wake of past uranium mining.
"The Grand Canyon, other public lands,
and native peoples are still suffering from the impacts of past
uranium mining activities," said Sandy Bahr, chapter director of the
Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter. "We need to ensure that we do
not repeat that history and allow harm to one of our nation's
treasures or to the millions of people who enjoy the lands and rely
on the water."
Proposed uranium development has provoked
litigation,
public protests, and
statements of concern and opposition from scientists; city
officials; county officials, including Coconino County; former
Governor Janet Napolitano; state representatives; the Navajo Nation,
and the Kaibab Paiute, Hopi, Hualapai and Havasupai tribes; the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; and the Southern
Nevada Water Authority, among others. Statewide polling conducted by
Public Opinion Strategies shows overwhelming public support for
withdrawing from mineral entry the lands near Grand Canyon;
Arizonans support protecting the Grand Canyon area from uranium
mining by a two-to-one margin.
Attorneys representing the plaintiff
groups in today's litigation are Amy Atwood of the Center for
Biological Diversity, Neil Levine of Grand Canyon Trust, and Roger
Flynn of the Western Mining Action Project.
LATEST NEWS
Billionaire Jeff Bezos Wants to 'Help' Trump Gut Regulations
"Shockingly another one of the richest guys on Earth wants to defund our government and scrap regulations."
Dec 05, 2024
Billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on Wednesday expressed his optimism about U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's next term and suggested he would "help" the Republican gut regulations.
"If we're talking about Trump, I think it's very interesting, I'm actually very optimistic this time around... I'm very hopeful about this—he seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation," Bezos told The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin during the newspaper's DealBook Summit.
"And my point of view, if I can help him do that, I'm gonna help him, because we do have too much regulation in this country. This country is so set up to grow," he continued, suggesting that regulatory cuts would solve the nation's economic problems.
After complaining about the burden of regulations, Bezos added, "I'm very optimistic that President Trump is serious about this regulatory agenda and I think he has a good chance of succeeding."
The comments came during a discussion about Bezos' ownership of The Washington Post, which also addressed the billionaire's recent controversial decisions to block the newspaper's drafted endorsement of Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and have it stop endorsing presidential candidates.
Bezos said Wednesday that he is "very proud" of the move, that the Post "is going to continue to cover all presidents very aggressively," and the decision did not result from fears about Trump targeting his companies.
As Inc.reported Thursday: "Trump had railed against Bezos and his companies, including Amazon and The Washington Post, during his first term. In 2019, Amazon argued in a court case that Trump's bias against the company harmed its chances of winning a $10 billion Pentagon contract. The Biden administration later pursued a contract with both Amazon and Microsoft."
Bezos owns Blue Origin, an aerospace company and a competitor to Elon Musk's SpaceX. Musk—the world's richest person, followed by Bezos, according to the Bloomberg and Forbes trackers—has been appointed to lead Trump's forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.
Bezos' remarks at the Times summit led Fortune's Brooke Seipel to suggest that he may be the next billionaire to join DOGE.
Musk and Ramaswamy headed to Capitol Hill on Thursday to speak with GOP lawmakers about their plans for the government.
"Despite its name, the Department of Government Efficiency is neither a department nor part of the government, which frees Musk and Ramaswamy from having to go through the typical ethics and background checks required for federal employment," The Associated Pressnoted. "They said they will not be paid for their work."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jayapal, Sanders Offer Answer to Elon Musk's Healthcare Cost Question
"The most efficiently run healthcare systems in the world," said National Nurses United, "have been proven time and time again to be single-payer systems."
Dec 05, 2024
Two of the United States' most outspoken critics of the for-profit health system welcomed billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk's criticism of the country's sky-high healthcare spending—and suggested that Musk, a potential Cabinet member in the incoming Trump administration, join the call for Medicare for All.
A social media post by Musk drew the attention of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who reintroduced legislation to expand Medicare coverage to every American last year and have long called for the for-profit healthcare system to be replaced by a government-run program, or single-payer system, like those in every other wealthy country in the world.
"Shouldn't the American people be getting getting their money's worth?" asked Musk, posting a graph from the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation that showed how per capita administrative healthcare costs in the U.S. reached $1,055 in 2020—hundreds of dollars more than countries including Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
"Yes," said Sanders, repeating statistics he has frequently shared while condemning the country's $4.5 trillion health system in which private, for-profit health insurance companies increasingly refuse to pay for healthcare services and Americans pay an average of $1,142 in out-of-pocket expenses each year.
"We waste hundreds of billions a year on healthcare administrative expenses that make insurance CEOs and wealthy stockholders incredibly rich while 85 million Americans go uninsured or underinsured," the senator added. "Healthcare is a human right. We need Medicare for All."
Jayapal added that she has "a solution" to exorbitant healthcare costs in the U.S.: "It's called Medicare for All."
Musk has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to lead a new federal agency that he wants to create called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Sanders has expressed support for some of the agency's mission, saying its plan to "cut wasteful expenditures" could be put to use at the Department of Defense, which has repeatedly failed audits of its annual spending.
But Sanders has sharply criticized the economic system and business practices that have helped make Musk the richest person in the world, with a net worth of $343.8 billion.
Another progressive, David Sirota of The Lever, suggested last month that DOGE could be used to eliminate the nation's vast health insurance bureaucracy and replace it with Medicare for All, pointing to a 2020 report from the Republican-controlled Congressional Budget Office that showed that a government-run healthcare program would save the country an estimated $650 billion each year.
"Such a system could achieve this in part because Medicare's 2% administrative costs are so much lower than the 17% administrative costs of the bureaucratic, profit-extracting private health insurance industry," wrote Sirota.
Musk drew the attention of Medicare for All advocates amid online discussion about the greed of for-profit insurance giants.
The killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on Wednesday prompted discussion about widespread anger over the U.S. healthcare system, and following public outcry, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield on Thursday backtracked on a decision to stop paying for surgical anesthesia if a procedure goes beyond a certain time limit. The American Society of Anesthesiologists said that if Anthem stopped fully paying doctors who provide pain management for complicated surgeries, patients would be left paying hundreds or thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.
National Nurses United, which advocates for a government-run healthcare system, urged Musk and others who support the broadly popular proposal to "join the movement to win Medicare for All."
"The most efficiently run healthcare systems in the world," said the group, "have been proven time and time again to be single-payer systems."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Disagree': US Dismisses Landmark Amnesty Report Accusing Israel of Genocide
"We have said previously and continue to find that the allegations of genocide are unfounded," said a State Department spokesperson.
Dec 05, 2024
A U.S. State Department spokesperson told reporters on Thursday that the United States disagrees with Amnesty International's new report accusing Israel of carrying out genocide in the Gaza Strip.
"We disagree with the conclusions of such a report," spokesperson Vedant Patel said a day after the human rights group released the document. "We have said previously and continue to find that the allegations of genocide are unfounded."
The Israeli government has vehemently rejected the findings in the report.
"The deplorable and fanatical organization Amnesty International has once again produced a fabricated report that is entirely false and based on lies. The genocidal massacre on October 7, 2023, was carried out by the Hamas terrorist organization against Israeli citizens. Since then, Israeli citizens have been subjected to daily attacks from seven different fronts. Israel is defending itself against these attacks acting fully in accordance with international law," wrote the Israel Foreign Ministry in a post on X.
Amnesty Israel also does not accept the findings of Amnesty International's report, according to The Times of Israel.
In a statement, the Israeli branch of the organization—which reportedly did not take part in the funding, research, or writing of the report—said that "the scale of the killing and destruction carried out by Israel in Gaza has reached horrific proportions and must be stopped immediately," per The Times of Israel. However, the groups does not believe the events "meet the definition of genocide as strictly laid out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."
In the 296-page report released Wednesday—titled, "You Feel Like You Are Subhuman": Israel's Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza—Amnesty International found through its research and legal analysis "sufficient basis to conclude that Israel committed, during the nine-month period under review, prohibited acts under Articles II (a), (b), and (c) of the Genocide Convention, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part."
In order for a conflict to be considered genocide under international law, there must be both evidence of specific criminal acts—such as killing members of a given group—as well as "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
In its report, Amnesty International concluded that "these acts were committed with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza."
Intent also came up during the State Department press conference Thursday when journalist Said Arikat of the Palestinian paper Al-Quds asked Patel a follow-up question about the report.
"I know that genocide depends a great deal on intent... And [the report] bases its conclusions on the statements, time and time and time again, by Israeli commanders, by Israeli officials," he said. "What is it going to take for you, for the United States of America... to say what is happening is genocide?"
Patel responded, "That's an opinion, and you're certainly welcome and you are entitled to it, as are all the organizations."
Israel faces an ongoing genocide case, led by South Africa, at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court recently issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular