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 An update to an outdated 1988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to redo outdated environmental reviews is as illegal as it is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 Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


