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 An update to an outdated 1988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to redo outdated environmental reviews is as illegal as it is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
Senate Tosses 'Dangerous Provision' Preventing State-Level AI Regulation From GOP Megabill
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry," said one advocate.
Jul 01, 2025
With a 99-1 vote early Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Senate decided to remove a controversial provision that would have prevented state-level regulation on artificial intelligence for 10 years from U.S. President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that is currently being debated in Congress.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) was the lone lawmaker who voted to keep the moratorium in the bill.
While far from the only controversial part of the reconciliation package, the provision drew opposition from an ideologically diverse group that included Democratic and Republican state attorneys general; over 140 groups working to support children's online safety, consumer protections, and responsible innovation; and faith leaders.
Senators struck Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) AI measure from the megabill by adopting an amendment introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). They voted on Blackburn's amendment during a session known as a vote-a-rama. Blackburn introduced the amendment after considering an agreement that would have watered down the provision.
According to The Verge, the measure that was rejected on Tuesday required states to avoid regulation AI and "automated decision systems" if they wanted to get funding for their broadband programs.
The provision would have been a major win for Big Tech, which has made the case that state laws around AI are obstructing their ability to do business.
Advocates and Democratic lawmakers cheered the decision to strip the provision.
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry. It shows that Americans are aware of the proliferation of AI harms in real time," said J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen.
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said Tuesday that "early this morning, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to reject a dangerous provision to block states from regulating artificial intelligence, including protecting kids online. This 99-1 vote sent a clear message that Congress will not sell out our kids and local communities in order to pad the pockets of Big Tech billionaires."
In addition to concerns focused on Big Tech, experts recently told The Guardian that in the absence of state-level AI regulation, untrammeled growth of AI would take a toll on the world's "dangerously overheating climate."
Sacha Haworth, the executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, credited the "massive" defeat of Cruz's provision to the "incredible mobilizing by advocates to beat back Big Tech lobbying and last-minute bullying."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular