5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
February, 11 2010, 12:13pm EDT
Contact:
Taylor McKinnon, (928) 310-6713, tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.org
Bureau of Land Management Sued for Withholding Records on Uranium Mines That Threaten Grand Canyon
Agency Ignores Obama's Freedom of Information Directive
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK
Today the Center for
Biological Diversity sued the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management for illegally withholding public records
relating to uranium mines immediately north of Grand Canyon National
Park. The suit asserts that the Bureau violated
the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to disclose records pursuant to
a July 30, 2009 request submitted by the Center. The Bureau is withholding
the vast majority of eight linear feet of responsive records despite
directives from the Obama administration requiring the agency to respond to
information requests "promptly and in a spirit of cooperation"
and to adopt a "presumption of disclosure."
"The
chasm between Obama's policies and the Bureau's practices are
as wide as the Grand Canyon itself,"
said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director with the Center.
"We've spent months giving the Bureau every opportunity to
fulfill our requests, but this is an agency that, even with the Grand Canyon and endangered species hanging in the
balance, refuses to voluntarily comply with open government or
environmental laws."
Some
of the records being withheld relate to the Arizona 1 mine. In November, the Center
for Biological Diversity and other plaintiffs sued the Bureau of Land Management
for refusing to undertake new National Environmental Policy Act and
Endangered Species Act reviews prior to allowing Denison Mines to resume
mining. The Bureau insists that 1988 compliances are adequate for the mine,
which operated for a short period prior to closing in the early 1990s.
Despite a host of new circumstances since 1988, including the listing of
threatened and endangered species, Bureau officials refuse to update
analyses for any of the mines near Grand Canyon National
Park.
"The
Bureau of Land Management has painted a caricature of itself at the Grand Canyon," said McKinnon. "The agency
is acting as a secretive surrogate for the mining industry that views open
government, endangered species, and environmental laws as a nuisance rather
than a priority."
The
Interior Department in July 2009 enacted a land segregation
order, now in force, and proposed a 20-year mineral withdrawal, which is now
being analyzed, for one million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park. Both measures
prohibit new mining claims and the exploration and mining of existing
claims for which valid existing rights have not been established. The
Bureau of Land Management has failed to produce any documents demonstrating
the establishment of valid existing rights for the Arizona
1 mine or other mines around Grand Canyon.
Bureau
officials have stated that many of the records requested by the Center for
Biological Diversity would be made available on a Bureau
Web site relating to the segregation order and proposed
mineral withdrawal. However, to date the Bureau has only posted Federal Register
notices, a few maps, fact sheets, and - perhaps speaking to its
orientation toward Interior's proposed mineral withdrawal - an antiquated video promoting
uranium mining that the Bureau developed in conjunction with the uranium
industry in the late 1980s.
"The
legacy of past uranium mining still lingers as deadly radiological
contamination of land and water near and within Grand Canyon National
Park," said McKinnon. "To think
that new mining will yield different results is foolish and
irresponsible."
Amy
Atwood, senior attorney and public lands energy director at the Center,
wrote and will argue today's lawsuit.
Background
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 the 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.
These
threats have provoked litigation; legislation; public protests and statements of concern and
opposition from scientists, city officials, county officials -
including from 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. 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.
Download
today's lawsuit here.
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
'You Should Be Alarmed,' Says Economist as Trump's Iran War Pushes US Gas Past $4 Per Gallon
"Talk to or read energy experts—people who focus on the physical side of the oil crisis—and their hair is on fire."
Mar 31, 2026
Gas prices in the US have surged to a four-year high, and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is warning that the worst is likely yet to come.
Amid a Tuesday projection from AAA that average US gas prices had hit $4 per gallon for the first time since 2022, Krugman published an analysis of the petroleum market in which he projected that the price of oil will go even higher in the coming weeks as the global economy runs into supply shortages caused by President Donald Trump's war against Iran.
Krugman argued that oil price hikes have actually been tame so far because physical supplies have remained steady in recent weeks, as tankers that had already passed through the Strait of Hormuz before the start of the war have continued making scheduled deliveries.
That "grace period," as Krugman described it, is about to end as speculative market prices run into the hard realities of physical shortages.
What this fundamentally means, wrote Krugman, is "you should be alarmed."
"Once the crisis gets physical, there will no longer be room for jawboning the markets," Krugman wrote. "Since the war began there have been several occasions on which Donald Trump has been able to talk prices down by asserting that meaningful negotiations are underway... but that won’t work once the oil runs out. So prices will have to rise."
As for how far prices will go up, Krugman calculated that with only medium disruption to global oil production and medium demand elasticity, the price of oil would rise to $152 per barrel, which would push US gas prices well over $4.50 per gallon.
Making matters worse, Krugman found that it wouldn't take much additional disruption to push the price of oil into worse-case scenarios where it would top $200 per barrel.
"If oil really does go to $200 or more, it’s all too easy to envisage a full-blown global economic crisis, with an inflation surge and quite likely a recession," Krugman commented. "Ever since this war began I’ve noticed a sharp divide in sentiment among experts. Finance and macroeconomics experts have been relatively sanguine about our ability to ride out this storm. But talk to or read energy experts—people who focus on the physical side of the oil crisis—and their hair is on fire."
Petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan on Tuesday highlighted the major increases in the price of diesel fuel since the start of the Iran war, which could add even more pain to the US economy in the form of higher shipping costs for goods.
"Can't overstate the impact that's coming down the pipeline to truckers, farmers, logistics, and beyond," De Haan wrote in a social media post. "The US economy runs on diesel with several states setting new all-time highs for diesel, while others are seeing largest monthly increases of all time."
De Haan also posted a chart highlighting the states with the biggest diesel price increases since late February, and it showed swing states Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina faced the largest surges, with prices up more than 57% in just one month in each state.
Keep Reading
Show Less
As Loudly Predicted, Trump-GOP Medicaid Cuts Decimating Hospitals Across US
Of the roughly 450 hospitals identified in a new analysis as at risk of closure or service cuts, around 200 are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans.
Mar 31, 2026
The unprecedented Medicaid cuts that US President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans approved last summer are putting hundreds of hospitals across the country at high risk of cutting services or permanently shutting their doors, a potentially devastating outcome for millions of poor Americans that was repeatedly predicted ahead of time.
The advocacy group Public Citizen released a report Monday identifying 446 hospitals that could be forced to reduce services or close because of the Trump-GOP Medicaid cuts, which will amount to around $1 trillion over the next decade. The at-risk hospitals collectively served 7 million patients in 2024, according to Public Citizen's analysis.
Nearly 200 of the hospitals listed in Public Citizen's report are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans who voted for the Medicaid cuts, and 146 are in states represented by Senate Republicans—nearly all of whom supported the sprawling budget package that included the assault on Medicaid.
“Trump’s cuts to Medicaid will hurt millions of low-income and disabled Americans, and will deepen financial strains that are already plaguing rural and safety-net hospitals—compromising their ability to deliver care, potentially leading many to close,” said Public Citizen researcher Eileen O’Grady, the author of the report. “Congress should take urgent action to restore all Medicaid funding cuts enacted by Trump and Republicans in Congress, and should extend the enhanced premium tax credits for coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.”
The report comes as Republicans are reportedly considering billions of dollars in additional healthcare cuts—and kicking hundreds of thousands more off their health coverage—to help fund Trump's illegal and increasingly expensive war on Iran.
Public Citizen found in its report that there's at least one hospital at risk of closing or slashing services in 44 states and Washington, DC. States with the highest proportion of at-risk hospitals are Connecticut, California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington, the analysis shows.
"It is notable that while there are more at-risk hospitals in Democrat-led states and congressional districts, a substantial number of hospitals in Republican-led states and congressional districts are threatened by Medicaid cuts," the report observes. "Almost all congressional Republicans voted to pass the Big Ugly Law."
Keep Reading
Show Less
With Nearly 50 Boats Attacked, US Strikes Highlight ‘Pattern of Unlawful Use of Lethal Force’: Human Rights Watch
"When unlawful force is repeated over time, it risks becoming normalized."
Mar 31, 2026
The Trump administration's most recent attack on a boat in the Caribbean, which killed four people last week, "highlights a sustained pattern of unlawful use of lethal force outside any context of armed conflict, amounting to extrajudicial executions," Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday.
The US military announced last Wednesday that it had conducted its 47th attack on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The Trump administration has presented little evidence for its claim that the targeted boats have been engaged in trafficking drugs to the United States. At least 163 people have been killed in these attacks since September 2025, all of them without trial.
Human Rights Watch is part of a chorus of international organizations and observers that have condemned the boat bombing campaign as acts of murder in flagrant violation of international law.
“These strikes aren’t one-off incidents, they’re part of a pattern of using military force where the law does not permit it, over and over again,” said Sarah Yager, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “The fact that these strikes have faded from public attention does not make these violations any less grave or unlawful.”
The organization noted that there is no ongoing military conflict in the Caribbean or eastern Pacific that would make those traveling by boat legitimate targets.
And while the US government has provided scant evidence that those it has killed were trafficking drugs, Human Rights Watch said that even if evidence of drug trafficking existed, suspected criminals are still not lawful targets of lethal force unless they pose an imminent threat to the lives of others.
The boat strikes have continued in the background as President Donald Trump has launched attacks against Venezuela and Iran, both of which international organizations have described as acts of aggression that violate the laws of war.
Trump has also enacted a crippling economic blockade of Cuba with the explicit goal of toppling its government so the US can "take" the island, and has previously threatened to use economic leverage or the US military to forcibly annex Greenland.
“When unlawful force is repeated over time, it risks becoming normalized,” Yager said. “That’s dangerous because it opens the door to using lethal force whenever and wherever a government wishes and without constraints.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular