

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, (602) 999-5790
Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust, (928) 774-7466
A series of studies
released today by the United States Geological Survey show elevated
uranium levels in wells, springs, and soil in and around uranium
exploration and mining sites within the watershed feeding Grand Canyon
National Park and the Colorado River. The agency conducted the
monitoring to provide information for an environmental impact statement
that is analyzing a proposed 20-year mineral withdrawal that would
protect nearly 1 million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon
National Park from future mining activities.
"These
reports demonstrate unequivocally that uranium mining should not
proceed in these environmentally sensitive lands," said Stacey Hamburg
of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter. "Contaminated lands and
waters around the Grand Canyon are not what we want for the future of
northern Arizona. Cleaning up contaminated sites should be the
government's first priority."
Elevated uranium
levels consistently exceed natural background levels in and around
exploration and old mining sites - sometimes, as in the case of the
Kanab North mine, by as much as 10 times. Elevated uranium levels were
also detected near the old "Hack" uranium-mine complex, which the
Bureau of Land Management actively promotes on its Web site as a model of good mine reclamation (see video here).
Reclaimed in the 1980s, the mines are located in Hack Canyon, a
tributary to Kanab Creek and the Grand Canyon and Colorado River.
"Uranium
mining has already contaminated lands and waters in and around Grand
Canyon, and today's research confirms that new uranium mining would
threaten aquifers that feed Grand Canyon's springs, the Colorado River,
and nearly 100 species of concern," said Taylor McKinnon of the Center
for Biological Diversity. "These risks aren't worth taking - and
they're risks neither the government nor industry can guarantee
against."
Elevated uranium levels were also
detected at another nearby old mine that the Bureau has said it will
allow to reopen without updating 1980s-era federal environmental
reviews. The first such opening, of Denison Mines' Arizona 1 mine,
provoked a lawsuit in November from conservation groups seeking updated reviews.
Fifteen
springs and five wells exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations
greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking
water; hydrogeologists have warned that new mining could deplete and
pollute water in aquifers and connected springs. Today's report
concludes that: "Uranium mining within the watershed may increase the
amount of radioactive materials and heavy metals in the surface water
and groundwater flowing into Grand Canyon National Park and the
Colorado River, and deep mining activities may increase mobilization of
uranium through the rock strata into the aquifers. In addition, waste
rock and ore from mined areas may be transported away from the mines by
wind and runoff."
"The USGS research confirms that
mining uranium within Grand Canyon watersheds risks permanently
polluting waning water supplies for 25 million people and arid
ecosystems. There are some places where mining should not occur, and
the Grand Canyon is one of them," said Roger Clark of the Grand Canyon
Trust.
Last week 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 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" (see Obama's Freedom of Information Act memo to federal
agencies here).
All of today's reports can be downloaded here: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5025/
Summary of Research Findings (From USGS)
* The area proposed for withdrawal is estimated to contain about 163,000 tons (about 326 million pounds) of uranium oxide (U3O8),
which is about 12 percent of the estimated total undiscovered uranium
in northern Arizona (1.3 million tons or 2.6 billion pounds). For
comparison, the United States consumes about 27,550 tons (55 million
pounds) of uranium oxide each year in its reactors; most of it comes
from Canada, Australia, and Russia.
*
Soil and sediment samples were analyzed for six sites that
experienced various levels of uranium mining in Kanab Creek area north
of Grand Canyon National Park, including mined and reclaimed sites,
mined sites currently on standby, and sites that were exploratory
drilled but not mined. Uranium and arsenic were two elements
consistently detected in the areas disturbed by mining in values above
natural background levels.
*
Analysis of historical water-quality data for more than 1,000 water
samples from 428 sites in northern Arizona shows that dissolved uranium
concentrations in areas without mining were generally similar to those
with active or reclaimed mines. Sixty-six percent of the sampled sites
showed low dissolved uranium concentrations (less than 5 parts per
billion). Ninety-five percent of the sampled sites had dissolved
uranium levels of less than 30 parts per billion, the Environmental
Protection Agency maximum for drinking water.
*
Samples from 15 springs and 5 wells exhibited dissolved uranium
concentrations greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum
for drinking water. These springs and wells are close to or in direct
contact with mineralized ore bodies, and concentration levels are
related to natural processes, mining, or a combination of both factors.
* Almost 100 plants and animals
identified by the State of Arizona or other land managers as species of
concern inhabit the area proposed for withdrawal. Because uranium and
its byproducts such as radon can affect survival, growth, and
reproduction of plants and animals, USGS scientists identified exposure
pathways (for example, ingestion or inhalation) for these species of
concern.
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 which exhibit elevated uranium levels in
the wake of past uranium mining.
These threats have provoked litigation; legislation; and 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.
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. The United States Geological Survey's
monitoring results that were released today are to inform the
aforementioned analysis of the proposed mineral withdrawal.
"It is brutal imperialist aggression," said former Bolivian President Evo Morales.
The Trump administration's military assault on Venezuela and apparent capture of the country's president in the early hours of Saturday morning sparked immediate backlash from leaders in Latin America and across the globe, with lawmakers, activists, and experts accusing the US of launching yet another illegal war of aggression.
Latin American leaders portrayed the assault as a continuation of the long, bloody history of US intervention in the region, which has included vicious military coups and material support for genocidal right-wing forces.
"This is state terrorism against the brave Venezuelan people and against Our America," Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel wrote in a social media post, demanding urgent action from the international community in response to the "criminal attack."
Evo Morales, the leftist former president of Bolivia, said that "we strongly and unequivocally repudiate" the US attack on Venezuela.
"It is brutal imperialist aggression that violates its sovereignty," Morales added. "All our solidarity with the Venezuelan people in resistance."
Colombian President Gustavo Petro, one of the first world leaders to respond to Saturday's developments, decried US "aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America." Petro said Colombian forces "are being deployed" to the nation's border with Venezuela and that "all available support forces will be deployed in the event of a massive influx of refugees."
"Without sovereignty, there is no nation," said Petro. "Peace is the way, and dialogue between peoples is fundamental for national unity. Dialogue and more dialogue is our proposal."
One Latin American leader, far-right Argentine president and Trump ally Javier Milei, openly celebrated the alleged US capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, declaring on social media, "FREEDOM ADVANCES."
Leaders and lawmakers in Europe also reacted to the US bombings. Pedro Sánchez, the prime minister of Spain, issued a cautious statement calling for "deescalation and responsibility."
British MP Zarah Sultana was far more forceful, writing on social media that "Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves—and that’s no coincidence."
"This is naked US imperialism: an illegal assault on Caracas aimed at overthrowing a sovereign government and plundering its resources," Sultana added.
"This goes beyond broken promises of peacemaking," said one expert. "Trump is launching an illegal assault on Venezuela."
US President Donald Trump claimed early Saturday that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was "captured and flown out of the country" after American forces bombed Venezuela's capital.
Maduro's alleged capture came after multiple explosions and sounds of aircraft were reported in Caracas, including at a military base at the center of the capital. Following the explosions, Maduro declared a state of emergency and accused the US of "military aggression." The Trump administration has accused Maduro, without evidence, of heading a drug cartel.
Vladimir Padrino, Venezuela's defense minister, said the US attacked both civilian and military sites, and that authorities are gathering information on casualties. Padrino said Venezuela would resist the presence of foreign troops and denounced US "imperialism" and "greed for our natural resources."
Venezuela’s attorney general, Tarek William Saab, said in televised remarks that "innocent victims have been mortally wounded and others killed by this criminal terrorist attack," and demanded proof that Maduro and his wife, who was also reportedly captured by the US, are alive.
Trump—who in recent months has repeatedly threatened to attack Venezuela, oust its president, and seize the nation's vast oil reserves—provided few details about the military assault, which followed a monthslong boat-bombing spree in international waters.
The US president did not receive congressional authorization for any of the strikes, and he said Saturday's operation was carried out in collaboration with American law enforcement. In 2020, during Trump's first White House term, Maduro was indicted on narcoterrorism charges by the US Justice Department, which at the time offered rewards up to $15 million for information leading to his arrest.
Trump said a press conference would be held at his Mar-a-Lago resort at 11 am ET on Saturday.
News of the US attack on Venezuela was met with immediate outrage.
"This goes beyond broken promises of peacemaking," said Nancy Okail, president and CEO of the Center for International Policy. "Trump is launching an illegal assault on Venezuela, pulling the US into another military adventure without authorization or a credible national security threat. Congress must act now to halt further military escalations."
"Trump's attack on offshore wind is really an attack on our economy," said Sen. Jack Reed. "He's jacking up energy bills, firing thousands of union workers, and leaving our nation behind."
Developers behind two of the five offshore wind projects recently targeted by the Trump administration took action in federal court this week, seeking preliminary injunctions that would enable construction to continue while the legal battles play out.
Empire Offshore Wind LLC filed a civil lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday, challenging the Department of the Interior's (DOI) December 22 stop-work order, which the company argued is "unlawful and threatens the progress of ongoing work with significant implications for the project" off the coast of New York.
"Empire Wind is more than 60% complete and represents a significant investment in U.S. energy infrastructure, jobs, and supply chains," the company highlighted. "The project's construction phase alone has put nearly 4,000 people to work, both within the lease area and through the revitalization of the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal."
The filing came just a day after a similar one in the same court on Thursday from the joint venture between Skyborn Renewables and the Danish company Ørsted, which is developing Revolution Wind off Rhode Island and Connecticut. That project is approximately 87% complete and was expected to begin generating power as soon as this month.
"Sunrise Wind LLC, a separate project and wholly owned subsidiary of Ørsted that also received a lease suspension order on December 22, continues to evaluate all options to resolve the matter, including engagement with relevant agencies and stakeholders and considering legal proceedings," the Danish firm said. That project is also off New York.
As the New York Times noted Friday: "At stake overall is about $25 billion of investment in the five wind farms. The projects were expected to create 10,000 jobs and to power more than 2.5 million homes and businesses."
Trump’s attack on offshore wind is really an attack on our economy. He’s jacking up energy bills, firing thousands of union workers, & leaving our nation behind. We need more energy in order to bring down costs. Trump is leading us in the wrong direction.
[image or embed]
— U.S. Senator Jack Reed (@reed.senate.gov) January 2, 2026 at 4:37 PM
The other two projects targeted by the Trump administration over alleged national security concerns are Vineyard Wind 1 off Massachusetts and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind. The developer of the latter, Dominion Energy, launched a legal challenge in federal court in Virginia the day after the DOI's lease suspension order, and a hearing is scheduled for this month.
"Delaying the project will lead to increased costs for customers and threaten long-term grid reliability," Dominion spokesperson Jeremy Slayton told NC Newsline on Tuesday. "Given the project's critical importance, we have a responsibility to pursue every available avenue to deliver the project as quickly and at the lowest cost possible on behalf of our customers and the stability of the overall grid."
President Donald Trump's public opposition to offshore wind energy dates back to before his first term as president, when he unsuccessfully fought against the Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm near his golf course in Scotland. Since entering US politics, the Republican has taken money from and served the interests of fossil fuel giants while waging war on renewable power projects and lying about the climate emergency.
As the Times detailed:
Mr. Trump has falsely claimed that wind farms kill whales (scientists have said there is no evidence to support that) and that turbines "litter" the country and are like "garbage in a field"...
This week President Trump posted on social media a photo of a bird beneath a windmill and suggested it was a bald eagle killed in the United States by a wind turbine. "Windmills are killing all of our beautiful Bald Eagles," the president wrote. It was also posted by the White House and the Department of Energy.
The post turned out to be a 2017 image from Israel, and the animal was likely a kestrel. On Friday Mr. Trump posted on Truth Social again, this time an image of birds flying around a wind turbine, that read, "Killing birds by the millions!"
While the DOI did not respond to the newspaper's request for comment, and the department referred the Hill to its December statement citing radar interference concerns, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told NC Newsline earlier this week that Trump has made clear that he believes wind energy is "the scam of the century."
"For years, Americans have been forced to pay billions more for the least reliable source of energy," Rogers said. "The Trump administration has paused the construction of all large-scale offshore wind projects because our number one priority is to put America First and protect the national security of the American people."
Meanwhile, climate campaigners and elected Democrats have blasted the Trump administration's attacks on the five offshore projects, warning of the economic and planetary consequences. Democratic senators have also halted permitting reform talks over the president's "reckless and vindictive assault" on wind power.
Additionally, as Common Dreams reported Monday, the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility warned congressional committees that the DOI orders are "not legally defensible" and raise "significant" questions about conflicts of interest involving a top department official's investments in fossil gas.