

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.
"Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday implored his Democratic colleagues in Congress not to cave to President Donald Trump and Republicans in the ongoing government shutdown fight, warning that doing so would hasten the country's descent into authoritarianism.
In an op-ed for The Guardian, Sanders (I-Vt.) called Trump a "schoolyard bully" and argued that "anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates."
"This is a man who threatens to arrest and jail his political opponents, deploys the US military into Democratic cities, and allows masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick people up off the streets and throw them into vans without due process," Sanders wrote. "He has sued virtually every major media outlet because he does not tolerate criticism, has extorted funds from law firms and is withholding federal funding from states that voted against him."
If Democrats capitulate, Sanders warned, Trump "will utilize his victory to accelerate his movement toward authoritarianism."
"At a time when he already has no regard for our democratic system of checks and balances," the senator wrote, "he will be emboldened to continue decimating programs that protect elderly people, children, the sick and the poor while giving more tax breaks and other benefits to his fellow oligarchs."
Sanders' op-ed came as the shutdown continued with no end in sight, with Democrats standing by their demand for an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits as a necessary condition for any government funding deal. Republicans have so far refused to negotiate on the ACA subsidies even as health insurance premiums skyrocket nationwide.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is illegally withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding from tens of millions of Americans—including millions of children—despite court rulings ordering him to release the money.
In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday, Trump again urged Republicans to nuke the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate to remove the need for Democratic support to reopen the government and advance other elements of their agenda unilaterally. Under the status quo, Republicans need the support of at least seven Democratic senators to advance a government funding package.
"The Republicans have to get tougher," Trump said. "If we end the filibuster, we can do exactly what we want. We're not going to lose power."
Congressional Democrats have faced some pressure from allies, most notably the head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), to cut a deal with Republicans to end the shutdown and alleviate the suffering it has inflicted on federal workers and many others.
But Democrats appear unmoved by the AFGE president's demand, and other labor leaders have since voiced support for the minority party's effort to secure an extension of ACA subsidies.
"We're urging our Democratic friends to hold the line," said Jaime Contreras, executive vice president of the 185,000-member Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ.
In his op-ed on Sunday, Sanders asked, "Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?"
"If the Democrats cave now, it would be a betrayal of the millions of Americans who have fought and died for democracy and our Constitution," the senator wrote. "It would be a sellout of a working class that is struggling to survive in very difficult economic times. Democrats in Congress are the last remaining opposition to Trump's quest for absolute power. To surrender now would be an historic tragedy for our country, something that history will not look kindly upon."
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."