Bush administration’s uranium mining decision could affect tribes
By
Rob Capriccioso
Story Published:
Jan 9, 2009
Story Updated:
Jan 9, 2009
WASHINGTON – The Bureau of Land Management, an agency within the Department of the Interior, in early December eliminated a regulation that gave two congressional committees the power to require the secretary of interior to set aside public lands from uranium mining and other extractive activities. The action, coupled with renewed federal interest in uranium mining, is causing concern for some Western tribes.
In effect, the Bush administration’s decision could open up public lands in and around the Grand Canyon to uranium mining. The aftereffects of such developments could have devastating effects on the health of tribes in and around the Grand Canyon, according to environmentalists and health and legal experts.
Roger Clark, an energy director with the Grand Canyon Trust environmental group, said that two tribes, the Havasupai and the Hualapai, could be directly affected by the decision. They are both located in the Grand Canyon region.
“The Havasupai have been ardent opponents of uranium mining in the watersheds above where they live,” Clark said. “If mining is occurring in these watersheds, it increases the potential for radioactive material to be transmitted to surface waters and groundwater aquifers.”
The Hualapai Tribe has also come out strongly against uranium mining in its area, having recently passed a tribal resolution banning the practice on its lands.
In late-March, Charles Vaughn, chairman of the Hualapai Tribe, raised several issues regarding uranium mining in testimony before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
“Although we understand that this industry may provide clean energy for the world market, it is the aftermath of this endeavor that is of grave concern to my people,” Vaughn testified.
“We do not want to see the byproducts of uranium production stored in places like Yucca Mountain for the remainder of our lifetimes and leave others with the concern of the potential harm this would bring to our progenitors Grandfather Water and Mother Earth.
“We as an indigenous people are taught to respect and hold sacred those elements that provide the essence of our life. It is out of this belief that we share our concerns for proposed uranium mining near Grand Canyon National Park.”
According to tribal creation stories, the Grand Canyon itself was formed by a Hualapai warrior.
Robert Hager, a lawyer who represents several Western tribes and bands, said that many tribal leaders have problems with the idea of resumption of large scale uranium mining, which he and many others believe is the intent of the Bush administration’s decision.
“This government is not the kind of government that can be relied upon to start up whole scale uranium mining again,” Hager said, citing health and legal concerns to back up his claim.
“Tribes should be especially concerned. … If they put in new power plants, where do you think they’re going to put them? They’re going to put them where there is the least political clout.”
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., had previously authored a resolution through the House Committee on Natural Resources, which required the Interior secretary to protect lands around Grand Canyon National Park from uranium mining.
Like many tribal leaders, the congressman was upset by the administration’s action to upend the resolution.
“I am disappointed that the Interior Department under the Bush administration has chosen to throw out federal rules it finds inconvenient to its goal of allowing uranium mining within a few miles of our nation’s premiere National Park, the Grand Canyon,” Grijalva said in a statement.
“This last minute change puts at risk the health of millions of citizens of the West who rely on the Colorado River of the Grand Canyon for their drinking water supply, as well as visitors to the park and tribal communities within and around the Grand Canyon.”
Not all lawmakers were disappointed by the action, however. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, commended outgoing Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne for the action.
“We cannot afford to have more of our nation’s vital minerals and energy supplies to be locked up by the ill-advised actions of a single Congressional Committee,” Young said in a statement.
Still, there were many detractors. Along with Grijalva and other members of U.S. Congress, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, as well as several elected officials and citizens expressed concern by regulation’s elimination. Napolitano has been nominated to be Secretary of Homeland Security by President-elect Barack Obama.
While the Bush administration’s action for now has ended the temporary hold on uranium mining activities in the Grand Canyon region, Grijalva and others are confident that the situation will change after the Obama administration takes power.
“The fact remains that the power to require a temporary withdrawal still exists in federal law, regardless of whether the regulation is eliminated, and that law requires the secretary to withdraw the lands per our committee’s resolution in June,” Grijalva said in his statement.
“I will continue to fight this rule change and all midnight regulations to roll back protections for our environment which are coming down the pike before the new administration is sworn in.”
Hager added that he believes the Obama administration will use executive orders to quash the Bush administration’s last-minute efforts on increasing uranium mining.
“And it will end up being in the tribes’ best interests,” Hager said.
Tuesday, Jan 20 at 9:47 PM tom4winds fla wrote ...
i've seen what mining has done in col.mont.ariz. s.dak ect whats wrong with bush doesn't he realize earth is the mother of us all If we hurt her we just hurt our children the twolegged fourlegged winged and finned the trees and grass we are fighting mining here in fla too my prayers are with you all
15218604 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Tuesday, Jan 20 at 5:49 PM Chuck wrote ...
Historical mistakes are known and actions and legislation has been enacted to address these. There are agencies and legislation already in place to enforce rules. Let them do their job. If they say it is safe to mine here, then alarmists need to accept this. We need resources and uranium serves a purpose.
15206924 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Tuesday, Jan 13 at 6:18 PM Jessie wrote ...
I totally agree. Here is just another reason I cannot wait for the Bush Administration to be out of office. Uranium mining in the 40's caused the miners and the tribal 'slaves' to be affected with uranium poisoning and most either died or got cancer. The uranium dust alone killed. Then they were able to go to the IHS to get treated for their problems? I think not. We are just getting another dose of Government approved genocide.
14818268 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Thursday, Jan 8 at 3:48 PM Richard Garry wrote ...
Sure uranium provides clean power but you need to look at the price of mining before decisions are made. Miners of this product are dying left and right of cancers and other life threatening diseases. Past uranium mines are now superfund clean up sites. And where are going to keep all the by-products of radioactive material produced from this material? These issues are just the tip of the problems. Everything from water to wildlife is contaminated from the leaching of these mines.
14586543 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Tuesday, Jan 6 at 3:49 PM Dolores Castillo wrote ...
There is a very good reason not to mine uranium. It causes acid mine water run off. There is only one way to fix acid mine water --- don't dig up pyrite bearing rock and expose it to precipitation. Uranium is usually found in association with pyrite.
14475864 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Tuesday, Jan 6 at 2:57 AM Rock Doc wrote ...
Contrary to Hualapai oral history, there is pretty substantial proof that the Grand Canyon was created through the erosive effects of the Colorado river flowing through it. Specifically, what risk is there from mining in this area? There are existing regulations in place to assess these risks.
14446993 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Monday, Jan 5 at 7:02 PM Ann wrote ...
JUST SAY NO! Bush administration’s uranium mining decision could affect tribes
14434798 Inappropriate? Alert Us!Add a comment
Most Popular