New push for Uranium Mining near Grand Canyon

[ramblinman]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/05/public-lands-uranium-mining-arizona-grand-canyon

This is disheartening for a lot of reasons.

 

[scoags]

There's a lot of interesting stuff going on here it looks like. Funny enough, most of the people on the Mohave board of supervisors have a history of fighting for local control of water rights, but when the local tribes are saying this is going to be bad for their water there isn't so much interest in those local's opinions...hmmm wonder why? You can find this information easy enough, I'm not trying to start a witch hunt or anything here. It's also worth noting from the article above that other local boards are expected to file similar documents to the Mohave boards.

There is an interesting case in the 9th circuit stemming from Ken Salazar's 20 year moratorium on mining in the Grand Canyon area, It is National Mining Association v. (Sally) Jewell
http://publiclands.utah.gov/current...association-v-jewell-uranium-withdrawal-case/

NARF (or their associates I think) and the State of Utah have filed amicus briefs for and against the moratorium respectively (they pop right up on google, but they're pdfs so i wont link them here). It's odd because the last specific news I can find on it is from late 2015 from this article from the article posted by @ramblinman
https://www.law360.com/articles/704753/mining-group-asks-9th-circ-to-slash-doi-s-withdrawal-power

The original article says a decision is expected soon, but I can't find anything to corroborate that. The latest reference I can find to NMA v. Jewell is from Dec. 2016, which gives some more information about the origin of the moratorium. Seems that the local governments/tribes were pushing for the moratorium first. Again, funny what "local control" means to certain people at certain times...
https://www.grandcanyonnews.com/news/2016/dec/27/havasupai-have-their-day-court/

Edit: Worth noting the DOI's ban was upheld twice in lower courts before the 9th Circuit, but I haven't looked at those decisions in detail, so I don't know the grounds of the decisions.

Anyone else have any luck uncovering any of this stuff? Thanks for bringing this up @ramblinman!

 

[ramblinman]

As usual the guardian is not very clear about all the technicalities. Here's my understanding:

The Mojave county board is sending a letter to Zinke, who will likely recommend the President to make some statement or sign an executive order. But can any policy change take place while the issue is in the courts? Even if the courts uphold Salazaar's moratorium, can't this administration undo it?

Thanks for the legal information @scoags. Notice how the NMA's case against the 20 year moratorium is build around the objection that there was not sufficient public input leading up to that decision. Ironically, the guardian article mentions that "this year, Congress reversed the Bureau of Land Management’s “Planning 2.0” rule, an Obama-era initiative that gave the public greater input on how land should be used."

 

[scoags]

The Mojave county board is sending a letter to Zinke, who will likely recommend the President to make some statement or sign an executive order. But can any policy change take place while the issue is in the courts? Even if the courts uphold Salazaar's moratorium, can't this administration undo it?

yeah I'm not sure, but it would seem to me that the DOI could just change their decision, and/or the DOJ not defend the government's position in court. I imagine that this is similar to the ACA subsidies that the House was suing the Obama administration over, and now the Trump administration is deciding whether to defend the subsidies at all; I think thats HHS though, and not DOI of course. but i imagine its procedurally similar.

yet another example of how elections matter...i dont suppose they'd be writing these petitions with any seriousness if the president had a (D) behind her name. lost opportunity.