Key House panel passes ban on uranium mining at Grand Canyon
A bill to halt new uranium mining claims near the Grand Canyon cleared a key committee vote Wednesday and is heading to the floor for a vote by the full House of Representatives.
If passed, HR 1373, also known as the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, would make permanent a moratorium on new uranium claims across 1 million acres of federal lands.
Its sponsor, U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, DAriz., guided an hour of discussion in the House Natural Resources Committee, which he chairs. He championed the measure’s passage, calling it a “plain and simple” bill he hopes will finally pass.
“Today’s discussion on this bill has been a long time coming,” Grijalva said in the hearing, adding that this was one of many incarnations of such a bill, which has never passed a Republicanled committee or chamber. The committee vote was 21-14.
“The Grand Canyon is one of the most amazing places on Earth and it needs to be protected and it still isn’t protected,” he said. “Anybody who doesn’t support this legislation should have a better idea on how to protect it and should be able to argue that uranium mining isn’t a risk to the Grand Canyon.”
Grijalva first introduced the bill at Grand Canyon National Park in February with U.S. Rep. Tom O’Halleran, DAriz., as well as Havasupai, Hualapai, Hopi and Navajo tribal leaders. While other versions of the bill have been introduced and rejected in recent years, Grijalva hopes it will gather more support as the park celebrates its centennial year.
So far, the bill has earned support from most House Democrats and is expected to pass the chamber, but its future beyond that remains less favorable. Republicans in the House and Senate call the measure a land grab and a hindrance to the country’s energy independence.
“The Grand Canyon is one of the most amazing places on Earth and it needs to be protected and it still isn’t protected. Anybody who doesn’t support this legislation should have a better idea on how to protect it and should be able to argue that uranium mining isn’t a risk to the Grand Canyon.” U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.
The park’s value vs. economic value
Wednesday’s hearing encapsulated a decades-long clash of priorities and political ideologies over what intrinsic value the park has and whether the country can, or should, balance profit and preservation. One of the bill’s harshest critics, U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., has called the bill a partisan, misguided quest that brings its own set of consequences.
Restricting the ability to mine for uranium there, Gosar said, cuts into revenue from energy companies to local economies and cuts the jobs they provide.
“(The bill) will reduce important revenues for education, roads, hospitals and infrastructure,” Gosar said in the hearing, adding that it will “kill jobs, harm local communities, threaten national security and undermine American energy security.”
“The withdrawal area targeted by this bill contains extremely valuable deposits of rare earths, critical minerals, copper and a 326 million-acre uranium reserve that contains the largest tract and highest-grade uranium in the nation by a factor of six,” he said.
Gosar has said in the past that mining operations could provide anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 jobs and that the economic benefit from uranium mining could be valued at $29 billion.
While the Canyon benefits from an exhaustive list of federal protections and regulations that shield it and other national parks throughout the country, advocates say the surrounding land needs protection, too. The bill aims to protect the Canyon’s vast watershed, which the Havasupai tribe relies on, and the greater ecosystem that houses 600 species of mammals, birds, amphibians, fish, reptiles and plants.
The bill would make permanent the 20-year uranium mining moratorium put in place by the Obama administration in 2012, which withdrew 1,006,545 acres of federal lands surrounding the canyon. President Donald Trump’s administration has pushed for policies to encourage mining.
About two years ago, President Trump issued an executive order that told federal agencies to examine policies that could slow energy development on public lands. One of those recommendations was reversing the moratorium, which was upheld in court.
In early June, the Commerce Department released recommendations to protect access to minerals deemed critical to the country’s economy, including uranium. That came after Ur-Energy and Energy Fuels lobbied for a petition to ensure a quarter of uranium be mined domestically. Trump recently sidestepped that, saying he would not restrict uranium imports.
Ensuring that domestic supply, advocates say, would minimize China’s leverage in future trade talks and secure access to uranium if needed. By supporting this bill and HR3405, which removes uranium from the critical minerals list, Democrats, environmental advocates and others signal that they want companies to look elsewhere.
‘Misguided and unnecessary’
While economic security and energy independence is also on the minds of Democrats like Grijalva, they say the risk of mining is not worth the risk of damaging the delicate ecosystem inhabiting a timeless treasure. Grijalva addressed Republicans on the committee and said their arguments distract from the purpose and philosophy of his bill.
“None of these arguments against this bill are about anything that’s actually in this bill,” Grijalva said, adding that he and others value the Canyon “more than we value the industry that demands the ability to mine” it.
“We’re talking about a few years of mining profits for largely foreign-owned mining companies at the expense of new health risks, new endangered species risk, new long-term risk to the Colorado River and the virtual certainty that mining companies won’t pay to clean up after themselves,” he said.
Critics like Gosar and mining advocates say uranium mining would be no more dangerous than the uranium that’s already there that seeps into the surrounding water in minute levels.
Gosar, other members of the Republican Congressional Western Caucus and mining stakeholders strongly oppose the bill because it restricts access to a reserve of breccia pipes in the region, essentially plugs of high-quality uranium, which the groups claim are too far away to have an impact.
“The area we are considering is not even in the Grand Canyon park,” Gosar said.
“Any mining operation will have to comply with all state and federal environmental laws and go through the National Environmental Policy Act,” he said. “This million-acre land grab is misguided and unnecessary.”
Risks still not fully understood
Recent reports from environmental groups like the Environment Arizona Research and Policy Center and the Grand Canyon Trust have highlighted the risk of uranium mining and the effects it has on land around sites.
Those reports say every mining operation around the world has needed some cleanup and are known to spread radioactive dust into the air that can seep into nearby areas. But scientists don’t yet understand the broader effects exposure has on the land and the people or animals that live on and near it. The U.S. Geological Survey is still researching the effects of some dormant uranium mining operations outside the park’s boundaries.
While the economic benefits are clearer, the risk of attaining them are largely unknown and tribes that live there say they don’t want to take any chances. Dozens of representatives of environmental groups lauded the procedural step on Wednesday and stressed the importance of preserving the park and the surrounding land.
One of them was Randi Spivak, the public lands director for the Center for Biological Diversity, a group that has long advocated for bills like this.
“This bill protects one of the most famous landmarks in the world,” Spivak said.
“It’s a wonderful gift to all Americans now and in the future. Years from now people will look back and wonder why it was even controversial.”