Moderator: HAZ - Moderators
But I don't quite know what this meansWASHINGTON – The Obama administration announced a federal ban Monday on new mining claims affecting 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon, an area known to be rich in high-grade uranium ore reserves.. . .
I guess the "devil is in the details".Salazar said the ban would not affect more than 3,000 mining claims already staked in the area near the Grand Canyon.
A uranium mining company seeking a mineral lease on state land in northwestern Arizona could have a hard time transporting the ore off-site because of the Navajo Nation's objections to an industry that left a legacy of death and disease among tribal members.
The section of land in Coconino County is surrounded by the Navajo Nation's Big Boquillas Ranch. The tribe has said it will not grant Wate Mining Company LLC permission to drive commercial trucks filled with chunks of uranium ore across its land to be processed at a milling site in Blanding, Utah.
That'll be easy to get around. They'll transport it out on the eyesore sky bridge, then through the casino, and up the new tram they're building. Simple!Tough_Boots wrote:Here's a fun twist:
http://www.seattlepi.c...A federal judge has ruled against environmentalists in their fight to halt a uranium mine south of the Grand Canyon that they say will harm people, water and wildlife in the region.
Gee, I wonder if there will be an appeal, and then another ruling, and then another appeal, and then another ruling.....The Forest Service declined to comment, citing a possible appeal. The coalition of environmental groups and the Havasupai Tribe have 60 days to challenge Campbell's ruling.
http://www.phoenixnewt...According to a statement from Grijalva's office, the bill, if successful,"permanently protects the Grand Canyon from new uranium mining claims; protects tribal sacred cultural sites; promotes a more collaborative regional approach between tribal nations and federal land managers; protects commercial and recreational hunting; preserves grazing and water rights; and conserves the Grand Canyon watershed."
Is there an emoji with me playing the world's tiniest violin? As a recent president who almost never used the Antiquties Act said, elections have consequences. So long as President Obama is president, he gets to decide where monuments happen. I don't believe that the Act requires any hearings, and it certainly doesn't require the approval of uranium-loving senators.chumley wrote:Sounds like there might be some workings toward that and representatives elected by the people of Arizona are none too pleased that their voice isn't being heard in the decision making process.
I appreciate that clarification. But I still think that there's a fundamental difference between a congressman doing his job (introducing legislation) and our senators' "raising alarm" about a hypothetical monument that might turn out to be a figment of the imagination. Loads of bills get introduced each year with the expectation that they will not go anywhere. But this isn't necessarily just attention-seeking. Sometimes it takes a few cycles for a bill to accrue enough sponsors to move forward. Sometimes the hearings on a bill can help to attract attention to a cause. Sometimes bills get folded into other bills or end up as a part of the horse-trading (or perhaps horse-grinding) process. So, I disagree with the idea that introducing a bill with little chance of passage is pure attention-seeking--it can be a useful step in the process.chumley wrote:Clarification to the term I used: "whoring for publicity". The publicity, in turn, helps raise campaign funds from people who agree with their particular viewpoint. (More popularly referred to as "pandering to the base"). And I agree with you 100%, Flake and McCain are doing it here, just as Grijalva was doing it earlier.
While the attached document comes from a group that claims to be non-partisan, it clearly supports one side of this issue, so be aware of that as you read.The Arizona Wilderness Act is rightfully called the gold standard of stakeholder consensus. The Act is the product of a historic agreement on wilderness designations and multiple use land policy that involved stakeholders from across the spectrum, including the Reagan Administration, the State of Arizona and Arizona’s entire congressional delegation including members from both sides of the aisle, environmental groups, mining industry representation, the Bureau of Land Management, individual ranchers, the timber industry, utility groups, local and state governments, Native Americans, the Forest Service, and others. The group of stakeholders at the table was broad, bipartisan, and approached the issue from every imaginable standpoint. Even given this diversity, upon passage of the Act, stakeholders believed a “win win” had been struck for all interested parties.