Most recent
Trending
Top Videos
The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Trending
The Wilderness Society
The amendment—offered by Reps. Trent Franks (R-AZ-2), Jeff Flake (R-AZ-6), and Paul Gosar (R-AZ-1)—is a mirror of H.R. 3155, the “Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011.” The legislation would better be called the “Mining the Grand Canyon Act,” for it would allow threatening, industrialized activity near the Grand Canyon. The Wilderness Society has profiled this bill, in addition to other threats, in a new report—Wilderness Under Siege.
“The American people, President Obama and Secretary Salazar understand the historic and natural values of the Grand Canyon and have all worked together to protect this treasure,” said David Moulton, senior director of legislative affairs at The Wilderness Society. “America has a long history of protecting iconic places against short-term gains like mining. We should not start on a dangerous path that would open our lands to corporate polluters at the expense of current and future generations of Americans. On Valentine’s Day, these members need to show more love for America’s Grand Canyon than they do.”
If passed, Amendment 133 would prevent the protection of the Grand Canyon, flanking the park with new roads, mines, exploration drilling, power lines and truck traffic. This activity would damage wildlife habitat and popular hunting grounds and increase pollution in the Grand Canyon watershed. Additionally, it would harm Arizona’s tourism and recreation economy. The outdoor recreation business in Arizona annually supports 82,000 jobs, generates almost $350 million in state tax revenue, and stimulates about $5 billion in retail sales and services. The Grand Canyon National Park alone generates an estimated 10,000 jobs and $420 million in economic activity by attracting more than 4 million visitors annually. Furthermore, a recent bi-partisan poll in Arizona found that “70 percent of voters say that the impact of mining on land and water is a serious problem in Arizona.”
To learn more about the “Mining the Grand Canyon Act” and Wilderness Under Siege, click here.
For more information, click here.
Center for American Progress Action Fund
In praising the announcement, Christy Goldfuss, director of the Public Lands Project, noted, “This is the best call to protect a national treasure. After taking a time-out to study the impacts of excessive uranium mining on the Grand Canyon, the administration came to a fact-based conclusion. The real winners of this decision are American families that will continue to enjoy one of our country's most beautiful locations, the outdoor recreation industry that supports the conservation economy, and the millions of people that drink the water that flows through the region."
To respond to the inevitable attacks from enemies of conservation in Congress, the Public Lands Project outlines the top five winners and losers of the decision. The winners include:
- The 25 million people who get their drinking water from the Colorado River. One of the most important rivers in the nation, providing drinking water to 25 million Americans, would have been exposed to possible water contamination from uranium mining.
- American businesses in the outdoor recreation industry which thrives on Americans’ ability to get outside. In Arizona alone the outdoor recreation economy annually supports 82,000 jobs, generates almost $350 million in state tax revenue, and stimulates about $5 billion in retail sales and services.
- Arizona workers who benefit from tourism dollars in and around the Grand Canyon that create and sustain local jobs. Headwaters Economics found that Grand Canyon National Park supported more than 6,000 jobs in 2009 and tourists spent more than $400 million.
- Hunters and anglers who will not lose access to this prime fish and wildlife habitat. A letter from nine sportsmen groups in July 2011 noted that “Uranium mining near Grand Canyon National Park is wholly unacceptable given the best science available and the potential impacts…” The Arizona Game and Fish Commission has endorsed the mineral withdrawal.
- American families who will continue to have an opportunity to visit the Grand Canyon in its untarnished state. Almost 5 million people visit every year to take part in camping, hiking below the rim, viewing the sights from the window of a lodge, or otherwise taking in the canyon’s natural magnificence.
The losers include:
- International atomic interests that have expressed interest in the uranium deposits around the Grand Canyon. Examples (many of which are foreign or multinational) include—Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear agency; Denison Mining, partially owned by Korea’s state-owned electric utility; and Vane Minerals, a British company.
- Congressmen Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and Trent Franks (R-AZ) who have taken the lead in relentless attempts to force the administration to open the Grand Canyon area to industrial development. Flake’s effort over the summer to attach a policy rider on a budget bill to tie the Interior Department’s hands was dubbed “the Flake earmark.” Flake has already received $12,000 in campaign contributions from mining interests for his 2012 U.S. Senate campaign.
- The National Mining Association, one of the largest natural resources trade and lobbying groups in the nation, which fought this decision. In 2011 it spent $3,580,266 lobbying Congress on various issues, and its non-coal focused PAC has already spent $78,000 in campaign contributions for the 2012 cycle ($70,500 of which went to Republicans). A spokesman from the group in June stated that Secretary Salazar’s six-month withdrawal “sets a troublesome precedent.”
- Scientist Karen Wenrich, called to testify by Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee, who stood to make $225,000 from alleging that there would be little impact from uranium mining on the Colorado River. Securities and Exchange Commission filings show that Karen Wenrich, a retired U.S. Geological Survey scientist, entered into a deal to sell 61 uranium claims only if the mineral withdrawal did not go through.
- Companies seeking to exploit the public’s treasures for corporate profits. Under the 1872 Mining Law, mining companies are not required to pay royalties to the public for the mineral resources that they extract. Not only are taxpayers not properly compensated for their natural resources, but they are frequently left to foot the bill for environmental cleanup.
Related links:
- Salazar Protects The Grand Canyon from Toxic Uranium Mining
- President Obama Lays the Groundwork for His Conservation Legacy
For more information, click here.
—————
The Center for American Progress Action Fund is the sister advocacy organization of the Center for American Progress. The Action Fund transforms progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world. The Action Fund is also the home of the Progress Report.
Change.org
Stiv Wilson, who started the campaign on Change.org, signed by almost 100,000 people, said:
“While it is commendable that the National Park Service has decided not to completely cow to Coca-Cola on a plastic bottle ban, the new policy is still troubling.
"Unfortunately, the new directive, which allows park superintendents to implement bottle bans in their jurisdiction, may not result in changes best for our national parks. If the barriers to implementation of bottle bans are too cost-prohibitive or onerous for the superintendents to act, then we've only witnessed a bait and switch.
"The public outcry around the Park Service's seemingly backroom corporate deals has been overwhelming, and the public expects the NPS to go the whole way and save our national parks from plastic pollution.”
Stiv Wilson launched the campaign on Change.org after learning of allegations that the NPS nixed its long-planned ban on plastic water bottles in the Grand Canyon due to a last-minute lobbying effort by Coca-Cola, a major national park donor actively opposed to bottled water bans. Wilson worked as a journalist before dedicating his life to reducing plastic pollution and joining the staff of 5 Gyres, a nonprofit focused on plastic pollution.
“Mobilizing 100,000 people to take action is no small feat,” said Corinne Ball, organizing director at Change.org. “Stiv has demonstrated, through using Change.org’s unique platform, that anyone, anywhere can act on issues that are important to them and create meaningful change.”
Live signature totals from Stiv Wilson’s campaign can be found by clicking here.
Related Links:
For Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility exposes the controversy, with documents from a whistleblower, click here.
For New York Times coverage that prompted Mr. Wilson to launch his campaign, click here.
For Stiv Wilson's blog post about the National Park Service directive on 5gyres.org, click here.
For more information, click here.
—————
5 Gyres is a research organization that seeks to communicate the global impact of plastic pollution in the world’s oceans and employ strategies to eliminate the accumulation of plastic pollution in the 5 subtropical gyres. Almost 100,000 people have joined Stiv Wilson’s campaign on Change.org
Change.org is the world’s fastest-growing platform for social change—growing by more than 500,000 new members a month, and empowering millions of people to start, join, and win campaigns for social change in their community, city and country.