The Obama administration is set to give protection to one of the world's natural wonders, by banning uranium mining on 1m acres of land around the Grand Canyon.
The interior secretary, Ken Salazar, is due to make a formal announcement on Monday of the 20-year ban on new mining claims, at a film screening at the National Geographic Society in Washington.
The move, praised by conservation groups, is sure to bring the wrath of the mining industry as well as some Republicans, who argue the ban will cost jobs. The measure does not affect some 3,000 existing mining claims around the canyon, however.
Conservation groups said Barack Obama had shown political courage in going ahead with the ban in the face of that opposition. "Despite significant pressure, the president did not settle for a halfway measure," said Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environment Group.
In the final years of the George Bush presidency, when uranium prices were rising worldwide, mining companies filed thousands of new claims in northern Arizona, on lands near the Grand Canyon. They also proposed reopening old mines adjacent to the canyon.
Salazar ordered a temporary halt to new claims in 2009, after Obama came to office.
Government officials proposed the 20-year ban in October last year, after an environmental review, calling for the preservation of an "iconic landscape".
"It is appropriate to pause, identify what the predicted level of mining and its impacts on the Grand Canyon would be, and decide what level of risk is acceptable to take with this natural treasure," Bob Abbey, the director of the US bureau of land management, said at the time.
Republicans, including former presidential candidate John McCain, condemned the move to withdraw lands from new mining claims as an emotional over-reaction.
"This withdrawal is fuelled by an emotional public relations campaign designed by some of the same environmental groups whose long-time mission has been to kill mining and grazing jobs on the Arizona Strip, as well as tourism jobs at the Grand Canyon," McCain told a hearing in Congress last year.
Conservation groups have long argued that mining laws in the west are antiquated – giving companies free access to vast swathes of iconic public lands.
In the case of the Grand Canyon, the concerns go far beyond just conserving a spectacular view. At least one creek in the national park is known to be contaminated by uranium, and the government's environmental impact review found high levels of arsenic from old uranium operations.
Comments
Sign in to comment or to join the conversation
9 January 2012 12:11PM
all mining of all metal should now cease, AND ALL OF THE SCRAP MATEL SHOULD BE RE-BURIED, metal atoms are not breathable atoms, AND as it was/?STILL IS A HUGE HEAT TRANSFERENCE SYSTEM. it should now be re-buried, instead, , INSTEAD THEY CHOOSE TO STORE MEDICAL FILES IN DISUSED MINES, METAL SHOULD BE RE-BURIED before its too late, planting trees can't deal with toxic air, and ???METAL ATOMS BEAT CARBON, WHAT SAY YOU???
9 January 2012 12:24PM
I say you need to go lie down in a darkened room whenever these feelings come over you.
9 January 2012 12:26PM
think your caps lock button is bust matey...
9 January 2012 12:46PM
Good luck with burying the metals used in whatever device you're typing this from.
9 January 2012 12:47PM
Is there a real shortage of uranium ore in storage, or is this an "emotional public relations campaign" by McCain and other hawks?
The US just convinced the scared little boy Steven Harper to ship all of Canadas' uranium stocks to the US for 'safe keeping', no doubt because of all our terrorist problems in Canada.
9 January 2012 12:55PM
Ummmm - Monument Valley is NOT part of the Grand Canyon.
Much like the Cliffs of Dover are not part of Cornwall.
Both are scenic - but have little to do with each other -
With the possible exception of similar regional characteristics.
Please switch the image.
9 January 2012 1:01PM
"...by banning uranium mining on 1m square acres of land..."
An acre is already a unit of area. The "square" seems redundant.
9 January 2012 1:09PM
Is a square acre a unit of volume? Or would a square acre be a four-dimensional unit?
9 January 2012 1:13PM
Your out to Lunch on both accounts.
Firstly; Harper is the best PM Canada has seen in a generation, possibly ever.
Secondly uranium mining is not an open market and the US happened to be the highest bidder.
In any event your ad homenem attacks on our PM are laughable.
9 January 2012 1:21PM
"Despite significant pressure, the president did not settle for a halfway measure," said Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environment Group.
This is one of the few times he hasn't settled for a "halfway measure". He has been an awful president overall.
And Jamawani is right - put up an actual photo of the Grand Canyon, not Monument Valley.
9 January 2012 1:25PM
Nutter!
9 January 2012 2:11PM
Harper is quite possibly the worst thing to ever happen to Canada.
9 January 2012 2:29PM
@FactChecker4u
YOU'RE out to lunch (You are).
YOUR lunch (posession).
9 January 2012 2:43PM
The Guardian thinks Monument Valley and The Grand Canyon are the same? Wow. How are we supposed to believe anything else written here when their geography is so wrong?
9 January 2012 2:58PM
Thank you jamawani! When I saw the image I was intrigued; then when I read the caption I was horrified. I live in Flagstaff, Arizona, about 80 miles southeast of the Grand Canyon and about 100 miles southwest of Monument Valley. About the only thing these two site have in common is that they are both a part of the vast Colorado Plateau. It's ironic that the Guardian could make this mistake, given that one formation consists of things that stick up out of the surrounding terrain and the other is a large gash down into the surrounding terrain.
9 January 2012 3:07PM
Obama didn't make an 'environmental stand' as much as a political stand -
he will balance the banning of uranium mining w/approval of the XL pipeline
9 January 2012 3:44PM
1m square acres is not a lot really.
Anyway it is the Grand Canyon an has to be sacred for an eternity.
Obama is not courageous. He is a politician and if it meant extra votes his record shows that he would drill as fast as any Republican.
Stop putting him on a pedestal as some sort of moral custodian.
9 January 2012 4:01PM
Tsk, it's so anti-American of Obama to oppose the destruction of a US landmark. Those socialists and their silly emotional attachments to national icons!
A true patriot like Rick Perry would have that baby leveled in an instant.
(not that it matters much what Rick Perry thinks)
9 January 2012 4:02PM
Legalizing marijuana would also create much needed jobs, but I don't see the rushing the legislation for that economic stimulation. So why are jobs always the first concern when the downside of permitting some activity is putting the environment in jeopardy?
9 January 2012 4:20PM
Nice baby steps, but he has a long way to go. At this point I am voting for Jill Stein (unless he wants to use her to replace Ken Salazar). Obama has been extremely irresponsible with environmental decisions, and at this point small steps just look like he's trying to win votes. Do manyh positive things for endangered species and I might reconsider.
9 January 2012 5:11PM
There is no shortage of blended uranium in the world, mining the GC seems pretty unnecessary.
9 January 2012 6:54PM
This is obviously a populist appeal to green voters, especially in the context of 3000 licences already granted and the pipeline debacle.
It's strange how uber-conservative the US has become. It's so bad that Obama is still painted a socialist, even though he's clearly right-of-centre and a far cry from the type of leader he convinced the world he would become.
9 January 2012 6:54PM
So we can someday get in a war over foreign uranium just like we get into wars over foreign oil. In the case of WWII, the "foreign" oil was in USA and Russia.
9 January 2012 7:06PM
No. Obama will cancel the Keystone pipeline for the same reason he is against domestic uranum mining. It is to get his very-far-left base to the polls. USA elections hinge on turnout. Obama got less votes in Ohio than did Kerry.
If we were against uranium mining, Carter would not have cancelled the breeder reactor. It increased uranium supply times 50. Just byproduct uranium from phosphate fertilizer is good for 20 TWe using the fast breeder cycle. Clinton ran all light water reactor research monies to zero. Obama canceled Yucca mountan. Only issue is whether the Democratic party is just the antinuclear party or the anti-capitalist party.
Keystone pipeline is to pick up an additional 200,000 barrels/day Bakkan crude. No keystone means an additional 100 rail car train of crude rolls from Oklahoma to Louisania. The first thing that happened after the Keystone pipeline was "delayed" was expansion of the terminal to load more Bakken crude onto rail cars. In the energy business, "government delay" means canceled. Even the Obama Administration must realize what a trainwreck will mean. Perhaps not.
9 January 2012 7:11PM
If you don't want to get the uranium from elsewhere in the US you might want to consider invading Australia. Or Canada - not so far to travel and I reckon they could do with a bit of regime change up there.
9 January 2012 7:19PM
Doesn't that risk letting in a Republican who would be way worse for the environment and way worse on a load of other things than Obama?
9 January 2012 7:36PM
So you think he'll cancel it before November? I hope you're right.
About this far-left base though. These people you're calling far left are what we in Europe would call the centre, or right of centre even. People who'd quite like to have a health service, a job that gives them enough to live on, and some social security for when they're old or if they find themselves out of work, and some pretty basic care for the environment, like not turning one of the country's greatest national parks into a mine and like accepting the science of climate change. To us here in Europe these are things that virtually all of us and all mainstream politicians, of the right and of the left, accept.
9 January 2012 7:40PM
Absolutely - but is that what America has become? A place where we vote out of fear? Who is going to stand up and take back this country?
9 January 2012 7:42PM
And they're not even real Conservatives. All including Obama are owned by corporations like Big Oil and those 1 percent with billions to pay off our government. America has become an oligarchy, and we may be on the verge of civl war - we got a glimpse of it with Occupy.
9 January 2012 7:56PM
well there goes the bloody time machine...
9 January 2012 9:22PM
With a first past the post electoral system like you have in the US and like we have here in the UK you do unfortunately have to use your vote tactically and intelligently, and when you have something as truly terrible as the Republicans I think you have to do whatever you can to keep them out of office.
I recall back in 2000 people were talking about Gush and Bore and saying what difference does it make which one of them gets in. None of us really imagined quite what a disaster Bush would turn out to be. if a number of Nader voters back then had voted a bit more intelligently I think the world would now be a very different place.
9 January 2012 9:46PM
I understand what you're saying, but consider this: with Obama in office, climate change and unhealthy forests are damaging not only our health, but the economy as well. Look up how much the floods, hurricanes and tsunamis across the world have cost us. Billions. Granted not all of them were due to climate change, but the increase is undeniably due to global warming. Our resources are being sucked dry and will be unaffordable in the near future. What is going to happen if the economy recovers but the average American cannot afford to rebuild their home after a natural disaster or cannot get basic resources? This will happen under Obama. No matter how wonderful he is in other areas, we must get him out of office. Or get him to see the importance of environmental issues. Worshipping the ground he walks on and cowtowing to his ideas is not the way. We must threaten an election revolt or the whole world is in danger.
Sadly I will not have to argue my position - the world will see evidence soon enough.
9 January 2012 10:01PM
800 tornadoes in April 2011 alone. Do people think this is a joke? Wait until it hits your community. Obama is not only a world leader, he is a father. He should be ashamed of himself.
10 January 2012 3:10AM
For what? More nuclear weapons? Another Fukushima?
(They would just as soon sell it to Iran and North Korea.)