Thanks to the Center for Western Priorities for this one! It reminds me a bit of other projects that people don’t want. For some reason, the discussion occurs at the legal level, not the practice level. A better conversation, to my mind, would be “what restrictions or practices would you like to see implemented that are not in place currently?” The cites in the Mayes letter all go back to the Grand Canyon Trust, who don’t want the mine to continue operating. I don’t think more analysis is going to help this issue, because in this case the legal system is a tool to get the desired policy outcome.
Arizona’s attorney general is at odds with the state’s governor over the safety of the controversial Pinyon Plain uranium mine near the Grand Canyon. Last week, Attorney General Kris Mayes asked the U.S. Forest Service to conduct an environmental review of the mine, which had been dormant for decades before production restarted last December.
Mayes’ letter notes that the Forest Service last reviewed the mine 38 years ago—a review that “is based on an outdated, inaccurate understanding of the risks” that the mine poses to the water supply of Tribal communities in northern Arizona.
Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, however, insists the mine is safe and is regularly inspected by state officials. Hobbs’s office told the Arizona Capitol Times in June that Pinyon Plain is “one of the most closely regulated mines in the country.”
The governor’s office is currently holding talks between uranium company Energy Fuels Resources, which owns Pinyon Plain, and the Navajo Nation over transportation of uranium ore from the mine across Navajo land.
Mayes told KNAU radio that while she’s hopeful the Forest Service will conduct the environmental review, her office is “evaluating all of our legal options right now” in case the agency doesn’t respond.
I like how the Governor supports her own employees and regulatory structure.
I don’t suppose that there’s a way for the Forest Service to get out of this one? Seems like it’s really a conversation involving trade-offs; concerns of Tribes about water, concerns of the Grand Canyon Trust about uranium mining at all based on past history, concerns of our country for domestic energy production, and concerns of Energy Fuels and its workers. This seems way above the Forest Service’s or USDA’s pay grade. Who wins and who loses seems to me ultimately a political question, which should be made by elected officials, more or less accountable to the elecorate, and an EIS just another distraction. If these decisions were rational, then we would have a national programmatic EIS on all the uranium opportunities and compare the social, economic, and environmental pros and cons of each, including relying on foreign countries for supply.