Grand Canyon uranium mining set to go ahead despite ban from Obama

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/30/grand-canyon-uranium-mining

Uranium mining on the doorstep of the Grand Canyon national park is set to go ahead in 2015 despite a ban imposed last year by Barack Obama.

Energy Fuels Resources has been given federal approval to reopen its old Canyon Mine, located six miles south of the canyon's popular South Rim entrance, that attracts nearly 5 million visitors a year.

The Canadian company says that the Obama administration's ban on new hard-rock mining over 1m acres doesn't apply because its rights date from when it closed over 20 years ago.

However, its approval is based on an environmental study the US Forest Service conducted more than 25 years ago, in 1986.

[Atman]

1. WTF?!

A foreign company defying a ban put in place by our president, in one of our national parks? How this not some sort of act war? Not literally, of course, but it can't be legal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. The ban was for new mines

Ones in place, as that one is, were not impacted.

[liberal N proud]

2. WTF?

Sorry, That is all that can be said about this



Rape the earth despite protections to prevent it.

[Atman]

4. And it's only a national park with millions of tourists...

"What could possibly go wrong? There is profit to be made!"

[progressoid]

5. Well isn't that special.

I like Canada but they sure seem to be making great advances in raping the land lately.

[kristopher]

6. Given the recent court decision supporting the EPA, I don't think this is settled

In Huge Win On Mountaintop Removal With Big Implications, Court Upholds EPA Authority To Protect Clean Water
By Jessica Goad, Guest Blogger on Apr 24, 2013 at 4:56 pm

An important court decision yesterday on mountaintop removal mining for coal has significant ramifications for future decisions.

Yesterday’s ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect clean water from coal mine and other destructive waste. As one attorney working on the case put it:

[The] decision upholds essential protection for all Americans granted by the Clean Water Act. Communities in Appalachia can finally breathe a sigh of relief knowing that EPA always has the final say to stop devastating permits for mountaintop removal mining. Now, we just need EPA to take action to protect more communities and mountain streams before they are gone for good.

Naturally, the industry’s backers in Congress are already threatening legislative action to take away the government’s authority to ensure clean water. For example, David McKinley (R-WV) said that “Congress must be vigilant and fight against overreach by all executive agencies.”

At issue is a section of the Clean Water Act that allows the EPA to veto “dredge and fill” permits that let mining companies dispose of waste in streams and bodies of water. The permits are issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, but EPA has the authority to set certain areas off limits—effectively vetoing the permits—if it determines that dumping the waste will “have unacceptable adverse impacts” on recreation, wildlife, and the like...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/24/1916861/in-huge-win-on-mountaintop-removal-with-big-implications-court-upholds-epa-authority-to-protect-clean-water/

[gejohnston]

7. hopefully We the People

prevail in the Grand Canyon too.

[FBaggins]

8. What's the connection?

This seems like an entirely different set of facts and legal arguments.

Oversimplified, one represents a company fighting a government agency on a decision. In the other case, the company got the decision that it wanted and an outside group wants to fight the agency's ability to make the decision (or at least claim an abuse of an existing authority)