US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9508

A powerful court ruled on Tuesday that an Obama-era ban on new uranium mines around the Grand Canyon should stay in place, though celebration on the environment side was tempered by expectations the government itself will now side with mining interests to end the ban. A separate, but linked, ruling on an older mine was a defeat for a Native American tribe.

The mining industry and a coalition of Republicans in Arizona and Utah had hoped for court support to tear down an order from the Obama administration in 2012 that protected a million acres of land around the Grand Canyon from mining development for 20 years. But they lost in the ninth circuit court of appeals in San Francisco on Tuesday.

The court ruling effectively confirmed that the ban is lawful and the government has the power to impose it. But the government is now represented by Donald Trump and, in the case of mining, interior secretary Ryan Zinke, who are mining enthusiasts.

The National Mining Association, which had fought for the ban to be struck down as illegal by the courts, declared itself disappointed with the decision. But it added, in a statement: “It is now time for the Congress and the administration, working with the impacted states, to re-evaluate whether the withdrawal [from uranium mining claims – ie the ban] was justified based on the scientific, technical and socio-economic facts.”

Ryan Zinke was the unlikely defendant in the case, sued by the National Mining Association – because he inherited the agency that made the decision under then-interior secretary Ken Salazar in 2012.

Roger Clark, program director at the Grand Canyon Trust, an environmental advocacy group in Arizona, said it was “fortunate” that the judge ruled there was “sufficient evidence of risks to water, wildlife and people to justify a 20-year ban on new uranium mines”.

The court upheld what it called the order’s “risk-averse approach” to protecting the Grand Canyon.

When Salazar announced the ban he said it was “the right approach for this priceless American landscape”.

In June, 2017, a coalition of conservative leaders in the region wrote to Zinke urging that the ban be overturned, which the Guardian revealed at the launch of a series about increased environmental threats to America’s public lands.

“If the court had upheld the appeal from the mining interests then the ban would no longer be in effect, so Trump would not have to end it and we would have nothing left to defend,” said Clark.

Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich said the Grand Canyon national park safeguarded a wide area.

“There is protected acreage surrounding the scenic wonder in order to ensure the prized elements of the canyon and the water quality of the Colorado River are not impaired,” he said.

The plaintiffs in the case against the mining ban were the National Mining Association and the Arizona Utah Local Economic Coalition. Defendants were Zinke, other federal agencies, environmental advocacy groups and the Havasupai tribe.

On December 13 2017 13:13 Introvert wrote:
I hope that the guts it took to stay home pays off for the conservatives of Alabama, and for all conservatives.

On December 13 2017 19:15 Gorsameth wrote:

Implying that it takes guts to not vote a child molester into the Senate instead of the most basic level of human decency.

On December 13 2017 20:03 farvacola wrote:

A great quote if I ever saw one.