[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 644,
GRAND CANYON WATERSHEDS
PROTECTION ACT OF 2009
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-143 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Elton Gallegly, California
Grace F. Napolitano, California John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Jeff Flake, Arizona
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Carolina
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Louie Gohmert, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Islands Mike Coffman, Colorado
Diana DeGette, Colorado Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Tom McClintock, California
Lois Capps, California Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Jay Inslee, Washington officio
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, July 21, 2009........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 1
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 4
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico........................................ 5
Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Archuleta, Elizabeth C., Supervisor, District 2, Coconino
County Board of Supervisors, Flagstaff, Arizona............ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Brothers, Kay, Deputy General Manager, Engineering and
Operations, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas,
Nevada..................................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Hedden, Bill, Executive Director, Grand Canyon Trust,
Flagstaff, Arizona......................................... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Kreamer, David K., Ph.D., Professor of Hydrology, University
of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada.................... 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Putesoy, Matthew, Vice Chairman, Havasupai Tribal Council,
Supai, Arizona............................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Singh, Madan M., Ph.D., P.E., Director, Department of Mines
and Mineral Resources, State of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona.. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Trautwein, Mark, Former Staffer to Congressman Morris Udall,
San Anselmo, California.................................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Vail, Clarinda T., Properties Manager, Red Feather, Inc., and
Tusayan Land and Cattle Company, Tusayan, Arizona.......... 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Wenrich, Dr. Karen, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological
Survey, Retired, Golden, Colorado.......................... 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 644, TO WITHDRAW THE TUSAYAN RANGER
DISTRICT AND FEDERAL LAND MANAGED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN
THE VICINITY OF KANAB CREEK AND IN HOUSE ROCK VALLEY FROM LOCATION,
ENTRY, AND PATENT UNDER THE MINING LAWS. (GRAND CANYON WATERSHEDS
PROTECTION ACT OF 2009)
----------
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable Raul
M. Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Hastings, Kildee,
Bishop, Heinrich, Shea-Porter, Coffman, and Lummis.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Let me call the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lands to order. This is a legislative
hearing on H.R. 644, and I'd like to welcome everyone,
particularly our witnesses--some of whom had to go through
considerable lengths to be here with us. We are very
appreciative of your presence and look forward to your
testimony.
Like the Statue of Liberty, or the Dome of the U.S. Capitol
Building just across the street from us, the Grand Canyon is
one of the most instantly recognizable icons in the world. The
canyon's walls and jagged formations are shorthand for what
makes this country exceptional, and what we stand for as a
people.
Grand Canyon National Park evokes nostalgia for family
vacations and park rangers spinning yarns about the canyon lore
over a campfire. It reminds us that those who came before us
had the foresight to save this place for us and we, in turn,
bear the heavy responsibility of preserving this place for
those who will come after us. Like the Grand Canyon itself,
this kind of large landscape preservation is uniquely American
and also worth preserving.
However, in the past several years, in response to booming
demands for uranium, thousands of mining claims have popped up
along the park's edge, threatening the natural and cultural
resources of the park as well as its watershed. This is deeply
troubling to the business people who depend on the park for
their livelihoods, its visitors, the millions who rely on the
Colorado River for water, those who value the distinctive
wildlife and plant sustained by the canyon's waters, and the
native communities who revere the canyon and are still reeling
from the last uranium mining boom.
Last year the Natural Resources Committee notified the
previous administration that the pressure placed on the canyon
and its resources by exploding demand for uranium constituted
an emergency. Unfortunately, the previous administration
refused to act. In contrast, the Obama Administration has
announced a decision to segregate one million acres of critical
lands adjacent to the park to conduct a thorough study of the
appropriateness of allowing mining on these lands.
This is a vital step. I commend the President and Secretary
Salazar for their leadership on this issue, and thank them for
responding to the Committee's notification. Until we have a
better understanding of the impact the uranium boom will have
on this American landmark, and what impact it will have on the
water source of the West, the Colorado River, the
Administration is right to provide a timeout, to take a hard
scientific look.
Now it is time for Congress to do its part by devising
permanent protection for this national treasure. Extending the
work begun with the field hearing this Subcommittee conducted
at Flagstaff, we will continue today to build a record
documenting what is at stake if uranium mining goes forward on
these lands. We will hear testimony from witnesses about the
risks of uranium mining to the Grand Canyon's ecosystem, to the
Colorado River, and we will hear the sometimes tragic impacts
of past mining projects such as the Church Rock mining disaster
whose thirtieth anniversary was silently marked last week with
a prayer walk, and we will gain insight into the future of the
canyon envisioned by conservation leaders of the recent past,
such as Mo Udall and others.
I would note that my decision not to invite the
Administration to testify at today's hearing has been
questioned. For the record, such participation in today's
meeting would be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
These include the pendency of litigation, desire to avoid
repetition, and the fact that thanks to some partisan
gamesmanship that is going on, the Interior Department still
lacks a full leadership staff. I am eager to allow the
Administration to testify regarding the decision announced
yesterday, their reactions, and their recommendations regarding
the legislation before us today, and we will be scheduling
hearings for that particular purpose in the future.
I thank all the witnesses for traveling here to D.C. to
speak out on what I believe to be a very, very important issue.
I look forward to your comments. With that, let me turn to our
Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop, for any comments he may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. We meet today in a hearing that may actually be
a moot issue, which is legal talk for useless. Since Secretary
Salazar's actions on Monday, it actually takes the place of
what this legislation was intending to do without ever having
gone through the process of input hearings or understanding the
situation.
Secretary Salazar was given a letter of questions that we
thought were imperative to be answered before any kind of
action took place. Not only was the letter ignored, but there
were no answers to any of those questions given before his
unilateral action.
I could do an entire Red Buttons' monologue on the people
who aren't here that should be here. Yes, the Administration
should be here to answer why they did what they did, and what
the rationale is for doing it, but they are not here. The
Member who represents this area should be here to give her
input on what she wants to do, but once again she is not here.
In 1983 and 1984, this issue was solved by bringing the
special interests together--government leaders and the
businesses impacted--in something that Mo Udall himself called
an amazing process that was built from the bottom up in
Arizona, not imposed on Arizona from Washington--something that
didn't happen on Monday.
He went on to say that this was an extraordinary example of
what cooperation and compromise between business and
conservation groups can produce. He was accurate when that took
place. He went on to say that, yes, this decision by an
informed wilderness and non-wilderness contingent could be
extended and delayed by years, but it was unlikely to result in
any new data becoming available.
Now, they produced a compromise back there. Many Members of
Congress that are here today were part of that process, and
they will say the same thing--that the compromise worked back
then.
I am assuming we are going to hear others today that will
tell us that the conditions have changed since 1983 and 1984.
They are wrong. There are some that will say that water
conditions have changed. They will be wrong. There will be some
that will say that energy demands have changed, and those
people are spot on accurate.
This bill is having a hearing. If this issue was to go
through the process in regular order, the way it was intended
to do, we would have a hearing here and in the Senate. There
would be votes here and in the Senate. If you went through that
process, you might be able to replicate what former Congressman
Udall was able to do in the 1980s. But we didn't do that
because the Secretary of the Interior unilaterally and
arbitrarily made a multi-year decision for a moratorium without
input, without science, and obviously without understanding. He
also did not take away a takings issue from these people who
are involved because he didn't necessarily take it. He just put
on hold any kind of development of new areas until the costs
can possibly run out the time so that those businesses will
have no opportunity to become involved again.
It is interesting to note that the State Legislature of
Arizona passed a resolution that condemned the action the
Secretary of the Interior took on Monday, condemning this bill.
The county where this will be residence passed a resolution
condemning this bill, and this particular action of this
Interior Secretary.
Now, when Aristotle started writing about governments, he
had this penchant for always trying to come up with lists and
giving names to those lists. He said the only difference
between good and bad government was the attitude of the person
involved, and then he divided them into governments of the one,
the few, and the many, and to each of those he gave a name. He
said the worst form of government, the government of the many
in which there was a bad attitude, was called a democracy
because in a democracy property can be taken by a vote of the
many.
This did not happen. This was property that was taken by
the decision of one. Aristotle had a name for that as well. He
decided that kind of government was called a tyranny. Secretary
Salazar participated on Monday in making that kind of
unilateral decision. It was wrong. If this bill should go
forward, it needs to have hearing, it needs to have input, not
what Secretary Salazar did.
I yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. I now turn to my colleague, Mr. Kildee. Do
you have any opening comments?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. Just briefly. We are today discussing one of
America's and one of the world's greatest treasures, and I want
to make sure that we do keep that in mind, but also wish to
keep in mind the lives of people whose ancestors admired the
hand of God in the Grand Canyon. To that, we should add that we
want to make sure that we do no harm.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
The Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Hastings, any
comments?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your courtesy in allowing me to be here today.
We are here today to discuss legislation that would
permanently remove a million acres of land in Arizona from the
development of uranium resources. Now, I do strongly oppose
this bill, but I want to focus this morning on the troubling
and unacceptable actions taken by the Obama Administration on
this issue, that which Mr. Bishop alluded to.
Yesterday, Secretary Salazar announced a two-year timeout
on new uranium mining on this land in Arizona. This decision,
which would lock up 40 percent of our country's uranium supply,
will cost American jobs at a time when the employment rate is
9.5 percent, over a quarter-century high, and make the United
States more dependent on foreign countries for our energy. In
the end, this decision will move our economy backward, not
forward.
Once again, this is another example of the Obama
Administration saying no to American energy and no to American
jobs. In just six short months, this Administration has blocked
new offshore drilling, blocked oil and natural gas leases in
Utah, and is now blocking uranium mining in Arizona. It is
ironic that the same Administration that is pushing through a
national energy tax in order to supposedly reduce our country's
carbon footprint is now blocking mining of uranium that is used
to generate nuclear power.
Nuclear is a clean, noncarbon-emitting energy source. If
the President is serious about reducing carbon emissions, he
would support increased American uranium development and
embrace nuclear power to help us meet our growing energy needs.
In this Congress, we really need to enact an energy plan
that responsibly uses our natural resources and makes our
environment cleaner. This includes, of course, renewable
carbon-free energy sources such as nuclear, wind, solar, and
hydropower, but also it needs to include producing more
American-made oil and natural gas. Unfortunately, this
Administration has chosen to adopt a high-priced gourmet plan
that only uses certain types of American energy and focuses
almost solely on green jobs.
Now, I can say that we all support green jobs. However, the
14.7 million Americans who are unemployed aren't just looking
for green jobs. We need green jobs, nuclear jobs, drilling
jobs, oil and gas jobs, manufacturing jobs, and thousands of
jobs that depend on uranium development.
But what is even more troubling about yesterday's
announcement is that the Administration made this unilateral
decision, as Mr. Bishop alluded to, without consulting with
Congress and without providing answers to detailed questions
asked by House Republicans last March. It appears we will have
to keep waiting for answers to these questions because there is
not one official from the Obama Administration here today to
testify. It is outrageous that while the Administration is
singlehandedly making decision that will cost jobs and block
energy development they are not even here to explain what their
position is on this particular bill. For an Administration that
promised to be open and transparent, I am really troubled by
their actions yesterday, and I just hope that this is not a
prelude to their arbitrary and heavy-handed approach to
crafting our national energy policy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Mr. Heinrich, any comments?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARTIN HEINRICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will keep my
comments short.
I want to welcome our panelists this morning, and I would
note that a great much ado has been made about process this
morning already, and I will simply note that it was the
previous administration's efforts to avoid the NEPA process
that lands us in this mess in the first place, and that we
could have had a lot more transparency for a great deal of the
last few years.
And I actually have a slightly more pro-nuclear approach
than many of my Democratic colleagues. I have worked in a
nuclear reactor. I think nuclear power is an important part of
our energy mix moving forward, but I also live in a state where
the costs of uranium mining have been an enormous burden to
many of our poor communities for a very long time.
Like Arizona, New Mexico has been through this uranium boom
and bust before, and we have not cleaned up the legacy of our
previous economic activity. We still have enormous burdens on
local communities in terms of water contamination, in terms of
areas that are simply fenced off where the public cannot go, in
terms of needs for reclamation, and I think it is important to
make sure that we don't make the same mistakes twice; that as
we move forward, we pick and choose the places where it is most
appropriate to do development, and make sure that that
development is in keeping with not only protecting our
environment but also protecting the religious and cultural
sites that our tribes and pueblos feel so strongly about.
So, I think this is a perfectly appropriate hearing. I look
forward to hearing from our guests today, and I would thank the
Chairman for bringing this issue to the fore.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and let me invite the first panel
up, if I may.
Let me thank the panel, and welcome you here. Your full
comments and any other extraneous information that you would
want to leave with us will be made part of the official record
of the hearing. I would hope that we could limit our comments
today to five minutes. That will give the Members here ample
time to have time for questions.
With that let me begin with Mr. Matthew Putesoy, Vice
Chairman of the Havasupai Tribe, and Mr. Vice Chairman, if you
would also introduce the council member that is with you here
today, that would be appropriate. Welcome, sir, and thank you
for being here. We look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW PUTESOY, VICE CHAIRMAN, HAVASUPAI TRIBE,
SUPAI, ARIZONA
Mr. Putesoy. OK, thank you, Chairman and committee members.
I am here today with Diana Sue Uqualla. She is a Havasupai
Tribe council member.
[Native greeting.] Hello, my name is Matthew Putesoy. I am
the elected Vice Chairman of the Havasupai Tribe. I live in the
Grand Canyon.
H.R. 644 will protect the Grand Canyon. It will also
protect my tribe's aboriginal home inside the Grand Canyon. The
Havasupai People have lived in and around the Grand Canyon
since before there was a United States of America. We have
lived in the canyon at least 500 years before Christopher
Columbus was born.
I have listened to a lot of people talking about the Grand
Canyon. Well, you are looking at it, I am the Grand Canyon. I
am the Grand Canyon.
The Havasupai are known as the ``Guardians of the Grand
Canyon'' and Havasu Baa'ja--the People of the Blue-Green Water.
The water in Havasu Creek forms beautiful waterfalls in our
village. This water springs out of the canyon floor above our
village. The source of our wager is called the Redwall-Muav
aquifer. The area of this aquifer is very large. It extends
underneath about 5,000 square miles of the Coconino Plateau on
the South Rim. About 98 percent of the water in this aquifer
comes out at Havasu Springs. The rest discharges at the springs
at Indian Gardens, Hermit Springs, and other springs in the
Grand Canyon.
Hundreds of existing mining claims on the land identified
in H.R. 644 are directly on top of this aquifer. If uranium or
mining poisons our water, our thousand-year life in the Grand
Canyon will end. As a tribe, we will die. We cannot relocate to
Phoenix or someplace else and still survive as the Havasupai
Tribe. We are the Grand Canyon.
Mining not only threatens our water and life, but many of
the mining claims, including the Canyon Uranium Mine set to go
into operation, are located right next to traditional Havasupai
religious areas in the forest that my people have used for
centuries. Would you want an operating uranium mine next to
your church or synagogue?
In 1975, Congress, led by Senator Barry Goldwater, returned
to us some--but not all--of our aboriginal canyon lands. In the
statute that did this, Congress said that our land and all of
the Grand Canyon was `a natural feature of national and
international significance.` In returning our land to use,
Congress said it recognized the need for `further
protection...of the Grand Canyon in accordance with its true
significance.'' My tribe listened to these words and took
action to further protect our canyon home. My people adopted a
provision in our constitution that bars uranium mining on our
reservation.
Well, the Grand Canyon has not changed much in the 34 years
since Congress expressly recognized a need to further protect
it. But something has changed. Over 10,000 new claims have been
filed on the land identified in H.R. 644.
H.R. 644 would prohibit the filing of any more mining
claims on the lands identified in the bill. Section 2[b] would
protect valid existing rights. My tribe opposes the existing
10,000 mining claims. We do not need more. The mining industry
does not need more. The Grand Canyon cannot survive more.
I urge you to do the right thing. Protect the Grand Canyon
and the Havasupai people--for those living now and those yet to
be born.
Please adopt the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of
2009.
Thank you. Council Member Diana Sue Uqualla, behind me, and
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Putesoy follows:]
Statement of Matthew Putesoy, Vice Chairman,
Havasupai Tribe, Supai, Arizona
[Brief greeting in the Havasupai language.]
Hello. My name is Matthew Putesoy. I am the elected Vice Chairman
of the Havasupai Tribe. I live in the Grand Canyon.
H.R. 644 will protect the Grand Canyon. It will also protect my
Tribe's aboriginal home inside the Grand Canyon. The Havasupai People
have lived in and around the Grand Canyon since before there was a
United States of America. We have lived in the Canyon at least 500
years before Christopher Columbus was born!
I have listened to a lot of people talking about the Grand Canyon.
Well, you are looking at it. I am the Grand Canyon.
The Havasupai are known as the ``Guardians of the Grand Canyon''
and Havasu Baa'ja--the People of the Blue-Green Water. The water in
Havasu Creek forms beautiful waterfalls in our Village. This water
springs out of the Canyon floor above our Village. The source of our
water is called the Redwall-Muav aquifer. The area of this aquifer is
very large. It extends underneath about 5,000 square miles of the
Coconino Plateau on the South Rim. About 98% of the water in this
aquifer comes out at Havasu Springs. The rest discharges at the springs
at Indian Gardens, Hermit Springs, and other springs in the Grand
Canyon.
Hundreds of existing mining claims on the land identified in H.R.
644 are directly on top of this aquifer. If uranium or mining poisons
our water, our thousand-year life in the Grand Canyon will end. As a
tribe, we will die. We cannot relocate to Phoenix or someplace else and
still survive as the Havasupai Tribe. We are the Grand Canyon.
Mining not only threatens our water and life, but many of the
mining claims, including the Canyon Uranium Mine set to go into
operation, are located right next to traditional Havasupai religious
areas in the Forest that my People have used for centuries. Would you
want an operating uranium mine next to your church or synagogue?
In 1975, Congress, led by Senator Barry Goldwater, returned to us
some--but not all--of our aboriginal Canyon lands. In the statute that
did this, Congress said that our land and all of the Grand Canyon was
``a natural feature of national and international significance.'' In
returning our land to us, Congress said it recognized the need for
``further protection...of the Grand Canyon in accordance with its true
significance.'' My Tribe listened to these words and took action to
further protect our Canyon home. My People adopted a provision in our
Constitution that bars uranium mining on our Reservation.
Well, the Grand Canyon has not changed much in the 34 years since
Congress expressly recognized a need to further protect it. But
something has changed. Over 10,000 new mining claims have been filed on
the land identified in H.R. 644.
H.R. 644 would prohibit the filing of any more mining claims on the
lands identified in the bill. Section 2(b) would protect valid existing
rights.
My Tribe opposes the existing 10,000 mining claims. We do not need
more. The mining industry does not need more. The Grand Canyon cannot
survive more.
I urge you to do the right thing. Protect the Grand Canyon and the
Havasupai People--for those living now, and those yet to be born.
Please adopt the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of 2009
Thank you. Council Member Diana Sue Uqualla, behind me, and I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
Let me now ask Ms. Elizabeth Archuleta, Supervisor,
District 2, Coconino County Board of Supervisors. Madam
Supervisor, comments?
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH C. ARCHULETA, SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT 2,
COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA
Ms. Archuleta. Thank you very much, Chairman Grijalva,
Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and
Public Lands. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony
today. I am here representing the Coconino County Board of
Supervisors. We certainly appreciate the efforts of the
Chairman and the committee to hold this important hearing, to
discuss the community impacts of proposed uranium mining near
the Grand Canyon National Park.
As you know, Coconino County is the second largest county
in the nation, encompassing more than 18,000 square miles. It
includes many national treasurers, including Oak Creek Canyon,
Sunset Crater National Monument, Walnut Canyon National
Monument, and most notably, Grand Canyon National Park. Our
county includes 13 percent private land, with the remaining
land owned by the Federal government, five Native American
tribes, and the State of Arizona.
In Coconino County, we pride ourselves on the relationships
that we have with Native American tribes, state and Federal
land managers as well as our neighboring counties and
communities in Arizona and Utah. However, we are very concerned
when decisions are made by agencies that may affect the health
and safety of our residents in Coconino County.
Once such decision was made on January 10, 2008, by the
Tusayan Ranger District of thee Kaibab National Forest. The
Tusayan Ranger District issued a decision that VANE Minerals,
LLC, could begin joint exploration holes for uranium at seven
project sites within the district. According to the Kaibab
National Forest the primary purpose of the project is for VANE
Minerals to locate and assess quantity and commercial resource
potential for uranium ore deposits within the Tusayan Ranger
District. The location of the drill exploration site is less
than two miles from Grand Canyon National Park within Coconino
County.
According to the Kaibab National Forest, because the 1872
Mining Law authorizes the taking of valuable mineral
commodities from public domain lands, a no action alternative
was not an option for the Kaibab National Forest. Therefore,
the decision by the Kaibab National Forest is based on whether
mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce or eliminate
environmental impacts at the surface, but not on whether or not
to allow the exploration activity.
It is important to point out that 2,000 mining claims have
been filed within the Tusayan Ranger District of the Kaibab
National Forest since 2003. The majority of these claims are
within 10 miles of Grand Canyon National Park.
In response to this decision, on February 5, 2008, the
Coconino County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution
opposing uranium development in the vicinity of the portions of
the Grand Canyon National Park and its watershed within
Coconino County, and that decision has not been rescinded. That
resolution still stands.
Coconino County has witnessed serious health and
environmental impacts associated with the long-term impacts of
uranium mining. Uranium development operations in Coconino
County have caused considerable contamination and environmental
degradation, particularly on the Navajo and Hopi Nations. On
the Navajo nation alone five mill sites and over 500 mines have
been abandoned since the 1940s and 1950s, and to this date
clean up of these sites have not occurred.
Coconino County has witnessed the contamination of creeks
and aquifers providing public drinking water. In the Grand
Canyon National Park, the Orphan Mine operated within the park
in 1969, the remnants from the Orphan Mine are approximately
two miles northwest of the South Rim Village between Maricopa
Point and the Powell Memorial. The presence of radioactive
materials from the mine is being blamed for the contamination
of Horn Creek in the Grand Canyon National Park.
In addition, in Tuba City, decommissioned uranium mining
sites were capped with clay and rock causing groundwater
contamination. The decommissioned mine and sites continue to
put the resident of Tuba City as well as the surrounding areas
at risk of contaminated drinking water.
Grand Canyon National Park is a national and international
treasure attracting almost 1.5 million visitors to northern
Arizona each year. The park encompasses more than 1.2 million
acres, and contains extensive geological, paleontological,
archeological and biological resources.
With the millions of visitors to the Grand Canyon National
Park comes significant tourism revenue to our communities in
northern Arizona. It is estimated that the total annual impact
of all Grand Canyon National Park visitors to the north and
south rim is approximately $687 million.
The economy in Coconino County is primarily based on
revenue generated by tourism. Therefore, the potential negative
impact to tourism in northern Arizona from uranium mining near
the Grand Canyon Park cannot be overstated. In 2009, Coconino
County alone generated almost $12.5 million in sales tax
revenue, a large portion of which is generated by tourism-
related industries. You combine this with the state sales taxes
collected and distributed to counties and municipalities, the
sales tax revenue accounts for 58 percent of Coconino County's
general fund revenues.
While Coconino County continues to support regional
economic development opportunities, we are also cognizant of
potential impacts from industries. Uranium mining in certain
portions of the county has always remained a concern in
Coconino County.
As outlined in our resolution passed on February 5, 2008,
the Coconino County supports the permanent withdrawal of lands
in Coconino County from uranium development on the Tusayan
Ranger District and House Rock Valley. While we certainly
support the recent action by the United States Secretary of the
Interior, Ken Salazar, to temporarily bar the filing of new
mining claims in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon Park, we
support the permanent withdrawal of the lands within Coconino
County.
The past mistakes of the uranium mining industry will have
ever-lasting effects on areas within Coconino County. While
Coconino County, and particularly the Navajo and Hopi Tribes,
have faced significant financial costs, we cannot place a long-
term health effects left by uranium mining. We cannot place a
cost on that at all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify
this morning. The Coconino County Board of Supervisors wants to
extend our gratitude to you and we want you to know very
clearly that Coconino County is certainly concerned about the
community impacts of proposed uranium development near Grand
Canyon National Park.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Archuleta follows:]
Statement of Supervisor Liz Archuleta,
Coconino County Board of Supervisors
Chairman Grijalva and members of the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forest and Public Lands, I appreciate the opportunity to provide
testimony on H.R. 644, the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of
2009. My name is Liz Archuleta and I represent District Two on the
Coconino County Board of Supervisors. I am here today representing the
Coconino County Board of Supervisors.
The Coconino County Board of Supervisors appreciates the efforts of
Chairman Grijalva and the Committee to hold this important hearing to
discuss the community impacts of proposed uranium mining near Grand
Canyon National Park.
Coconino County is the second largest county in the nation
encompassing more than 18,000 square miles. In Coconino County, we are
proud to be the home to national treasures, including Oak Creek Canyon,
Sunset Crater National Monument, Walnut Canyon National Monument and,
most notably, Grand Canyon National Park. Our county includes thirteen
percent private land with the remaining land owned by the Federal
government, five Native American Tribes and the State of Arizona.
In Coconino County, we pride ourselves on the relationships we have
fostered with Native American Tribes, state and federal land managers,
as well as our neighboring counties and communities in Arizona and
Utah. However, we are certainly concerned when decisions are made by
agencies that may affect the health and safety of our residents in
Coconino County.
FOREST SERVICE DECISION
One such decision was made on January 10, 2008, by the Tusayan
Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest. The Tusayan Ranger
District issued a decision to allow VANE Minerals, LLC, to begin
drilling exploration holes for uranium at seven project sites on the
Tusayan Ranger District. According to the Kaibab National Forest, the
primary purpose of the project is for VANE Minerals, LLC, to locate and
assess the quantity and commercial resource potential for uranium ore
deposits within the Tusayan Ranger District. The location of the drill
exploration sites is less than two miles from the Grand Canyon National
Park within Coconino County.
According to the Kaibab National Forest, because the 1872 Mining
Law authorizes the taking of valuable mineral commodities from Public
Domain Lands, a ``no action'' alternative was not an option for the
Kaibab National Forest. Therefore, the decision by the Kaibab National
Forest is based on whether mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce
or eliminate environmental impacts at the surface, but not on whether
or not to allow the exploration activity.
It's important to point out that more than 2,000 mining claims have
been filed with the Tusayan Ranger District of the Kaibab National
Forest since 2003. The majority of these claims are within ten miles of
Grand Canyon National Park.
BOARD RESOLUTION
In reaction to concerns raised by the VANE Minerals, LLC, decision,
on February 5, 2008, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution opposing uranium development in the vicinity of the portions
of the Grand Canyon National Park and its watershed within Coconino
County in the Tusayan Ranger District and additional claims filed on
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management in House Rock Valley.
Coconino County has witnessed serious health and environmental
effects associated with the long-term effects of uranium mining.
Uranium development operations in Coconino County have caused
considerable contamination and environmental degradation, particularly
on the Navajo and Hopi Nations in northern Arizona.
Coconino County has witnessed the contamination of creeks and
aquifers providing public drinking water. In the Grand Canyon National
Park, the Orphan Mine operated within the park until 1969. The remnants
from the Orphan Mine are approximately two miles northwest of the South
Rim Village, between Maricopa Point and the Powell Memorial. The
presence of radioactive materials from the mine is being blamed for the
contamination of Horn Creek in the Grand Canyon National Park.
In addition, in Tuba City, decommissioned uranium mining sites were
capped with clay and rock causing groundwater contamination. The
decommissioned mine and sites continues to put residents of Tuba City
as well as the surrounding areas at risk of contaminated drinking
water. For example the Tuba City landfill, which received refuse from
the
TOURISM/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Grand Canyon National Park is a national and international treasure
attracting almost 1.5 million visitors to northern Arizona each year.
The Grand Canyon National Park encompasses more than 1.2 million acres
and contains extensive geological, paleontological, archeological and
biological resources.
With the millions of visitors to Grand Canyon National Park comes
significant tourism revenue for communities and counties in northern
Arizona. It's estimated that the total annual economic impact of all
Grand Canyon National Park visitors to the north and south rim is
approximately $687 million.
The economy in Coconino County is primarily based on revenue
generated by tourism. Therefore, the potential negative impact to
tourism in northern Arizona from uranium mining near Grand Canyon
National Park cannot be overstated. In Fiscal Year 2009, Coconino
County alone generated almost $12.5 million in sales tax revenue, a
large portion of which is generated by tourism and related industries.
Couple this with state sales tax collected by the state and distributed
to counties and municipalities, sales tax revenue accounts for fifty
eight percent of Coconino County's general fund revenues.
While Coconino County continues to support regional economic
development opportunities, we are also cognizant of potential impacts
from industries. Uranium mining in certain portions of the County has
always remained a concern in Coconino County. In the Coconino County
Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Coconino County on September 23, 2003,
planners discouraged industrial uses, including mining, along scenic
corridors or at community gateways, including the Grand Canyon National
Park.
CONCLUSION
As outlined in our resolution passed on February 5, 2008, the
Coconino County Board of Supervisors supports the permanent withdrawal
of lands in Coconino County from uranium development on the Tusayan
Ranger District and House Rock Valley. While we certainly support the
recent action by the United States Secretary of the Interior Ken
Salazar to temporarily bar the filing of new mining claims in the
vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, we support the permanent
withdrawal of the lands within Coconino County.
The past mistakes of the uranium mining industry will have ever-
lasting effects on areas within Coconino County. While Coconino County,
and particularly the Navajo and Hopi Tribes, have faced significant
financial costs associated with past uranium development, we cannot
place a cost on the long-term health effects left by uranium mining
Thank you for the opportunity to address the House Natural
Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Land in
support of H.R. 644, the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of
2009. The Coconino County Board of Supervisors would like to extend our
gratitude to Chairman Grijalva and the Committee for their continued
efforts to address this important issue. Coconino County is certainly
concerned about the community impacts of proposed uranium development
near Grand Canyon National Park.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Supervisor.
Let me now ask Ms. Kay Brothers, Deputy General Manager,
Engineering and Operations, Southern Nevada Water Authority,
welcome and thank you for being here. I look forward to your
comments.
STATEMENT OF KAY BROTHERS, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ENGINEERING
AND OPERATIONS, SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY, LAS VEGAS,
NEVADA
Ms. Brothers. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Subcommittee Members.
My name is Kay Brothers. I am Deputy General Manager of
Engineering and Operations from the Southern Nevada Water
Authority, a cooperative seven-member agency formed in 1991 to
address southern Nevada water resource issues on a regional
basis.
Among other things, the authority is responsible for the
operation and management of water treatment and delivery
facilities which supply Nevada's Colorado River allocation to
nearly two million residents in the Las Vegas Valley as well as
approximately 250,000 visitors.
I appreciate the invitation to testify in support of H.R.
644, which has one of its major goals, the protection of water
quality in the Colorado River. This Southern Nevada Water
Authority withdraws its Colorado River allocation from Lake
Mead. The Colorado River represents approximately 90 percent of
southern Nevada's available water supply source. Drought
conditions in the Colorado River Basin have had a significant
effect on water management activities both in terms of supply
access and water quality. As of July 2009, Lake Mead's storage
volume is down to 43 percent of capacity and will reach a low
elevation of 1092 this year. This poses a number of challenges
for water managers that depend on Colorado River flows.
The Authority has two intakes in Lake Mead: the upper one
located at elevation 1050 and the other at elevation 1000. If
the drought continues, our upper intake could very well be dry
by as early as 2012 reducing our pumping capacity. Also, among
these challenges is our ability to continue to provide a high-
quality, safe drinking water supply that meets applicable state
and Federal drinking water quality standards. As the lake
declines the upper warmer water is captured by our intakes,
resulting in water treatment challenges. The Authority has
begun construction of a third intake in Lake Mead which will
draw water from elevation 860. This intake is scheduled to be
completed by 2013.
In addition, drought-induced reductions to Colorado River
inflows, combined with substantially reduced Lake Mead storage,
have increased the concentration of undesirable water quality
constituents. This could require higher levels of treatment and
implementation of enhanced operational management strategies.
In regards to H.R. 644, the subject of uranium mining and
disposal has been an issue of consternation for many years. A
decades-old tailing pile located near the Colorado River in
southern Utah has contributed contaminations to the river
system. We are pleased with efforts underway to address this
issue, and appreciate the concern and care the Federal
government has demonstrated in its investments toward
remediation.
Recently, there have been concerns raised about the
increase in uranium mining claims filed in the Colorado River
Basin, including areas around the Grand Canyon National Park.
This increase in mining claims raises fear of potential
contamination of the Colorado River if, and when, active mining
begins. Authorizations for exploration of mining should be
contingent on a comprehensive environmental impact analysis
that includes broad stakeholder review, including that of
downstream users of Colorado River Water.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority supports the
development of sufficient controls and oversight measures to
ensure that any future mining activities in the Colorado River
basin do not impact downstream water quality or otherwise
impede our ability to deliver a safe and reliable water supply
for the communities that we serve.
To this end, we ask for your continued support to ensure
that any future mining activities, if authorized, are
appropriately managed and monitored to protect Colorado River
Basin flows. The importance of maintaining water quality in the
Colorado River Basin is a critical priority for southern Nevada
and other downstream users.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to address you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brothers follows:]
Statement of Kay Brothers, Southern Nevada Water Authority,
Deputy General Manager of Engineering and Operations
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members. My name is Kay
Brothers. I am the Deputy General Manager of Engineering and Operations
for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, a cooperative seven-member
agency formed in 1991 to address southern Nevada water resource issues
on a regional basis. Among other things, the Authority is responsible
for the operations and management of water treatment and delivery
facilities which supply Nevada's Colorado River allocation to nearly
two million residents in the Las Vegas Valley, as well as approximately
250,000 daily visitors. I appreciate the invitation to testify in
support of H.R. 644 which has as its goal the protection of water
quality in the Colorado River.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority withdraws its Colorado River
allocation from Lake Mead. The Colorado River represents approximately
90 percent of southern Nevada's available water supply source. Drought
conditions in the Colorado River Basin have had a significant effect on
water management activities, both in terms of supply access and water
quality. As of July 2009, Lake Mead's storage volume is at 43 percent
of capacity and will reach a low elevation of 1092 this year. This
poses a number of challenges for water managers that depend on Colorado
River flows.
The Authority has two intakes in Lake Mead; the upper one located
at elevation 1050 and the other at elevation 1000. If the drought
continues, our upper intake could be dry by as early as 2012 reducing
our pumping capacity. Also, among these challenges is our ability to
continue to provide a high-quality, safe drinking water supply that
meets applicable state and federal drinking water quality standards. As
the lake declines the upper, warmer water is captured by our intakes,
resulting in water treatment challenges. The Authority has begun
construction of a third intake in Lake Mead which will draw water from
elevation 860. This intake is scheduled to be completed by 2013.
In addition, drought-induced reductions to Colorado River inflows,
combined with substantially reduced Lake Mead storage, have increased
the concentration of undesirable water quality constituents. This could
require higher levels of treatment and implementation of enhanced
operational management strategies.
With regards to H.R. 644, the subject of uranium mining and
disposal has been an issue of consternation for many years. A decades-
old tailing site in southern Utah has contributed contaminants into the
Colorado River system. We are pleased with efforts underway to address
this issue, and appreciate the concern and care the federal government
has demonstrated in its investments toward remediation.
Recently, there have been concerns raised about the increase in
uranium mining claims filed in the Colorado River Basin, including
areas around the Grand Canyon National Park. This increase in mining
claims raises fear of potential contamination of the Colorado River if,
and when, active mining begins. We know that the Department of the
Interior and its agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management,
will do all that is possible under applicable laws and regulations to
address these concerns and protect the environment. We are also aware
that the Environmental Protection Agency has considerable authority to
regulate the discharge of any potential pollutants to the Colorado
River. We will support the Department of the Interior in any way we can
as you carefully evaluate the implications on Colorado River water
quality prior to any federal authorization of mineral exploration or
mining in areas near the Colorado River or its tributaries. Future
authorizations for exploration or mining should be contingent on a
comprehensive environmental impact analysis that includes broad
stakeholder review, including that of downstream users of Colorado
River Water. The Southern Nevada Water Authority supports the
development of sufficient controls and oversight measures to ensure
that any future mining activities in the Colorado River Basin do not
impact downstream water quality or otherwise impede our ability to
deliver a safe and reliable water supply for the communities that we
serve.
To this end, we ask for your continued support to ensure that any
future mining activities, if authorized, are appropriately managed and
monitored to protect Colorado River Basin flows. This includes
developing a more comprehensive understanding of potential water
quality impacts associated with uranium mining activities, the
development of management strategies, and policies to avoid impacts.
The importance of maintaining water quality in the Colorado River
Basin, particularly Lake Mead, is a critical priority for southern
Nevada and other downstream users. This concludes my testimony. Thank
you for the opportunity to address you. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Let me now ask Dr. Madan Singh, Director, Department of
Mines and Mineral Resources from the State of Arizona, welcome,
Doctor, and look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF MADAN M. SINGH, PH.D., P.E., DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
ON MINES AND MINERAL RESOURCES, STATE OF ARIZONA, PHOENIX,
ARIZONA
Dr. Singh. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members of
the Subcommittee, Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning.
My name is Madan Singh. I am the Director of the Department
of Mines and Mineral Resources for the State of Arizona. At the
very outset I might state that this testimony is against the
withdrawal of uranium-bearing lands from around the Grand
Canyon National Forest.
The Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 was negotiated between
various environmental groups, industry, and other stakeholders.
It was agreed at that time that the areas designated in the
bill as wilderness would be removed from mineral entry, but the
remaining areas would remain open to multiple use.
Currently, over 55.6 percent of the total area of the State
of Arizona is already withdrawn from mineral exploration and
mining, and this does not include the one million acres that
was segregated that we referred to earlier this morning. A
continual withdrawal of land from mining deprives the state of
revenues and the country of critical raw materials.
A few groups claim that the groundwater of the Redwall-Muav
aquifer and the Colorado River would be contaminated by uranium
mining. Based on U.S. Geological Survey data, the Colorado
River enters and leaves the mineralized breccia zone and the
uranium concentration of between four and five parts per
billion. The EPA safe drinking water concentration is markedly
higher, at 30 parts per billion.
Researchers at the University of Arizona and New Mexico,
with funding from the Arizona Water Sustainability Program and
agricultural interests, have used isotopic methodologies along
with elemental analysis to study metal contamination sources in
the Colorado River water. The methodology is new, and can
directly target anthropogenic sources such as mining or show
that the source of uranium absorbed in the Colorado River is
not from mining activity.
Based on the preliminary results to data, the isotope data
rule against major contamination from uranium mines. Studies
such as these allow us to separate real contamination issues
from perceived contamination.
A U.S. report shows the location of 1,296 breccia pipes.
More than 400 of these pipes occur within the boundaries of the
Grand Canyon National Park. Of these an estimated 30 to 50 are
uranium bearing. The existence of these has not affected the
number of visitors coming to the park.
According to the USGS estimates, there are 375 million
pounds of uranium oxide in the area. This is equivalent to 27
billion kilowatt hours of electricity, which is the power
generated by all coal plants in the United States in a decade,
or 13.3 billion barrels of oil, the total amount of recoverable
oil in the Prudhoe Bay oil field. At a price of $50 per pound
for this oxide, this resource is worth $18.75 billion.
There will be approximately 12 mines in operation at any
one time over the 20-year period. During operation, there will
be 1,000 new jobs in the community. The total economic impact
ranges between $23.5 and $29.4 billion, or more than $1.3
billion annually. Shipping the ore will generate another
billion dollars for the local area. The per capita income in
Fredonia is $17,600, and it is still lower in the rural areas.
The income for miners varies between $60,000 and $80,000 per
annum. The operations will be fully permitted in compliance
with state and Federal regulations, and bonded to ensure
reclamation.
There is concern about uranium mining because of the legacy
of mining left by mining of minerals during the 1940s for the
war effort. The dangers associated with uranium were not well
understood at that time. Those circumstances do not apply to
the Arizona Strip. Mining in the 1980s and 1990s in the region
has demonstrated that there was no damage to the environment,
and that the health and safety of the miners was not
compromised.
The number of claims in the Strip has also created an
atmosphere of trepidation. Every claim does not imply the
existence of breccia pipes in it and every pipe does not have
uranium in it. Only a very small fraction of the breccia pipes
are sufficiently mineralized to be mined profitably. Over 92
percent of the uranium required for nuclear plants in the
United States is important. Sixty-four percent of that uranium
is being mined from just eight mines. That makes the supply
prone to disruptions. Foreign countries are now exerting
considerable control over uranium deposits worldwide. These
issues underscore the need for domestic production from a
national and homeland security viewpoint.
There are 436 reactors in operation in the world, another
433 are in development or on the drawing boards. It is evident
that the demand for uranium will be strong in the coming years,
especially with the emphasis on control of greenhouse gases.
There will be fierce competition for the material. There are
currently 104 reactors in operation in the United States, the
largest number of any country in the world. Nuclear reactors
would also be used by the navy for the last 60 years. There has
been only one significant accident. This is proof that nuclear
power is safe and environmentally acceptable.
The Arizona Strip provides the richest source of domestic
uranium. It would serve the Nation best if it were permitted to
be mined. More details of all of the above are written in the
testimony.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my remarks and I
would be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Singh follows:]
Statement of Madan M. Singh, Ph.D., Department of Mines and Mineral
Resources, State of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona
Members of the Subcommittee, Ladies and Gentlemen, Good Morning:
My name is Dr. Madan M. Singh and I am Director of the Department
of Mines and Mineral Resources, State of Arizona. I have been in this
position since August 2005. I have served on five (5) Committees of The
National Academies; one in 2007 which resulted in the report entitled
``Managing Materials for a 21st Century Military.'' I have received
awards and recognition for my work by my alma mater, The Pennsylvania
State University, and the premier mining society in the United States,
the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc., and was
selected as its Distinguished Member in 2004. In 1997, I was elected
Fellow of the American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC) and a Fellow
of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 1985. I have
chaired six (6) national conferences and have authored over 120
technical publications, many of them peer-reviewed.
This testimony is presented against the withdrawal of the uranium-
bearing lands around the Grand Canyon National Park.
The Arizona Strip is the part of the State of Arizona that lies
above the Grand Canyon and the Utah border. The Strip occupies a total
surface area of 20,404.2 km2 (7,878.11 mi2). Of
this, 20,348.12 km2 (7,856.45 mi2) is land, and
only 56.08 km2 (21.653 mi2) is water. Its land
area comprises 6.9 percent of Arizona's land area. About 64.4 percent
of its area is in Mohave County and 35.6 percent in Coconino County.
The region is typical of the Colorado Plateau with an arid climate and
sagebrush vegetation. The Kaibab National Forest also is being
considered for withdrawal and these remarks apply equally to that area.
A significant part of the area is already withdrawn from mineral entry:
National Monuments
Grand Canyon-Parashant--Covers an area of 4,115 km2
(1,017,000 acres); about 81 km2 (20,000 acres) within Lake
Mead National Recreation Area. It was established by Presidential
Proclamation 7265 on January 11, 2000. There are no paved roads into
the monument and no visitor services.
Pipe Spring--Comprises an area of 0.16 km2 (40 acres),
and was established on May 31, 1923. The monument was listed in the
National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966.
Vermillion Cliffs--This 1,189 km2 (294,000 acre)-
monument was established by proclamation on November 9, 2000.
National Park
Grand Canyon--Is one of the oldest national parks, having been
established as national monument on January 11, 1908 and designated as
a national park on February 26, 1919. It extends over 4,927
km2 (1,902 mi2) and is considered one the natural
wonders of the world, the gorge of the Colorado River.
National Recreation Areas
Glenn Canyon--Covers 5,076 km2 (1,254,429 acres) of
primarily desert land surrounding Lake Powell. A part of the recreation
area is in Utah. It was established in 1972.
Lake Mead--The area was established as the Boulder Dam Recreation
Area on October 31, 1936 but the name was changed to Lake Mead
Recreation Area on August 11, 1947. It covers 6,053 km2
(1,495,665.69 acres) with water over 756 & (186,000 acres).
Nearly 81 km2 (20,000 acres) overlaps the Grand Canyon-
Parashant National Monument. A small portion is in Nevada.
Wilderness Areas
Beaver Dam Mountains--The wilderness area, designated as such in
1984, comprises 71 km2 (17,600 acres) of which 61
km2 (15,000 acres) lies in Arizona and the rest in Utah.
Grand Walsh Cliffs--Occupies 323 km2 (37,030 acres),
selected as a wilderness in 1984.
Kanab Creek--Covers 305 km2 (75,300 acres) and was
established in 1984.
Mount Trumbull--Was also established in 1984 and comprises 31
km2 (7,880 acres).
Mount Logan--Occupies 59 km2 (14,650 acres) and was
designated as a wilderness in 1984.
Paiute--Has witnessed very little incursion by humans and covers
356 km2 (87,900 acres); chosen to be a wilderness in 1984.
Paria Canyon-Vermillion Cliffs--Established on August 28, 1984 and
occupies 455 km2 (112,500 acres); partly in Utah.
It should be noted that all of the above wilderness areas were
established in 1984. This was the result of the Arizona Wilderness Act
of 1984, which had been negotiated during 1983 and 1984 between various
environmental groups, industry, and other stakeholders. It was agreed
at that time that the areas designated in the bill as wilderness would
be removed from mineral entry, but that the remaining areas would
remain open to multiple use. Senators McCain (then Congressman and
party to the discussions) and Kyl have written a letter (Attachment 1)
to Representative Grijalva stating this to be the case. Senators
DeConcini and Hatch (who were also involved in the negotiations at the
time) have written to Secretary Salazar, outlining the results of those
meetings (Attachment 2). Thus it seems that the sections of the Arizona
Strip not specifically withdrawn as noted above were to remain open to
mineral entry. A Resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of
Mohave County supporting the mining of uranium on the Strip is also
attached (Attachment 3).
Currently over 55.6% of the total area of the State of Arizona is
already withdrawn from mineral exploration and mining. The State is
fortunate enough to be blessed with considerable mineral wealth.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey Arizona was the No. 1 non-fuel
mineral producing state in the country in 2008. However, continual
withdrawal of land from mining is depriving the state of revenues that
it direly needs, and the country of necessary raw materials.
In recognition of this fact the Arizona Legislature has recently
passed HCM 2006 (Attachment 4) requesting Congress to refrain from
enacting any legislation that affects Arizona public lands.
Economic Impact
Mohave County has an area of 34,886 km2 (13,470
mi2) and had an estimated population of 196,281 in 2008. The
median household income in 2007 was $39,669 compared with $49,923 for
the State of Arizona. In the county, 13.5% of the persons were living
below the poverty line. The household income figure for Fredonia, the
largest town, is $39,295; the per capita income is $17,616 and it is
even lower in the rural areas. For Kanab, Utah, across the border, the
comparative figures are $43,025 and $20,153 respectively. The average
household income for Utah in 2007 was $55,109. Coconino County had an
estimated population of 128,558 in 2008. The median household income
was $48,546 in 2007, and 16.2% of the population lived below the
poverty line. The county is spread over 48,332 km2 (18,661
mi2). The income for miners in the area varies between
$60,000 and $80,000 per annum.
The occurrence of breccias pipes, which may host uranium deposits,
make it possible to operate mines with a footprint of 10 to 20 acres.
The mines are small and generally are in production for about two
years. There may be a year of pre-production activity and then there is
dismantling and reclamation. During the 1980s and early 1990s there
were seven mines in operation in the area. These have now been
reclaimed so well that it is difficult to locate them without prior
knowledge of their existence.
According to U.S. Geological Survey estimates (USGS Circular 1051)
there are probably 375 million pounds of yellowcake (uranium oxide,
U3O8) in the area that is to be removed from
mining by H.R.644. This result was based on work performed in 1987,
when the presence of the breccia pipes was only detected by their
visibility on the surface. Recently some mineralized pipes have been
located by geophysical means that are not evident on the surface. So it
is probable that the amount of uranium present is greater. The ore from
these pipes have an average grade above 0.6% which is the highest grade
ore in the United States. Even if we accept the 375-million pound
figure this is the equivalent of 27 billion kilowatt-hours of
electricity. At the present rate of generation, this could replace all
the power generated by coal plants in the United States for a decade.
Another way to look at this--it is the equivalent of 13.3 billion
barrels of oil. That is the total amount of recoverable oil in the
Prudhoe Bay oilfield, the largest in the U.S. At a price of $50 per
pound of U3O8, this resource is worth $18.75
billion.
Based on a recent study conducted by Tetra Tech, Inc., there will
be approximately six (6) mines in operation at any one time with
another six (6) being reclaimed over roughly a 20-year period. These
mines will generate an average of 552 direct jobs and another 432
indirect jobs, primarily in the service sector. The average wages for
miners was $65,741 in 2008. The direct construction costs will range
from $2.97 billion to $3.67 billion; the indirect impact will range
from $2.13 billion to $2.63 billion. Thus the total economic impacts
will be from $5.06 billion to $6.29 billion during the construction
period. During the mine operation period there will be 366 direct and
646 indirect jobs resulting in 1,012 new jobs in the community. The
total economic will range between $23.53 billion and $29.41 billion,
that is, $1.31billion to $1.34 billion annually. Some of the jobs may
be for persons residing in Kane or San Juan Counties in Utah, in which
case the impact on Mohave and Coconino Counties in Arizona will be
reduced somewhat. The tax implications for Federal, state, and local
governments is estimated to be $360 million per year, or $7 billion for
the two-decade period under consideration.
The ore that is produced from the mines is planned to be trucked to
the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. The mill employs 150 persons,
which implies an economic impact of $2.9 billion to San Juan County,
Utah and the surrounding communities. However the shipping will benefit
trucking companies in the vicinity and generate $1.01 billion for the
local area.
Environmental Considerations and Safety
Since the ore is transported to Blanding, Utah there will no local
impact from the tailings. The rock from the shaft and other excavations
for the mine will be poured back into the openings after the ore has
been removed. Without tailings, there will be no dust problems that
would be a concern. The surface facilities and roads are removed, and
the sites reclaimed.
It should be mentioned that the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality will investigate the mining operations before they issue any
permits, as will all the other state and Federal agencies that are
involved. This includes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The
operations are fully permitted in compliance with State and Federal
regulations and bonded to ensure reclamation.
Nuclear power plants produce no air pollutants such as sulfur,
mercury, greenhouse gases, or particulates. Dr. El-Baradei, Director
General of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nobel laureate,
has stated (2005), ``Nuclear power emits virtually no greenhouse gases.
The complete nuclear power chain, from uranium mining to waste
disposal, and including reactor and facility construction, emits only
two to six grams of carbon per kilowatt-hour. This is about two orders
of magnitude below coal, oil, and even natural gas.''
A few environmental groups claim, without providing any scientific
supporting data, that the groundwater of the Redwall-Muav aquifer and
the Colorado River would be contaminated by uranium mining. The
occurrence of the uranium deposits in the breccias pipes is a few
hundred feet below the surface and generally about 1,000 feet above the
aquifer, separated by the impermeable Supai formation. Hence there is
little chance of the water being contaminated.
The area in question, as mentioned above is desert; the annual
precipitation varies from 20 inches at the higher elevations to 12
inches in the low regions. The area where the mining will be is in the
low section. There is little runoff to be concerned about, however the
operators ensure that no water gets off the mine property, and all of
it is contained in a lined pond.
Based on USGS data for November 1990 and June 1991, published in
1996 (USGS OFR 96-614), the Colorado River water enters and leaves the
mineralized breccia zone at uranium concentration of between 4 and 5
parts per billion (ppb). This level continues to decrease as it goes
down the river. The EPA safe drinking water concentration is 30 ppb--so
the level is significantly lower! It is worth noting that the average
concentration of uranium in the Colorado River is 4.6 ppb, lower than
that of fresh water in an arid region, which is 5.0 ppb.
Water taken in a two-week period in April and May 1991 from a well
in the Redwall-Muav aquifer near the Kanab North Mine, which was in
operation at the time, had uranium concentrations between 0.8 and 5.9
ppb; again much lower than the safe drinking water level.
Modeling of the groundwater during its transitory passage through
the Orphan Mine, which was mined prior to its inclusion in the National
Park, contributes very small amounts of uranium to the Redwall-Muav
aquifer and the Colorado River compared to the mineral existing in the
river and the aquifer. Data accumulated by the USGS and others indicate
that the springs around the mineralized breccia pipes in proximity to
the rim of the Grand Canyon contribute insignificant amounts of uranium
to the Colorado River because the flow rates from the springs is very
low. This also applies to Horn Creek, the spring closest to the
historic Orphan Mine. It is safe to conclude that springs further away
from the River, beyond even the boundaries of the National Park, would
have even less impact on the waters of the Colorado River and would not
pose any health hazard to the people using the water.
Dr. Charles Sanchez and Dr. John T. Chesley at the University of
Arizona, and Dr. Yemane Asmerom at the University of New Mexico, with
funding from the Arizona Water Sustainability Program and agricultural
interests, have used isotopic methodologies along with elemental
analysis to study metal contamination sources in Colorado River water.
The methodology utilized is relatively new, but can help discriminate
between natural and anthropogenic input. It can directly target
anthropogenic sources such as mining or it can be used (as was done for
uranium by the investigators) to suggest that the source of uranium
observed in the Colorado River in their study is not from mining
activity. Based on the preliminary results to date for a single set of
samples along the Colorado River from 2007, Drs. Sanchez, Chesley and
Asmerom state: ``Although we did not sample on a spatial scale to rule
out temporary local contamination, or on a temporal scale to rule out
transitory plumes, the isotope data (uranium, strontium, and lead) in
the main channel of the Colorado River are generally consistent with
the normal weathering of uranium containing geomedia within the area of
interest and rule against major contamination from uranium mines or
tailings.'' As a minimum the study has established a baseline to which
longer term studies of potential uranium contamination in the Colorado
River can be evaluated. As well, studies such as these may allow us to
separate ``real'' contamination issues from ``perceived''
contamination.
USGS Open File Report OFR-89-550 shows the location of 1,296
breccia pipes. More than 400 of these pipes occur within the boundaries
of the Grand Canyon National Park; of these an estimated 30 to 50 are
probably mineralized (that is, uranium bearing). Water passing through
these, because of erosion, is flowing into the Colorado River, even
though these have never been touched by mining. One of these pipes,
approximately three miles from the Park Service Phantom Ranch lodge,
shows high grade uranium mineralization at the surface. All of these
have not affected the number of visitors coming to the Park.
A major concern in the mining of uranium is safety and radiation
exposure. In general the impacts of mining uranium are not much
different than other mining. Natural uranium ore is about as
radioactive as the granite countertops that many people have in their
kitchens. The risk comes from the associated radon gas and radium.
Since this is now well understood, mining companies protect the workers
with excellent ventilation. Epidemiological studies have established
that the risk of lung cancer among smokers is between 10 and 20 times
higher than with persons who have never smoked. The industry
appreciates this risk and does not permit smoking.
It should also be remembered that the industry now has over half a
century of experience with uranium mining and has adopted
internationally recognized standards. The radiation safety regulations
used in the United States, Australia, and Canada are the most
comprehensive and stringent in the world, and the radiation doses are
well within the regulatory limits. Uranium mines are probably the most
highly regulated industrial operations in the world; both by state and
Federal agencies. Frequent inspections ensure that employees and
environment are duly protected. The industry has long accepted that it
is much more efficient to prevent pollution than to remediate it later.
Everyone receives small amounts of radiation from natural sources
such as cosmic radiation, rocks, soil, and air. Uranium mining does not
increase this noticeably for the surrounding communities and the public
at large. The objective of the nuclear industry--from mines to
reactors--is to control and limit the release of potentially harmful
substances into the environment.
Supply and Demand
Over 92 percent of the uranium required for the nuclear plants in
the United States is imported, a significant amount of that from
Russia. A part of this comes from the decommissioning of nuclear
warheads in accordance with the START treaties. Russia has stated that
it will not supply this secondary uranium beyond 2012. This source is
dwindling from all countries. The demand for the fuel will expand in
the future, especially with the emphasis on control of greenhouse
gases. China, for example plans to increase the power from nuclear
plants from 9 gigawatts per year at the present to 75 gigawatts by
2020. Other countries, such Russia, India, and other Asian nations are
also increasing the capacity for power from this source. There are 436
reactors in operation in the world; another 433 are in development or
on the drawing boards. It is evident that the demand for uranium will
be strong in the coming years.
At this time 64 percent of the uranium is being mined from just
eight mines. This makes the supply prone to disruptions. The flooding
of Cigar Lake mine in Canada, which is now expected to become
operational in 2014, and the delays in the Olympic Dam project in
Australia, which will be commissioned with increased production in
2016, serve as examples of the type of setbacks that may be expected.
These are two of the larger mines.
Recently China has made an agreement with Australia to buy uranium
from it; even though there is the danger of China diverting some of it
for military purposes. In Kazakhstan, JSC Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ) has
agreed to acquire 16.6 percent of Uranium One, for a stake in its
Karatau mine; this could rise up to 19.95 percent in the next five
years. ARMZ will take 50 percent of the production from Karatau or 20
percent of Uranium One's total production, whichever is larger. Uranium
One's partner in Karatau will be Kazatomprom, a Kazakh state-owned
company. The money for the deal comes from a Japanese consortium, which
has the option to purchase 20 percent of Uranium One's production. This
appears to provide Uranium One with strategic partners in Russia,
Japan, and Kazakhstan. However, it may be recalled that Kazakhstan's
president recently arrested the president of Kazatomprom on charges of
improper uranium sales. These are just a couple of examples of the
control that foreign companies and countries are now exerting over
uranium deposits worldwide.
This also points to the importance of obtaining the mineral
domestically from a national and homeland security viewpoint.
Other Concerns
There is concern about uranium mining because of the legacy of
mining left by mining of the mineral during the 1940s for the war
effort. It should be borne in mind that the dangers associated with
uranium were not well understood at the time. Persons were permitted to
watch atomic blasts without protective gear and seamen were ordered to
scrub the decks of ships after test were conducted in the atolls.
``Fiesta ware'' was openly sold and watches with radium dials were worn
with pride. Significantly, the formations that contained the uranium
were quite different, as was the mining practice. The government was
more interested in obtaining the uranium and provided incentives that
encouraged lack of safety. The contracts were suddenly terminated when
the need declined. Those circumstances do not apply to the contemplated
mining in the Arizona Strip. Mining in the 1980s and early 1990s in the
region has shown that there was no damage to the environment and the
miners have not been injured or wronged in any manner.
The number of claims in the Strip have also been used to create an
atmosphere of trepidation among the general public. Every claim does
not imply the existence of breccia pipes in it and every pipe does not
signify that there is even mineralization in it. Further, the amount of
minerals has to be economically workable. Historically, only 1 to 5
percent of the breccia pipes are sufficiently mineralized to be mined
profitably. Both the discovery and marketability criteria need to be
met to establish the validity of a claim.
It may be mentioned that there are currently 104 reactors in
operation in the United States, the largest number in any country in
the world. Nuclear reactors have also been used in the Navy, in ships
and submarines, for the last 60 years. There has been only one
accident, Three Mile Island (TMI), in all that time; even at TMI there
was no significant release or fatality. Thus, the use of nuclear power
is probably the safest and most environmentally appropriate; even Mr.
Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace has advocated its use. For
that to continue, uranium is required for fuel. The Arizona Strip
provides the richest source of domestic uranium. It would serve the
nation best if this was permitted to be mined.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my remarks today.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your portion of
testimony.
Let me begin my portion of the questioning with asking the
Vice Chairman, I have been told that the Havasupai Tribe is
organizing a protest later this week. Can you tell us the
significance of the site where you are gathering and the
purpose for the gathering if you don't mind.
Mr. Putesoy. Right. Thank you, Chairman.
The gathering is scheduled for July 25 through 26, and it
is south of the Grand Canyon at a sacred refuge. This place is
sacred to the Havasupai people. Stories were told that we
originated from there, from this area, from way back. After the
Great Flood we have been told that people were raised from
there, from the ground, from the ground up, so that is a very
sacred place to us. We say that is the area where the Mother
Earth is tied to the umbilical cord, and there to the son, so
that is a very sacred area for us, and we would like to protect
that site.
Right now, mining is set to go into operation there near
Red Butte. That is the Canyon Mine, and tomorrow they are going
to have hearings down in Fredonia for ADEQ to get water permits
for that particular mine. So in doing that we want to create
some awareness and support from the communities around there in
the area--Flagstaff, Williams, Grand Canyon, and we invite you
to come down and be a part of it.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Can you tell us also, Mr. Vice
Chairman, about the impacts to the health of your people from
past mining in the region?
Mr. Putesoy. There really hasn't been any mining impact
yet. You know, this is the first site that they are trying to
mine at, the Canyon Mine. If the mining goes ahead and if they
get the approval to do that, then they will contaminate our
source of water at the Redwall-Muav aquifer. It will eventually
seep into the groundwater and destroy the water and our way of
life is going to be destroyed. The water is very sacred to our
people, and it is how we came to be. Our stories tell us that
is where we came from, water.
Mr. Grijalva. One more question, Mr. Vice Chairman. Has the
Forest Service provided the tribe with the government/
government consultation that you would consider to be adequate?
Mr. Putesoy. It has been, yeah. We have been meeting with
the Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest. They do provide
some information on the drillings, the EIS that they go
through, and we have had some meetings with them, and they will
be coming down to Supai next week to talk more about the
drillings and the mining, Canyon Mine that is set to go into
operation.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
One quick question for the supervisor. The resolution that
you talked about that is still in effect that the Board of
Supervisors passed, one of the questions, did you hear from
constituents before the action, and what has been the reaction
since to that resolution?
And I should note--I will afford myself the opportunity to
say that Member of Congress, Ms. Kilpatrick is the co-sponsor
in this session of the legislation from that area and has been
on it since we filed it, but if you could tell me how the
constituents reacted then and now.
Ms. Archuleta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, actually this
has been an issue for Coconino County for decades. You may
recall my former colleague, former Supervisor Louise Yellowman,
who served on the board for 28 years, this has been a constant
part of her agenda, now Coconino County's agenda for decades.
When we had our hearing to consider our resolution, we had
tremendous support for the resolution. We had members of the
environmental community, we had constituents, regular
residents, citizens of Coconino County that supported our
resolution. We have heard from members of the medical community
speak about the effects of uranium, especially to those on the
Navajo Nation, and in the Navajo Nation's resolution it does
cite health impacts that have been detrimental to their members
from uranium mining.
Since then there has been continued support. I have not
received one phone call, one e-mail to the contrary of our
resolution. I have only received comments of support for it,
and so Coconino County has made it very clear in our resolution
us, being the local government, and being connected with the
citizens that we serve, where the Grand Canyon resides, we
believe in our resolution and stand by it.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Dr. Singh, there was a recent study
done by the University of Arizona with respect to the source of
Colorado River uranium.
Dr. Singh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Can you just tell me the significance of that
study?
Dr. Singh. Actually, the study was done not with respect
to--it was done with respect to uranium but not because of
mining concerns but because of agricultural concerns, and it is
still an ongoing study. It is a multi-year study. But within
the amount of data they have gathered, they have found out that
they can tell between uranium that is coming from natural
erosion sources versus what is from mining. From the
information they have at this point, they say that there is
very little, almost no, contamination from the mining. Most of
it is from natural erosion of uranium.
Mr. Bishop. And you were saying that the parts per billion
were significantly lower than what EPA considers to be safe----
Dr. Singh. That is correct.
Mr. Grijalva.--for water condition?
Dr. Singh. That is USGS data.
Mr. Bishop. There are places in the canyon, like Orphan
Mine, that the government has refused to reclaim. It is still
there, and other sources are there. Has that had any impact
upon visitation to Grand Canyon?
Dr. Singh. No, sir, and in fact actually my understanding
the shaft, and so forth, of the mine has been a draw, and a lot
of people have come to see that specifically. So to my
knowledge, there have not been any distractions, and people
obviously if they see the shaft, they know that this is for
uranium mining, but this has not hurt visitors coming into the
park.
Mr. Bishop. So the good supervisor will still get her
tourism dollars going into that area.
Dr. Singh. I would imagine she would.
Mr. Bishop. She did mention a study about Horn Springs. Has
that particular city that was mentioned by one of the other
witnesses had any peer review or had been replicated by other
scientific efforts?
Dr. Singh. As far as I know, that has not been replicated,
and later on maybe somebody else can testify to the amounts,
but actually the amount of uranium coming out from Horn Spring
is very small, and it is again well within the drinking water
levels that have been established by EPA.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Ms. Archuleta, you have been here before. You are one of
the usual suspects we round up to bring here, but you have
spoken on behalf of NACO, National Association of Counties, and
those situations.
Is it my understanding you are not speaking on behalf of
NACO today but only as Coconino County?
Ms. Archuleta. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. And you are not speaking on behalf of Mojave
County either?
Ms. Archuleta. No, I am not.
Mr. Bishop. I understand that you are probably supposed to
be in Philadelphia right now, aren't you?
Ms. Archuleta. Actually, no, in Tennessee in a couple of
days.
Mr. Bishop. Is there not a uranium mining resolution that
will be considered at that NACO meeting?
Ms. Archuleta. There will be uranium--yes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that very much.
Dr. Singh, how does the withdrawal of this--the proposed
withdrawal impact dependence on foreign countries, impact U.S.
dependence on foreign countries?
Dr. Singh. As I said earlier in my testimony that 92
percent of the uranium is being imported right now that is
being used by our uranium plants, and we have almost one-fourth
of the number of plants in operation or reactors in operation
at this time. China, Russia, Kazakhstan, France have been
buying a number of mining operations and uranium deposits
elsewhere in the world, and China, for one, has a number of
plants that are going up. In fact, they plan to increase their
output from nuclear plants from 9 gigawatts at this point to 72
by 2020. So they will be requiring a lot of this uranium so it
will become very difficult for us to get that and, therefore,
it will expose us to security problems also.
Mr. Bishop. We import the 92 percent of the uranium that we
use in this country. I understand about 25 percent of that
comes from Russia?
Dr. Singh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. As part of the start program----
Dr. Singh. That is right.
Mr. Bishop.--that should end in 2012?
Dr. Singh. That is right, and they have already said that
after 2012 they will not be exporting anything from that to us.
Mr. Grijalva. And the Chinese are making treaties and
buying into some of the mining entities abroad which we are
relying upon?
Dr. Singh. That is right, but in the last few weeks
actually they bought large properties in Mihir, and so has Riva
for that matter.
Mr. Bishop. Does this proposal have an impact on our grid
system?
Dr. Singh. Nuclear power is a baseboard type of power, so
we would be able to supply power once we put the plants up
throughout where we need it whereas if we depend more on solar
and wind power, which is what is being talked about more these
days, those are intermittent and, therefore, there will be a
problem there.
You know, many of the plants that we have right now, if
they are expanded, that would not create too many problems on
the grid system because the grid is already existing. If we put
plants elsewhere, there may be some more lines that would be
needed.
But in contrast as far as renewable energy is concerned,
and I think that there should be some renewable energy by the
way, most of them will be away from urban areas and, therefore,
new lines will need to be put in to convey that power from
places to urban areas where it is needed.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. My time has expired. Dr. Singh, I
appreciate you giving----
Dr. Singh. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop.--your perspective on this, and to all four of
our panelists. I appreciate you coming all the way back to
Washington. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all know that water
is essential for life. As a matter of fact, as we sit here we
are eagerly looking for water in space. As we know it now, it
depends upon water. As a matter of fact, if we find water in
space, on Mars for example, we could establish bases there, and
we could have a hearing there or a CODEL, and Mr. Bishop could
share those hearings. I would welcome you to do that.
But we must--this water is so essential. I mean, it is just
the very basis of life as we know it. Therefore, we must
protect that water on earth, protect early in strategic places.
Water is essential to a way of life for the people who have
lived there for hundreds of years.
Mr. Putesoy, what danger does mining have for the
environment in your land? Particularly what danger does it have
for water and how might that danger come to be?
Mr. Putesoy. Well, like I said, yes, eventually the uranium
will seep into the aquifer, Redwall-Muav Aquifer, and
contaminate the rivers and waters, the springs that are in the
area, and a lot of wildlife are dependent on that force of
water springs, such as elks, big-horn sheep, the Havasupai
people, and we get our revenues from tourism in the canyon. We
are the most restricted tribe in the United States, we don't do
any mining, timber, no development on rim, so that is our main
economic base is our water or the waterfalls. People come from
all over to visit, and camp and swim in our water, our
waterfalls. Eventually if the mining goes through, it will seep
down into the river and eventually pollute the Colorado River,
and it will flow further down west where we have a major city
downriver, like Las Vegas, San Diego, Phoenix. So it is not
just us in the canyon itself, but further down river will
eventually become polluted too as well.
Mr. Kildee. And Dr. Singh, you mentioned an unrelated
accident, but an accident apparently at sea.
Dr. Singh. No, sir. I was referring to the Three Mile
Island accident.
Mr. Kildee. Three Mile Island, OK.
Dr. Singh. Yes.
Mr. Kildee. I was in Congress when that took place, I can
recall, and that accident, how much of a misuse or an accident
there at the Grand Canyon would pose a danger of any nature to
the land?
Dr. Singh. Well, it is quite a different situation. First
of all, at Three Mile Island we are talking about a release
from a reactor, but as in the Grand Canyon we are not talking
about putting up reactors. We are just talking about mining.
And when we get out all from the mine, it has very little
radiation. In fact, many of the granite countertops that people
have in their homes in their kitchens probably have as much
radiation as that from the core. So there is really not much
radiation from that point.
The only radiation problem in the mining aspect is from the
radon gases and we now understand that, and we ventilate the
mines very well, and we have proof, because there were eight
mines that were operated in the 1980s and 1990s in that area
and there was no damage done to the environment or to the
health of the people, the miners.
Mr. Kildee. Is there an environmental impacts statement
accomplished or finished on impact of mining in that area on
the surrounding land?
Dr. Singh. There will be impact statements if there is
mining, and currently the VANE Company is preparing one. They
will be submitting it later this year, I believe.
Mr. Kildee. But they have none completed at this point?
Dr. Singh. No, because at this point they were only doing
exploration, and the first instance the Forest Service didn't
think that they needed an environmental statement for
completing just the exploration, but now the courts have ruled
that they needed to, and they are doing it.
Mr. Kildee. Do you think it is prudent that they do that?
Dr. Singh. For exploration actually, as I said earlier, the
amount of damage or ore that comes out it is shipped directly
to the laboratory for testing and so forth, and it has no
radiation or no uranium effects to the environment or to the
people. So I personally don't think that it is necessary to do
that just for exploration.
For mining, yes, it would be necessary, and it would be
prudent to do that, yes, sir.
Mr. Kildee. That would be my next question. If they
actually--in mining there is a ceratin disturbance that takes
place, sometimes massive disturbance, you would want to have
clearly a very valid environmental impact statement.
Dr. Singh. That is correct, and if we were mining then we
would need one. There is no question about that, in my mind
anyway.
Mr. Kildee. It is extremely important that we know what
might happen before we do something that may cause that to
happen, and I appreciate very much your testimony, Dr. Singh,
and everyone else--no, I am out of time. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Dr. Singh.
Dr. Singh. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Coffman.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Singh, just a point of clarification. The environmental
impact statement that is underway now, is that both for
exploration and for mining itself?
Dr. Singh. Well, yes, at this point they will complete the
exploration, and I don't know the effects of the segregation
that took place yesterday on that. But yes, after that if there
was a deposit that was validated, and then they would be mining
yes.
Mr. Coffman. OK. But what evidence do you have at this
point that there is potential contamination given the mining
technology that we have today, given the regulatory framework
that we have today, what evidence do you have that this mining
could potentially damage water resources in the region?
Dr. Singh. There is no data to prove that there is any
damage, and they are continually testing everything around them
just to make sure that there is no damage.
Mr. Coffman. Can you give me an example of the difference
in technology from--when were there mines where the technology
was such and the regulatory framework was such that there was
in fact damage to the aquifer?
Dr. Singh. Back in the 1940s and early 1950s, there was
mining being done on the east side in the Navajo region and so
forth, but then, first of all, the formations are quite
different. That was also surface mining or very close to the
surface, and the techniques and so forth were quite different.
The mines and the pipes that we are talking about are
around six or eight hundred feet below the surface, and then
between the deposit itself and the aquifer that we keep talking
about, there is 1,000 feet of the Supai formation which is a
very impermeable formation, so the water, to be able to go
through that, is not possible. It will not happen.
Mr. Coffman. Now, when is this environmental impact
statement, the first one I guess for exploration, when is that
supposed to be finished?
Dr. Singh. I think by the end of this year it should be
finished.
Mr. Coffman. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Heinrich.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. Supervisor Archuleta, I wanted to
ask you from sort of a local government perspective. I used to
sit on the city council in Albuquerque, and I know that one of
the things local governments always struggle with is just basic
infrastructure, especially when you go through a substantial
economic change in the region, and I wanted to get your take on
if full development were to occur in this area within your
county, would you have the basic infrastructure, the roads and
the other things necessary to deal with just the change in use
patterns that you would see from additional people to trucks to
vehicles on the roads, all of those sorts of things, water that
would be necessary for those, and how would you finance that?
Ms. Archuleta. Well, thank you very much for the question.
Well, as you know, Coconino County having 18,000 square
miles within its region, it is a challenge for us to be able to
keep up with roads and infrastructure. In addition to that, so
this would be a tremendous impact to us, but in addition to
that the sheriff's office is responsible for law enforcement on
public lands and ensuring the safety of our citizens. That
would be very taxing to them as well, and he has indicated so
to us.
In addition to that, we struggle with revenues just like
everyone else, and we would see that if the--as I mentioned, if
uranium mining was to occur on lands in the Grand Canyon, we
would see a impact to tourism, we would see an impact to
dollars, and right now the only dollars we have right now to be
able to take care of our public lands is dollars that we get
through forest fees and secure rural schools, and that--secure
rural schools is only authorized for another three years, and
that continues to diminish. And so we are very concerned about
that.
But I appreciate the question. I believe that even with the
funds that we get from the state for roads and infrastructure
we cannot keep up with what we have at this time and so we
would need to have some additional revenue if there was going
to be increase on our infrastructure.
Mr. Heinrich. In a slightly related question, if I
understand the geographic boundaries of the counties in this
area, both the North Kaibab Ranger District and the Tusayan
Ranger District are in Coconino County, is that correct?
Ms. Archuleta. It is within our borders, yes.
Mr. Heinrich. What role do sportsmen and particularly
regarding the elk herd in unit 9, what role does that play in
your current economy in Coconino County?
Ms. Archuleta. Well, hunting and sportsman recreation is
actually one of the highest revenue generators for Coconino
County. I don't know specifically to that region if we would
experience the loss. I wouldn't be able to say that, but I do
know that tourism is actually probably higher than hunting, and
so in terms of recreation and national visitation to the
canyon, I would rate that as the highest source of revenue
generation.
Mr. Heinrich. Do you know, has any analysis been done on
the potential impact of fragmentation of the elk herds on the
north rim and the south rim?
Ms. Archuleta. I am not aware of that. I am sorry, I cannot
answer that.
Mr. Heinrich. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Archuleta. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Ms. Lummis.
Ms. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Archuleta, thanks for being here today to represent the
county.
Ms. Archuleta. Thank you.
Ms. Lummis. And I may be asking questions that have already
been asked. I came in a little late so I apologize if that is
the case.
I understand that the Arizona Legislature recently passed a
concurrent resolution requesting Congress to hold off on
enactment of legislation that would remove any acres from
uranium development, and obviously your county board differs.
What is the reason for that divergence of opinion?
Ms. Archuleta. I don't know. All I can say is that Coconino
County is a rural area. We are a large area of the state, but
the majority of the legislators in our Legislature come from
the metropolitan areas, mainly Phoenix and Maricopa County, and
I would say that they certainly didn't consult with Coconino
County, and perhaps they are not in touch with our
constituency.
Ms. Lummis. Could you tell me how far the uranium
development is from the Grand Canyon, the actual Grand Canyon?
Ms. Archuleta. Some of it that is proposed is two miles
within the national park. Others is 10 miles, so within a two
to 10-mile radius.
Ms. Lummis. And what environmental analysis is currently
taking place by land managers regarding the potential mining
activity?
Ms. Archuleta. I don't know the specific activity that is
taking place, so I can't speak to that in terms of an EIS.
Ms. Lummis. Dr. Singh, do you know why the Arizona
Legislature chose to depart from the view of the county on this
issue?
Dr. Singh. Well, there are a couple of reasons. One is, of
course, we have come to realize and several of them have
visited the area where mining was taking place and realized
that it has been reclaimed. In fact, you can't hardly discern
these areas anymore. And the second reason is that impacts the
revenues of the state and there is really no reason, and we
need jobs right now. We are in a desperate position. You know,
we are having a lot of difficulty meeting our revenue
projection.
Ms. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Singh.
Dr. Singh. Yes.
Ms. Lummis. Would this uranium be recovered by in situ
processes or by conventional mining?
Dr. Singh. By mining--it is underground mining. It is not
surface mining. But, no, it is not by in situ.
Ms. Lummis. OK. Isn't the purpose of NEPA analysis to
determine the environmental impacts on Federal lands of
proposed projects just like these, Dr. Singh?
Dr. Singh. Yes, it is, and during the EIS process that will
be part of that, you know.
Ms. Lummis. And here is a follow-up question. You know,
there are a number of options to help us diversify our current
energy portfolio, which requires strategic metals--germanium
for solar, photo-voltaic technology, neodymium for wind
turbines and, of course, uranium for nuclear. From a carbon
aspect, however, the only zero emission alternative to
traditional fossil fuels that could meet our nation's baseload
is nuclear.
While my home State of Wyoming contributes the majority of
domestic uranium mined for this purpose, our nation currently
is more than 90 percent dependent on imported uranium for
nuclear power plants within our own borders, and I would like
to ask each of the panelists, are you supportive of increasing
the foreign dependency as we ramp up nuclear energy usage of
America? And I would offer anyone an opportunity to answer
that. Foreign versus domestic is my question, uranium
production. Dr. Singh?
Dr. Singh. Yes, I have essentially referred to that in my
testimony, but yes, we cannot afford to be dependent; otherwise
all we are doing is trading our dependence on oil for
dependence on uranium or other minerals, and that is not in the
best national interests, and especially not in the national
security interests of our nation.
Ms. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, just to comment, being from
Wyoming, there was a proposal in the nineties for gold mining
operation at the New World Mine just over the border from
Yellowstone National Park in Montana, and at the time I was
doing natural resource policy for our Governor. I went up
several times and looked at the New World Mine site, and came
away with the conclusion personally that the tails, the tailing
ponds would be potentially disruptive to water sources that get
into Yellowstone National Park, and I came away thinking that
that was an inappropriate site for gold mining because of the
potential impairment on water resources in the Yellowstone
National Park.
So I understand the concerns that you may have about this,
and I would hope that those kinds of things could be fleshed
out in a NEPA process rather than have Congress interject its--
rather than having us micro manage, but nevertheless I do
appreciate the potential concerns you have, and I thank you for
being here today and testifying.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. You are talking about the NEPA
process and I couldn't agree more with your comments. But it
should be noted that the beginning of these claims, including
the one in Redwall-Muav, that Forest Service was trying to
exempt the NEPA process for many of these claims, and the fact
that now due to this new policy perspective NEPA is going to be
looked at. I think this is an important step as well. But at
the beginning of this whole process they were going to be
exempt, and that was--but Ms. Brothers, just let me, and I will
afford my colleagues additional questions as well.
You mentioned that the Colorado River, 90 percent of
southern Nevada's water supply. Since we have been speculating
about jobs and other stuff, so let us speculate a little bit
more. If a major disaster were to contaminate the Colorado
River, where would your authority go to find the next best
water source?
Ms. Brothers. That is just the issue, sir. We do rely
heavily on the Colorado River, and if there was any disaster we
would in essence be out of water. We are trying to diversify
our water resources by constructing a groundwater project that
would bring in water from eastern and central Nevada to buffer
us against drought or any type of catastrophe on the Colorado
River, but that is why we are so concerned, and I think the
issue here is proximity to the Colorado River. I think that is
our issue that we need to be looking at any potential that
would contaminate that because of the reliance that we have on
the river.
Mr. Grijalva. And one of the things we are hopeful in this
two-year period to look at is the impacts of uranium mining on
water quality, and thanks to the Department of the Interior's
recent decision we might be afforded that opportunity.
Based on what you know now, are there controls, oversight
measures that you would like to see tested or put in place to
protect that water supply?
Ms. Brothers. I think we have been talking about the NEPA
process and the fact that this mining was exempt. It should not
be exempt from the process. I think you have to have a total
look at what potential there might be for contamination to
reach the river.
Each individual mining operation might have a different set
of circumstances. Some of the uranium occurs in aquifers. You
have to de-water that aquifer to be able to extract it, and
those waters do have radionuclides in them that have to be
removed. So it can be on a case-by-case basis, but these
analyses need to be done in depth to look at their impact on
water quality, especially the Colorado River.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Dr. Singh, can your department provide to the Committee of
the claims that--let us just concentrate on the claims around
the Grand Canyon. Of the companies placing those claims or
individuals, the companies, how many are foreign owned? Do you
know?
Dr. Singh. No, I don't know offhand. A number of them
probably are.
Mr. Grijalva. Is the VANE foreign owned?
Dr. Singh. Pardon me?
Mr. Grijalva. Is the VANE Company foreign owned?
Dr. Singh. Yes, sir, and a number of others may also be
foreign owned, but this business of being foreign owed is
really not much----
Mr. Grijalva. The point that is being made today is
exporting, domestic use, my colleague made it, you made it in
your testimony, so what guarantees do we have from a foreign-
owned company that is the major company in the area that the
extraction on our public lands are going to be domestically
used or exported? We have no guarantees or do we have
guarantees?
Dr. Singh. No, we do not have any guarantees, but I would
like to point out that all the workers that are there are
Americans. All the supervisors there are Americans, and in many
cases the presidents of the companies are also Americans, and
also the stakeholders, the shareholders, about 50 percent or
more of them are Americans. So the fact that they are owned by
foreign companies, and in this case most of these--well, VANE
is British, but the rest are Canadian.
Mr. Grijalva. The issue for me of guarantee of energy
independence if that is what we are touting and national
security, then that extraction appropriately belongs here.
Dr. Singh. Canada right now is exporting uranium to the
United States, and it has much more uranium than it is ever
going to need and, therefore, I do not think that they are
going to be mining in the Grand Canyon and then exporting that
to Canada or anywhere else. I think if we need it here, we will
be able to use it here.
Mr. Grijalva. Well, that is good for you to believe that or
think that or speculate that, but if that is the argument, that
is the argument that I think the guarantee needs to be a lot
more profound.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I do have a couple, yes, and in fact, Mr.
Grijalva, if you would write that guarantee in your bill, it
might be a better bill, obviously.
There are a couple of things. First of all, let us get
something very clear. NEPA has not been waived in any of this
process. Categorical exclusions are part of the NEPA process.
Dr. Singh. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. There is a vast difference between exploration
and mining. Giving a categorical exclusion for an exploration
just to drill a hole is not the same thing as a categorical
exclusion from a mining operation which would have to have a
further EIS. So, please, when you talk about NEPA being
excluded, make sure you are exactly right what you are talking
about. Categorical exclusion is part of NEPA.
Ms. Brothers, I hope you recognize that when you go after
that water in central and eastern Nevada you leave western Utah
alone. It is the same aquifer but it is our water. So be very
careful on that, and I appreciate your concern about the water
coming down the Colorado, and I hope you were also listening to
the studies that Dr. Singh was talking about on how those
levels are so significantly below what EPA standards would be
in there.
Now, there was one question that Representative Lummis
brought up that I would like to come in here. Dr. Singh, when
she was talking about that, would wind or solar farms harm or
have a greater impact on elk than mining?
Dr. Singh. On elks?
Mr. Bishop. Sure. Yes.
Dr. Singh. Well, obviously if they are going to be
occupying all this land, then amount of land that is required
by solar or wind is many times larger than that of conventional
plants or nuclear plants. So this would be interference in
their paths or whatever, and we found that out even for birds
in California. We have had instances where there have been
problems with birds because they are on the route that the
birds fly.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I do have a question about the
footprint that we are talking about with this kind of mining
but let us wait until the next panel to do that. I will yield
back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Since the Ranking Member
and I afforded extra questions, Mr. Heinrich, any follow ups?
Mr. Heinrich. No, I think I will wait for the next panel.
Mr. Grijalva. Ms. Lummis.
Ms. Lummis. Well, just to comment, Mr. Chairman.
In Wyoming, we have the only natural trona deposit outside
of a small deposit in California that exists in North America,
and now all of the trona mines in southern Wyoming are
dominated by foreign-owned companies, but it is true that they
have American workers, American management, and I asked some
local people in Rock Springs, Wyoming, where these trona mines
are located, if the community of Rock Springs was uncomfortable
with the fact that now a majority of the trona mines in
southern Wyoming are owned by foreign companies.
I got the exact opposite reaction that I expected. What
they told me was foreign-owned companies tend to take a longer
view because they are not publicly traded on U.S. exchanges and
so they are not chasing quarterly projections and profit
numbers. Foreign-owned companies tend to take a longer-term
view with regard to their employee base, their profit
considerations, and what I heard in Rock Springs, Wyoming, what
a stunner, was that they actually felt that having a majority
of the trona companies in Wyoming being owned by foreign
companies to be potentially beneficial.
So that was counter-intuitive to me too, but that was the
reaction I got even from local people.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Heinrich, did you reconsider?
Mr. Heinrich. Yes, I will keep this short.
I just think what Ms. Lummis brings up is actually
something we should keep in mind. It is easy to paint a broad
brush when we are talking about energy independence, but I
think there is a fundamental difference between being reliant
on uranium from Canada and being reliant on Venezuela for oil.
These are not equal situations, and today while we import 90
percent of our uranium the vast bulk of it comes from places
like Canada and Australia, that I think hardly pose the kind of
strategic challenges that places like Iran and Venezuela pose
for us in the international stage.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Panelists, thank you very much, and let me invite the next
panel up, please.
Thank you very much for being at the hearing. We appreciate
it very much and, at the outset, let me once again remind that
your written testimony and any other extraneous information
will be part of the record and, if humanly possible, to try to
get your oral testimony to five minutes, that would be helpful
as well.
Let me begin with Mr. Mark Trautwein, former staffer to
Congressman Mo Udall. Welcome, sir, and your comments.
STATEMENT OF MARK TRAUTWEIN, FORMER STAFFER TO CONGRESSMAN
MORRIS UDALL, SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Trautwein. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to be
back in this historic room, albeit on the opposite side of the
witness table, where I was privileged to work for more than 15
years. From 1979 until 1991, I had the great honor of serving
Mo Udall and, until 1995, George Miller, as the full Committee
staffer responsible for jurisdiction over public lands,
wilderness, and national parks.
In that capacity, Chairman Udall designated me, in 1983, as
the staff responsible for the Arizona Wilderness Act. I am here
today because four members of the other body, in two separate
letters, have cited that Act as the basis for their opposition
to H.R. 644. Their theory is that the Act was a final
disposition of the status of all lands on the Arizona Strip and
that to tinker with that formula not only violates the
agreement but also the entire spirit of Mo Udall's work.
That is simply not the case, factually, and it is perverse
to suggest that Mr. Udall would have found it inappropriate
that others would seek to add to his conservation legacy. In
fact, he hoped for nothing less.
Mr. Chairman, I lay out the relevant legislative history of
the Arizona Strip provisions of the 1984 Act for the record in
my written statement.
There are at least four factual reasons why the Arizona
Wilderness Act and H.R. 644 are not comparable.
First, they deal with entirely different questions. One is
a wilderness act that sorted out which lands met the criteria
for protection as wilderness. The other addresses the impact of
a particular activity on the hydrology of the Grand Canyon,
specifically, its water quality. That issue was never part of
the wilderness process at all.
Second, they cover different lands. Many, even most, of the
lands addressed by H.R. 644 were never part of even the
wilderness review process that culminated in the Arizona
Wilderness Act.
Third, the so-called ``release language'' of the 1984 law
makes it clear that it was not even a final disposition of the
wilderness review question. So even if Mr. Grijalva were
proposing to designate additional wilderness on the Strip,
which he is not, it would not violate any understanding
codified in that law.
Fourth, there have already been extensive changes to land
status on the Strip since passage of the Arizona Wilderness
Act, ACECs and large national monuments, all with the implicit
approval of Congress. So if there was an understanding that the
Act was a final disposition of land status, which it was not,
it has long since been amended.
This is, in fact, what Mr. Udall hoped for, that the
Arizona Wilderness Act would serve as the catalyst for
continuing attention to the protection of the Grand Canyon. If
there is an ``understanding'' implicit in the Arizona
Wilderness Act that Mr. Udall's work would be the final word on
the Arizona Strip not to be rewritten by those who came after
him, which is the underlying thesis of the Senate letters, I am
quite certain Mr. Udall did not share it. In fact, I can think
of no idea more contrary to Mo's most fundamental beliefs about
the work he cared about so deeply.
Mr. Chairman, Mo Udall was my hero and my mentor. I worked
with him daily for 12 years crafting legislation that became
his conservation legacy. It is highly distressing to me to see
Mo's name invoked in support of a position I know, to an
absolute certainty, he never would have taken. It is contrary
to his core values, the values he taught me, the values he
expected me to bring to every piece of legislation I was
honored to staff for him, the values that made him the most
remarkable man I have ever known and one of the most remarkable
legislators this Congress has ever known.
At every step of assembling that legacy, Mo's work was
informed by what he often called his ``love of the land.'' He
believed it was the duty of every generation to exercise its
own love of the land to meet future challenges he could never
anticipate. The suggestion that he would have thought that
anyone, especially the Congress of the United States, was
precluded by some deal or some judgment he had made a
generation earlier from taking new action to express that love
on the basis of new information and new evidence in an entirely
different context is just utterly antithetical to everything he
believed.
I do not know what position Mo would have taken on the bill
before the Subcommittee, but I do know the charge Mo would have
given me. He would have wanted to know two things: Is there
credible evidence of a problem that requires Congress to act,
and is the solution proposed reasonable and effective? Those
are the questions that Members of this Subcommittee and this
Congress, in the House and the Senate, should address. No false
fealty to a man or his work should serve as the pretext for
refusing to do so.
Mo's legacy is, and always will be, an enduring one, but Mo
did not legislate on stone tablets, and he did not protect
lands to prevent others from loving the land but to inspire
them to carry on the great work. In the end, that is his true
legacy, and if his name is to be invoked, let that be the cause
it serves.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to defend
that legacy before you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trautwein follows:]
Statement of Mark Trautwein, San Anselmo, California
Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to be back in this historic
room, albeit on the opposite side of the witness table, where I was
privileged to work for more than 15 years. From 1979 until 1991, I had
the great honor of serving Mo Udall and, from 1991 to 1995, George
Miller, as the full committee's staffer responsible for its
jurisdiction over public lands, wilderness and national parks.
I am here today, representing myself only and not affiliated with
any interest group, to address certain assertions made in two separate
letters by four current or retired members of the other body in which
they point to the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 as their basis for
opposing the bill before you today. Their theory is that the Act was a
final disposition of the status of all lands on the Arizona Strip and
that to tinker with that formula not only violates that agreement but
also the entire spirit of Mo Udall's work. I am intimately familiar
with that Act because Chairman Udall made me responsible for managing
it, including gathering information, negotiating with all interested
parties, and drafting bill and committee report language. I know of
nothing, either implicit or explicit, in the Arizona Wilderness Act,
Mr. Udall's sponsorship of it, or the events leading to its passage,
that would support opposition to H.R. 644. Moreover, it is simply
perverse to suggest that Mr. Udall would have found it inappropriate
that others would seek to add to his conservation legacy. In fact, he
hoped for nothing less.
Let me briefly describe the relevant legislative history of the
Arizona Wilderness Act. In 1983, Mr. Udall began the process of
preparing legislation to resolve the Forest Service RARE II wilderness
issue across Arizona. Simultaneously, but entirely independently of
that process, negotiations were initiated by a mining company, Energy
Fuels Nuclear, with other stakeholders to address wilderness questions
specifically on the Arizona Strip. These negotiations considered the
wilderness suitability not only of Forest Service lands on the Strip,
but also BLM lands. The company believed it had identified valuable
uranium deposits and that their development might be impaired by future
wilderness designations. This was especially problematic on the BLM
lands because that agency, unlike the Forest Service, had not completed
review of its wilderness study areas, and was years away from
formulating wilderness recommendations to the President and the
Congress.
Those private negotiations were conducted without any direct
Congressional involvement at all. They eventually resulted in
stakeholder agreement about which Strip lands would be designated
wilderness and which would not. The package was introduced as separate
legislation by then-Rep. Bob Stump, but was incorporated by Chairman
Udall into the Arizona Wilderness Act at markup as Title III.
Neither the history nor the provisions of Arizona Wilderness Act
support the idea expressed in the Senate letters that these events
settled issues raised by H.R. 644. On the contrary, the two acts are
entirely different in scope and purpose. The Arizona Wilderness Act is
a wilderness act. It considered whether certain lands met the
conditions set forth in the 1964 Wilderness Act for inclusion in the
wilderness system. Mr. Grijalva's bill addresses the hydrology of the
Grand Canyon ecosystem and the impact of one particular activity,
uranium mining, on water quality. It is simply incorrect to state, as
one letter does, that the Arizona Wilderness Act was designed to
``ensure that the Grand Canyon watershed was fully protected''. It was
designed to ensure that wilderness resources and values were protected.
Watershed issues were never considered or addressed anywhere in the
process leading to passage of the Arizona Wilderness Act and are beyond
the scope of the wilderness process.
The 1984 law and H.R. 644 do not even cover the same inventory of
lands. The Arizona Wilderness Act considered only those lands in BLM
and Forest Service wilderness study areas. It never examined at all
vast tracts affected by H.R. 644 because those lands did not meet the
criteria required to receive interim protection while they were studied
for their wilderness suitability. While it is true that some of those
lands that were studied and not designated wilderness in 1984 are
included in Mr. Grijalva's bill, many were not. The majority of lands
covered in the current bill were never reviewed at all, for anything,
not even for wilderness, in 1984.
Even if Mr. Grijalva were proposing to designate more wilderness,
which he is not, the bill would not violate what the Senate letters
call ``the understanding'' of the Arizona Wilderness Act. That act, by
its own language, is not the final disposition even of the wilderness
question on the Strip, much less land use questions of entirely
different scope and impact. The statute's release language clearly
requires the Forest Service to reconsider in subsequent planning
cycles, which are supposed to be every ten years, the wilderness
suitability of all lands not already designated. This is no accident.
Release language was an extremely contentious issue that held up the
passage of several statewide wilderness bills for a considerable time.
Opponents argued persistently that lands not designated wilderness
should be barred from future wilderness consideration. Some went even
further with proposals that amounted to a Congressional directive that
multiple use lands be free of any conservation protections. Mr. Udall
was the prime advocate of the position that such lands could and should
be reconsidered for wilderness at some future time. The bill as enacted
adopted his position, as did all other RARE II wilderness bills.
BLM lands are not subject to the same statutory cyclical planning
process as Forest Service lands. Therefore, they did not require any
comparable release language. Had it been necessary, however, Mr. Udall
obviously would have taken the same position, that future reviews of
land status are necessary and proper and that no Act of Congress,
either implicitly or explicitly, ought to foreclose the possibility
that future citizens, future agencies and future Congresses might
propose additional protections on these lands. To see that defeated
argument of so many years ago returning in the form of the rewritten
history of the Senate letters is, to say the least, discouraging,
especially when it has been stretched to argue against a bill that is
not a wilderness bill, that addresses lands not even considered in the
formulation of the Arizona wilderness bill and that protects those
lands to an entirely different object and in an entirely different way.
It is true, of course, that lands in wilderness study areas not
designated wilderness by the Act lost their interim protections, to be
managed for multiple use under applicable law. It is also true that the
committee report accompanying the Arizona Wilderness Act contains
rather detailed and extensive language laying out how uranium mining
might proceed with respect to lands outside BLM's Grand Wash Cliffs
Wilderness and the Forest Service's Kanab Creek Wilderness. But that
language reflects an understanding of specific facts related to
specific actors 25 years ago that no longer apply.
In any event, Congress did not direct that such development must
actually occur. To release lands back to multiple use, as the Arizona
Wilderness Act did, only meant that development might, or might not,
take place as determined by the relevant agencies acting in accordance
with applicable law. In fact, only one of the mines discussed by the
report language--the Hack Canyon mine--was ever developed. Energy Fuels
Nuclear went bankrupt not long after passage of the Act. One would have
to say that the Act's release language requires the Forest Service to
consider anew the possibility of extending wilderness protections to
the very lands adjacent to the Kanab Creek Wilderness that were the
subject of that report language, where development did not occur and
wilderness resources remain intact. Even if Mr. Grijalva were proposing
wilderness on lands already considered by the Arizona Wilderness Act,
he would not be violating either its language or its spirit. He is not,
and the plain language of the Act clearly belies the notion that the
Arizona Wilderness Act was intended to be some kind of barrier against
new protections, freezing lands use decisions made in 1984 for all
time. It should go without saying that nothing in the Arizona
Wilderness Act precludes the Congress from imposing additional
protections of any kind, based on new facts and new evidence or new
values.
And the plain facts are that land status on the Arizona Strip
already has changed, and profoundly so, since passage of the Arizona
Wilderness Act. ACEC's have been designated and large national
monuments proclaimed, and implicitly if not explicitly ratified by
Congress, all without any objections that ``heavy-handed government
interference'' from Washington violated a generation-old
``understanding'' that nothing more would ever change. (In one sense
there is irony in this argument, because in the case of the BLM lands
on the Strip the Arizona Wilderness Act was itself Congressional
interference in BLM's uncompleted administrative wilderness review
process under Section 603 of FLPMA.) I am utterly confident that this
is exactly what Mr. Udall would have hoped would happen, that the
Arizona Wilderness Act would be the catalyst for continuing concern and
attention to protection of the Grand Canyon ecosystem, not less.
If there is an ``understanding'' implicit in the Arizona Wilderness
Act that Mr. Udall's work would be the final word on the Arizona Strip
not to be rewritten by those who came after him, which is the
underlying thesis of the Senate letters, I am quite certain Mr. Udall
did not share it. In fact, I can think of no idea more contrary to Mo's
most fundamental beliefs about the work he cared about so deeply.
Mr. Chairman, Mo Udall was my hero and my mentor. I worked with him
daily for 12 years crafting legislation that set a new standard for
stewardship of the lands and resources that sustain us all. It is
highly distressing to me to see Mo's name invoked in support of a
position I know to an absolute certainty he never would have taken. It
is contrary to his core values, the values he taught me, the values he
expected me to bring to every piece of legislation I was honored to
staff for him, the values that made him the most remarkable man I have
ever known and one of the most remarkable legislators this Congress has
ever known.
Mo was rightly proud of his legacy as the greatest conservation
legislator in American history. Thanks to his leadership, the national
park system, the national wildlife refuge system, and the national
wilderness preservation system were all more than doubled in size. The
Alaska Lands Act, which was forged in this very room that bears his
name, was the single greatest stroke of conservation in the history of
man. At every step of assembling that legacy, Mo's work was informed by
what he often referred to as his ``love of the land''. He believed it
was the duty of every generation to exercise its own love of the land
to meet future challenges he could never anticipate. The suggestion
that he would have thought that any citizen or group of citizens or the
Congress of the United States was precluded by some deal or some
judgment he had made a generation earlier from taking new action to
express that love, on the basis of new information and new evidence in
an entirely different context, is just utterly antithetical to
everything he believed.
Mo wouldn't have gone as far as Thomas Jefferson, who believed all
laws should expire every 25 years because no generation has the right
to impose its rules on the next. But he was very Jeffersonian in his
belief that every generation has the right and the duty to create its
own world. He saw conservation as a dynamic process across time, an
ongoing story to be written and rewritten every generation. Mo often
talked about how as a younger man the mountains that ring Tucson were
distant things, and that the city limits didn't even reach a ring of
parks and wilderness areas that nearly surround it. But in his
lifetime, Tucson had grown up to and beyond those mountains. The
natural areas that used to be so distant are now islands in an urban
sea. Mo talked about this often because he felt so strongly that you
could never be visionary enough when it came to the land and you could
never deny to any generation its opportunity and its responsibility to
take care of it. It is more than a little appropriate that today you,
Mr. Chairman, represent much the same community that he did, that you
occupy the chairmanship of a vital subcommittee that Mo entrusted only
to his most valued partners, John Seiberling and Bruce Vento, and that
you share his love of the land.
I don't know what position Mo would have taken on the bill before
the subcommittee and I have no worthwhile opinion on its substantive
merits. But I do know the charge Mo would have given me. He would have
wanted to know two things--is there credible evidence of a problem that
requires Congress to act, and is the solution proposed reasonable and
effective. In the matter before you today those are the questions
members of this subcommittee and this Congress, in the House and the
Senate, should address. No false fealty to a man or his work should
serve as the premise for refusing to do so.
Mo's legacy is and always will be an enduring one. But Mo did not
legislate on stone tablets. And he did not protect lands to prevent
others from loving the land but to inspire them to carry on the great
work. In the end, that is his true legacy, and if his name is to be
invoked, let that be the cause it serves.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to defend that
legacy before you today.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Before the next witness,
in 1974, I got elected to a school board back home, and Mo was
my congressman for forever, and he wrote me a congratulatory
note: ``Raul, congratulations,'' and then underneath it, ``Are
you sure about this?'' I have kept that forever.
Let me now ask Professor David Kreamer, hydrologist and
university professor, Las Vegas, Nevada. Welcome, Doctor, and I
look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF DAVID K. KREAMER, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF HYDROLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
Dr. Kreamer. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and thank you,
Committee. My name is David Kreamer. I am a Professor of
Hydrology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of
Geoscience. I have taught at Arizona State University and the
University of Arizona. I am an officer in the International
Association of Hydrogeologists and director of the National
Ground Water Association's Association of Ground Water
Scientists and Engineers. The National Ground Water Association
is the largest groundwater association, not only in the United
States, but in the world.
I am not speaking on behalf of any of those institutions or
professional organizations but as a professional
hydrogeologist.
I have been studying the Grand Canyon since the 1980's. I
first visited it in the 1960's. My research team was the first
to find elevated uranium concentrations in Horn Creek below
Orphan Uranium Mine in the Grand Canyon, as a result of which,
in the Horn Creek area, there was a sign put up to warn people
about the high uranium concentrations in the water.
We looked at the isotopes Dr. Singh mentioned, the
environmental isotopes, back in the eighties and nineties,
uranium isotope disequilibrium, and other elements to try and
link groundwater and see where it was moving in the Grand
Canyon.
I am concerned about the potential contamination of uranium
mining in the Grand Canyon, and I support House Bill 644. I am
not only concerned about water contamination and water quality
but also water quantity. Mining in breccia pipes would
necessarily pierce perched aquifers in the Grand Canyon that
feed high springs on the Hermit Shale-Coconino Sandstone
contact.
In addition to that, the uranium activities themselves
require water. One uranium mine alone, if you look at the
Canyon Uranium Mine EIS in the 1980's, the amount of water they
would use would be enough to supply several small springs and
seeps in the Grand Canyon, and if that water was taken away
from the groundwater system, it would eradicate those springs.
The mining works on top of uranium mines build dikes and
dams and berms to prevent ore on the surface and spoils on the
surface from contacting surface water floods. These breccia
pipes are historical recharge areas. The mining works
themselves would reduce recharge by impounding water that would
normally recharge the Redwall-Muav aquifer down below. So I am
concerned about water quantity as well in the Grand Canyon.
The science has shown that it is unreasonable to assume
that there is no connection between groundwater in the Grand
Canyon in the rims and the springs. The isotopes show that it
is likely that those are connected.
It is unreasonable to assume that water supplied to mining
is trivial, particularly if more than one mine begins mining in
the Grand Canyon region.
It is unreasonable to assume that the surface structures--
the dams, dikes, and berms--will not reduce recharge to the
Redwall-Muav aquifer, and that is if they do not fail and flood
the subsurface with contaminated water.
It is unreasonable to assume that mining in the Hermit
Shale aquifer will not pierce the perched aquifer system in the
Grand Canyon.
It is unreasonable to assume that potential pollution to
drainages in the Grand Canyon will not occur, and it is
unreasonable to assume that no potential huge cleanup costs
will be associated with any pollution that does occur. Orphan
Uranium Mine surface cleanup alone, under circle of the
Superfund, is $15 million. There is no estimate yet for what
the underground water cleanup would be and what the cleanup
would be for the Horn Creek down below.
By allowing uranium mining in the Grand Canyon, we are
really like the sorcerer's apprentice, opening up an
environmental box that does not follow precautionary principles
that we often follow in the environment.
The hydrologic indications are that the springs will be
impacted in some way, that the ecosystems that depend on those
springs will be impacted, and that there is a potential for
water quantity and quality impact in the Grand Canyon.
I would like to thank the Committee very much for allowing
me to testify this morning. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kreamer follows:]
Statement of David K. Kreamer, Professor, Department of Geoscience,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
I wish to thank Chairman Grijalva and the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify, and for your leadership in addressing this
important issue. This testimony is in support of the Grand Canyon
Watersheds Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 644). I am a Professor of
Hydrology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) where I have
been studying groundwater--surface water interaction in the Southwest,
and in the national parks in particular. I have visited the Grand
Canyon since the 1960s and have conducted research on Grand Canyon
springs for over 25 years. I have authored several publications related
to Grand Canyon springs. This testimony does not represent the views of
the University of Nevada, or any of the institutions with which I have
past or present affiliation. My past affiliations include Director of
Water Resources Management Graduate Program at UNLV, and I have taught
at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona in the 1970s
and 80s. I also serve as Secretary of the U.S. National Chapter of the
International Association of Hydrogeologists, and on the Board of
Directors of the National Ground Water Association, Association of
Ground Water Scientists and Engineers.
My research group was the first to study uranium concentrations in
water from various springs in the Grand Canyon, including Horn Creek
(which is below the site of the abandoned Orphan Uranium Mine on the
Rim). In 1995 we discovered elevated uranium levels in Horn Creek (92.7
ppb), which is above the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (0 ppb),
and in excess of the EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (30 ppb). This
provided part of the impetus for the Park Service to clean up the
Orphan Mine site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The cost for remediation of
the Orphan Mine's surface area is estimated at $15 million (Phase 1),
but costs to remediate contamination in the underground portion of the
mine and in Horn Creek are unknown (Washington Independent July 22,
2008).
My comments in this testimony are restricted to my areas of
professional and academic experience in hydrology, water quality, and
geology. Specifically, I would like to address the potential that
mining, in or near the Tusayan Ranger District and Federal land managed
by the Bureau of Land Management in the vicinity of Kanab Creek and in
House Rock Valley, can negatively impact the quantity and quality of
spring water issuing in the Grand Canyon, and thereby impact human
health and safety, and wildlife habitat that those springs support.
Background
I have researched spring water quality and quantity in the Grand
Canyon with my graduate students since the 1980's, particularly looking
at environmental tracers and groundwater-surface water connections.
Environmental tracers are water quality parameters which are useful in
understanding groundwater movement and flow. The value of these tracers
includes: tracking subsurface water migration, revealing evidence to
show hydrologic connection between aquifers and springs, dating the
entry of rainfall infiltrating into the subsurface, and specifying
ground water recharge areas and amounts of recharge.
On the basis of this research and that of others, I am profoundly
concerned that mining in or near the Tusayan Ranger District and
Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the vicinity
of Kanab Creek and in House Rock Valley will damage the quantity and
quality of Grand Canyon springs, and the plants and animals that depend
on those springs. The springs support a rich diversity of animals,
birds, insects and plants, and provide water for backcountry hikers and
Native Americans.
Uranium mines in the arid Southwest use water, which is usually
supplied from wells or imported from springs. These types of mines in
the Grand Canyon area typically excavate vertical and horizontal shafts
into, or near, breccia pipes, which are geologic collapse features and
zones of historical groundwater recharge. Breccia pipes are abundant in
the region, form vertical zones of angular clasts surrounded by a
consolidated rock matrix originally formed by the caving-in of
paleochannels in underlying rock, and can form ground surface
depressions and sink holes (Huntoon, 1996). Many potential mine sites
are located in these sinkholes which can be subject to surface
flooding. This type of uranium mine generates ore and waste rock which
is typically stockpiled on the land surface until shipment to a mill
takes place. Local precipitation and surface runoff waters can be in
contact with this surface uranium ore. Certain mining activities, such
as the interception of water by wells, creation of vertical shafts, the
diversion of surface water, and the collection of surface water into
holding ponds, has the potential to alter the amount and quality of
water recharging the aquifers surrounding Grand Canyon National Park.
Diminishment of Spring Water Quantity
Water is necessary at mining operations to support drilling,
potable water supply and sanitary needs. Wells in the Grand Canyon
region typically are over 2000 feet deep, tapping the Redwall-Muav
aquifer. This same Redwall-Muav formation is the level in the Canyon
where the large majority of springs discharge (approximately halfway
down the Canyon vertically). Previous uranium mining in the Grand
Canyon region estimates that this water usage would be, at a minimum,
over 2.5 million gallons per year for one mine (Canyon Uranium Mine
EIS, 1986). There are many springs and seeps in the Grand Canyon that,
according to the U.S. Geological Survey and other investigators, have
discharge similar to these amounts, or even much less. Some of these
springs and seeps are ephemeral, and the biotic communities associated
with them are very vulnerable to the abstraction of water and reduction
of flow. Multiplying potential mining water use by the number of
potential mine sites, coupled with the up-gradient location of
potential mine sites, a majority of springs and seeps in the Grand
Canyon could be eliminated and/or critically diminished in flow. The
work of our research group at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas with
environmental tracers (including stable and radiogenic isotopes, trace
elements, chlorofluorocarbons, and uranium isotope disequilibrium
measurements) shows compelling supporting evidence for existence of a
hydrologic connection between the aquifers surrounding the Canyon and
the springs within the Canyon (Goings, 1985; Zukosky, 1995; Fitzgerald,
1996; Ingraham et al., 2001).
Also, the deep, drilled wells associated with projected mining
operations throughout the Grand Canyon region, and the mine shafts
themselves, have the potential to pierce smaller perched aquifers in
the overlying Coconino Sandstone (approximately one-quarter of the way
down the Canyon vertically), which supplies water to springs higher up
on the wall of the Canyon. In one uranium mine in the Grand Canyon
region, a perched aquifer was encountered during exploratory drilling
operations. Long-term downward drainage and water disruption potential
of the mining operation was estimated to be over 1.3 million gallons
per year (Canyon Uranium Mine EIS, 1986). Piercing a perched aquifer
would have the effect of draining the perched aquifer, and disrupting
flow to springs issuing from the Coconino Sandstone-Hermit Shale
contact and the underlying Supai Group.
The historical water recharge to the subsurface in potential mining
areas could be altered by surface mining structures. These structures
include diversion channels, berms, dikes, or barriers to surface flow.
These structures are designed, in part, to minimize contact of surface
ore piles and waste rock with surface water runoff. Eventually this
impoundment of surface water would manifest itself as diminished
groundwater recharge and spring flow. Retention of surface water would
unbalance the groundwater equilibrium between recharge and spring
discharge, and could also affect the timing of downward water
percolation, and eventually spring water quality.
Diminishment of Spring Water Quality
The disruption to the normal recharge processes (vertical water
flow in the subsurface) by mining operations will not only change the
underground pathway and quantity of spring and creek flow within the
Grand Canyon, it is likely to also change the quality of those waters.
As may be obvious, lower flows may produce less dilution of dissolved
components, but surprisingly, high flows coupled with a change in
water's oxidation level as it descends in the subsurface, can increase
sulfate, magnesium, carbonate, and even uranium concentrations (Hockley
et al., 2000). Elevated uranium concentrations in spring water that my
research team observed in Horn Creek, below the rim of the Grand
Canyon, were at a time of high flow.
Vertical and horizontal shafts built with uranium mining will be
expected to change water quality in the Canyon. The effects on water
quality of expanded uranium mining near the Rim of the Grand Canyon,
irreversible environmental impacts of those changes, and the cost of
cleaning up contamination from those operations is not defined at this
time for receiving waters.
Summary
Scientific evidence suggests that the exploitation of uranium
resources near the Grand Canyon will be intimately connected with the
groundwater aquifers and springs in the region. The hydrologic impacts
have a great potential to be negative to people and biotic systems. I
believe that an assumption that uranium mining will have minimal impact
on springs, people and ecosystems in the Grand Canyon is unreasonable,
and is not supported by past investigations, research, and data.
Therefore, I support passage of H.R. 644. In my best professional
judgment, I believe H.R. 644 will help preserve clean water and the
sustainable natural resources that water supports, in this treasured
region of our country. In my view, at the same time it will support
recreational economic interests and indigenous peoples of the region.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to address this issue and wish
to thank the Subcommittee.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Bill Hedden, Executive
Director, Grand Canyon Trust, welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF BILL HEDDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
GRAND CANYON TRUST, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA
Mr. Hedden. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Mr. Bishop, and
Members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to be here today.
I need to begin by amending my written testimony to thank
Secretary Salazar for his action yesterday segregating lands
from uranium mining in direct response to the resolution of the
House Resources Committee. I am here today to urge you to make
those protections permanent.
Various actions, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt's 1908
designation of Grand Canyon National Monument, have ended
mining in most of the watersheds draining into the canyon. Only
the areas around Kanab Creek, House Rock Valley, and the
Tusayan District of the Kaibab National Forest remain
unprotected, but those areas are awash in 11,000 uranium mining
claims, most filed in the last few years, the 21st century
claim-staking frenzy conducted under the 19th century auspices
of the 1872 Mining Law.
From bitter experience, we, in the Southwest, know what
uranium mining looks like close up. Native people are still
suffering from the illness and poisonous waste left behind by
the last boom, prompting every tribe with cultural ties to the
Grand Canyon to oppose new uranium mining there.
Wherever the mess has been cleaned up, the taxpayers have
been stuck with the bill. Near my home in Moab, Utah, DOE has
just begun to remove 16 million tons of toxic uranium waste
from the bank of the Colorado River. The company that left the
tailings and pocketed the cash fled into bankruptcy, leaving
the taxpayers with a remediation bill of a billion dollars, but
what other choice was there? The mess was draining into the
water supply for 25 million people.
In 1979, an earthen dam breached, dumping 1,100 tons of
radioactive wastes and 90 million gallons of poison water into
a tributary of the Little Colorado River.
In 1984, a flash flood sent four tons of high-grade ore
down Kanab Creek and into the Grand Canyon.
Today, you have heard about the concerns of the Havasupai
Tribe. A year ago, a notorious flood caused the evacuation of
400 hikers in the Grand Canyon from Havasu Canyon, and they are
rightly concerned about the water and about their sacred places
and their way of life in the canyon.
If you take a short walk west along the rim from the El
Tovar, you come to the remains of the Orphan Mine, aptly named.
For years, tourists were cordoned off from the head frame and
other structures by yellow tape, making it look like the crime
scene that it, arguably, was. The Park Service has been
investing $15 million of our money to remove the surface
remains but can do nothing about the contamination that is
polluting Horn Creek far below in the canyon.
The 1872 Mining Law was administered to allow private
companies to mine on any public lands that have not been
formally withdrawn. Government solicitors have recently argued
that once a valuable deposit has been established, there is
virtually nothing that can be done to prevent mining, even in
the case where undue degradation is anticipated.
Two years ago, the Forest Service began approving uranium
exploration projects within scant miles of the visitors' center
at the South Rim through so-called ``categorical exclusions''
with no analysis of public involvement. My group and our
environmental colleagues challenged this lack of scrutiny in
Federal court and secured a favorable settlement requiring
environmental assessments in the future.
During the court proceedings, a typically optimistic lawyer
for the mining company said to the judge, ``With all due
respect, Your Honor, there is probably more radiation in this
courtroom than there is at one of our drilling sites,'' to
which the judge replied, ``With all due respect, Counselor, my
courtroom is not one of Seven Wonders of the World.''
Whatever your thoughts on the future of nuclear power, a
uranium boom that defiles the Grand Canyon is in nobody's best
interests. We do not need the relatively small amount of the
uranium to be found there. Arizona has less than eight percent
of America's assured reserves, or four-one-thousandths of one
percent of the world's supply. Wyoming and New Mexico have five
times as much and our close allies, Australia and Canada, are
leading world producers.
Yesterday, the Grand Canyon Trust released a poll reporting
that two-thirds of the voters in Arizona, including the two
counties surrounding the Grand Canyon, support stopping future
mining on public lands near the park. Arizonans clearly agreed
that the Grand Canyon Watershed Protection Act should be passed
before yesterday's secretarial withdrawal expires. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hedden follows:]
Statement of Bill Hedden, Executive Director,
Grand Canyon Trust, Flagstaff, Arizona
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee for
convening this hearing. It is an honor to testify before you today.
My name is Bill Hedden. I am the executive director of the Grand
Canyon Trust. I am also president of the North Rim Ranch LLC, which
owns and operates an 850,000 acre public lands cattle ranch adjacent to
the Grand Canyon.
The Trust is a regional conservation group dedicated to protecting
and restoring the Colorado Plateau, which encompasses more than 120,000
square miles of spectacular canyon country formed by the upper Colorado
River and its tributaries. It includes the Grand Canyon and the largest
concentration of national parks, monuments, and recreation areas in the
United States. It is also home to some of our country's most diverse
and vulnerable populations of plants and animals.
Throughout our history, the Trust has sought to protect Grand
Canyon National Park from threats within and outside of the Park's
boundaries. We worked closely with Senator McCain in passing the 1987
Grand Canyon Overflights Protection Act to restore the Canyon's
``natural quiet'' by reducing noise from aircraft tours over the Park.
In 1991, we successfully negotiated with owners of Navajo Generating
Station a decision to reduce by 90 percent the coal plant's sulfur
emissions that were impairing visibility within the Grand Canyon. The
Trust later assisted in passing the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992
to assure that water releases from Glen Canyon Dam would minimize
adverse impacts to ecological, cultural, and recreational values along
the Colorado River. Today I encourage you to continue that tradition of
protecting this unique place.
Need for Immediate Action
There really is only one Grand Canyon. There are places where we
shouldn't allow industrial developments like uranium mining, and the
Grand Canyon is preeminent among those special places.
The Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act would prevent new mining
claims in the last unprotected watersheds that drain directly into the
Park. The bill will withdraw from mining federal lands in the Kanab
Creek area and in House Rock Valley managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, as well as in the Tusayan Ranger District of the Kaibab
National Forest south of the Canyon. A small portion of the proposed
withdrawal area located in the Tusayan District lies within the Little
Colorado Watershed.
In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt established Grand Canyon
National Monument. According to historian Donald Hughes, the ``primary
effect'' of establishing the monument ``...was to forbid prospecting
and mining on all lands in the Grand Canyon.'' Other actions by federal
and tribal governments now prohibit uranium mining in major watersheds
of the Colorado River within Grand Canyon. These include the Paria,
Little Colorado, Diamond, Spencer, Whitmore, and Separation Canyon
watersheds.
More than a year ago, administration officials testified that there
were nearly 11,000 uranium mining claims, most filed in the last few
years, within the area proposed for withdrawal. Under Secretary of
Agriculture Mark Rey testified to this subcommittee on June 5, 2008
that there are ``...approximately 8,500 mining claims filed in the
portion of the proposed withdrawal under the Bureau of Land
Management's management and 2,100 claims have already been filed in the
portion of the proposed withdrawal under the Forest Service's
management.''
New claims are still being filed, placing the Grand Canyon and the
Colorado River, which supplies drinking water for nearly 25 million
people, at risk. Letters of concern about new uranium mining have been
submitted by directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, the former Governor of Arizona, and the Southern Nevada
Water Authority.
Last year, members of the House Committee on Natural Resources
recognized these risks and passed an Emergency Resolution to forestall
another uranium boom. On June 25, 2008, the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Natural Resources issued an Emergency
Resolution directing the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw nearly
one million acres of federal land near Grand Canyon National Park,
referencing the map associated with the Grand Canyon Watersheds
Protection Act of 2008.
Chairman Grijalva, thank you for your leadership and thanks to
those members of the Committee who joined in taking this decisive
action to halt new mining claims. Regrettably, threats from uranium
mining around the Grand Canyon have accelerated since your vote.
The Secretary of Interior ignored the Resolution and changed the
rules that required his compliance. Despite our lawsuit challenging
this failure to act, authorizations for exploratory drilling are
continuing in direct violation of the Emergency Resolution. We are
challenging these actions in court. The Resolution was based on the
Committee's finding that an emergency exists due to the potential
development of hundreds of uranium claims within a few miles of the
Park. A Secretarial withdrawal pursuant to the Resolution would prevent
the development of mining claims for three years after the date of the
withdrawal and not affect valid and existing mineral rights.
New state permits are now being issued to begin operations at three
uranium mines located within the proposed withdrawal area. Arizona
state aquifer and air permitting has been reinitiated on three existing
mines in the Grand Canyon area--the Canyon, Pinenut and Arizona One
mines. The deadline for public comment is tomorrow. All three mines
were built in the 1980s, are owned by Denison Mines, a Canadian and
Korean-owned company, and are not subject to the emergency resolution.
This weekend, Havasupai tribal members are planning to protest the
opening of one of these mines located near the base of Red Butte. It is
their sacred place of emergence and a prominent landmark for visitors
when entering Grand Canyon National Park.
Uranium mining is threatening the sacred places and waters of
people who have lived in the Grand Canyon for centuries. We must not
further industrialize the lands around the park and we cannot risk
poisoning the waters that drain directly into it. We have seen that
happen before.
Damages Caused by Uranium Development
Damages caused by prior uranium development in our region are well-
documented. Native people are still suffering from the poisonous filth
left behind during the last big uranium boom. In 2005, the Navajo
Nation outlawed uranium mining and processing on its 27,000 square-mile
reservation.
At Chairman Grijalva's March 28, 2008 hearing in Flagstaff, Navajo
President Joe Shirley said: The tragedy of uranium's legacy extends not
only to those who worked in the mines, but to those who worked and
lived near the mines that also experienced devastating illnesses.
Decades later, the families who live in those same areas continue to
experience health problems today. The remnants of uranium activity
continue to pollute our land, our water, and our lives. It would be
unforgivable to allow this cycle to continue for another generation.
Hopi, Kaibab Paiute, Hualapai, and Havasupai leaders joined President
Shirley in testifying to ban uranium mining on public lands surrounding
the Grand Canyon.
Hundreds of mines and mills were developed in watersheds upstream
from Grand Canyon. In 1979, an earthen dam breached, releasing eleven
hundred tons of radioactive mill wastes and ninety million gallons of
contaminated water into a tributary of the Little Colorado River. The
EPA and the U.S. Department of Interior acknowledge that contaminated
water from many additional impoundments of toxic tailings has washed
into our region's watercourses. Collectively, these events correlate
with documented risks and harm to people's health.
Near my home in Utah, DOE contractors are just now beginning to
remove a 16-million ton pile of uranium mill tailings from the Colorado
River's floodplain. Following bankruptcy of the responsible company,
more than $1 billion in taxpayers' dollars will be spent to restore the
land and water at the site, where milling operations, but not
contamination of the river, ceased twenty five years ago.
Grand Canyon watersheds form steep tributaries and narrow canyons
that become torrents during downpours, such as occurred in Havasu
Canyon less than a year ago. In 1984, a flash flood washed four tons of
high-grade uranium ore down Kanab Creek and into the Grand Canyon.
Extreme weather events such as these are becoming more frequent, and
flooding risks will increase in the Southwest as the climate warms.
According to the most recent government report on climate change,
``...a warmer atmosphere and an intensified water cycle are likely to
mean not only a greater likelihood of drought for the Southwest, but
also an increased risk of flooding.''
The Orphan Mine continues to contaminate springs below Grand
Canyon's South Rim. National Park Service contractors recently removed
the mine's surface structures within the fenced industrial area
adjacent to Powell Point, a popular Canyon overlook. The price tag to
complete the cleanup is estimated to exceed $15 million.
New uranium mining similarly threatens groundwater and springs
throughout the Grand Canyon. Radioactive residues from previous mining
activities continue to contaminate Grand Canyon's springs and streams.
The National Park Service advises against ``drinking and bathing'' in
Kanab Creek, Horn Creek, and the Little Colorado River where
``excessive radionuclides'' have been found.
Precipitation falling on plateaus north and south of the Park
creates Grand Canyon's only native waters--waters derived in place--as
they percolate through porous, faulted, and fractured rock units to
discharge later as springs and seeps below the canyon's rim. Mining
mobilizes uranium that has been trapped in sedimentary layers for
millions of years. When oxidized, it readily dissolves and can become a
persistent poison in springs such as those feeding Vasey's Paradise,
Thunder River, and Elves Chasm.
The National Park Service also reports, ``Spring discharge''
provides base flow to the Colorado River, and provides drinking water
to wildlife and Park visitors in an otherwise arid environment. Springs
also support valuable riparian habitats, where species diversity is 100
to 500 times greater than the surrounding areas. Grand Canyon springs
are often locations of exceptional natural beauty and many hold
cultural significance to Native Americans in the region.''
I believe that mining and industrialization are incompatible with
protecting the experiences of millions of annual visitors from around
the world, and I am also concerned about cumulative threats to
wildlife. Exploratory drilling and uranium mining in Grand Canyon's
watersheds increase construction and heavy vehicle traffic on crowded
roads and in remote areas, producing visibility-impairing dust and
disruptive noise. New roads and power lines fragment the landscape,
interrupt wildlife movement, and reduce natural habitat for endangered
species such as the California condor. Native vegetation is destroyed,
increasing opportunities for invading species. Remember that many of
the claims at issue are within a mile or two of the Park visitor
center.
Why H.R. 644 is Needed
The Grand Canyon Watershed Protection Act is needed because the
1872 Mining Law is generally administered as allowing private companies
to mine on all public lands that have not been formally withdrawn. Once
valid rights are established, regulations do little to prevent the
potential for long-term contamination. And rosy scenarios about how
mining has improved must bear a difficult burden of proof. In a study
comparing predicted to actual water quality impacts from hard rock
mining, 100 percent of mines predicted compliance with water quality
standards, but 76 percent of those mines exceeded water quality
standards after operations began.
Agency policies also tend to favor mining interests in expediting
mineral development. In 2007, the Kaibab National Forest used a so-
called categorical exclusion to approve exploratory drilling of 39 test
holes in the Havasu watershed without any analysis of environmental
impacts and little public notice or input. When it approved the
exploration, the Forest Service said the 1872 Mining Law specifically
authorizes mining on public lands, and it could not prohibit the
activity.
The Trust joined with the Center for Biological Diversity and
Sierra Club in filing a suit to challenge this abrogation of duties
under the National Environmental Policy Act. The case was settled last
year when the Forest Service agreed to rescind the approval and prepare
environmental assessments for public review before authorizing any
further drilling activities. The Forest Service has begun the NEPA
process. In November, the Grand Canyon Trust joined others in
submitting extensive ``scoping comments.''
As described earlier, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality is issuing final permits for three uranium mines in the area.
Federal agencies granted approval in the 1980s, and state permits
issued more than a decade ago are still considered valid despite the
enormous subsequent increase in claims in the immediate area. Mining
will be allowed to proceed, even though little research has ever been
done to evaluate the likelihood of groundwater contamination. Without
baseline data, it is impossible to assess contamination to aquifers
that supply springs in Grand Canyon National Park.
A June 5, 2009 letter sent to Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar by
former U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcini representing Arizona and Senator
Orrin Hatch from Utah said: ``It is important to note that research
conducted by the USGS and preliminary findings by the University of
Arizona confirm that uranium mining and exploration pose no threat to
the Grand Canyon watershed or to the Park.'' Their statement
mischaracterizes the Final Report submitted to the Water Quality Center
in December 2008. We agree with what the report actually says:
``Continued measurements should be made such that a baseline can be
made before future mining activity commences or accidental release
occurs.'' In the absence of such data, all uranium development in Grand
Canyon watersheds should stop.
We also reject the Senators' proposal that mining and exploration
be permitted while a National Academy of Sciences Research Council
conducts a public process to review impacts of uranium mining in the
region. Such a process would allow private interests to profit as known
risks and liabilities to public interests accumulate.
The Grand Canyon Watershed Protection Act is an appropriate
response to the recent surge in unproven uranium claims on the very
borders of Grand Canyon National Park.
Our National Interest
President Theodore Roosevelt considered the Grand Canyon to be the
natural wonder in America. He firmly believed that the national
interest requires protecting it from the pressures of industrial
exploitation.
Whatever your thoughts on the future of nuclear power, a mining
boom that defiles the Grand Canyon in search of small amounts of
uranium is in nobody's best interest. Uranium deposits around the Grand
Canyon are not needed to meet our energy needs. Uranium deposits in all
of Arizona represent only .004% of the world's reasonably assured
uranium supply. Uranium reserves in the region comprise less than eight
percent of our domestic reserves, while more than 80 percent of U.S.
reserves are found in Wyoming and New Mexico. Uranium is also abundant
in such closely allied countries as Canada and Australia.
Many of our region's leaders and citizens are expressing concerns
about this issue. Today, the Grand Canyon Trust is releasing a poll
reporting that two-thirds of voters in the counties that surround Grand
Canyon, and virtually the same number throughout Arizona, support
stopping future mining claims on publicly owned lands near the Park.
Clearly, Arizonans agree that we should protect the Grand Canyon for
future generations.
The Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act complements a series of
foresighted actions that began in 1908, when President Roosevelt
designated the Grand Canyon as a National Monument.
We join him today in asking that ``in the interest of the
country...keep this great wonder of nature as it now is.--man can only
mar it. Leave it as it is.''
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any of your questions.
References
Page 2
http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/whatsnew/documents/Uraniumclaimsmap
updated.April9_08pdf.pdf
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/mining/pdfs/
LA-Water-District-GC-Uranium.pdf;
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/mining/pdfs/
Uranium-Napolitano-Kempthorne-etter.pdf
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/
index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=
27&extmode=view&extid=257
http://www.propublica.org/article/rush-interior-dept-rule-overrides-
congress-125
Page 3
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/05/06/06greenwire-blm-authorizes-
grand-canyon-uranium-exploratio-10572.html
http://www.sric.org/uranium/PUERCO92.html
http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/navajo-nation/pdf/NN-5-Year-Plan-
June-12.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5110/
Page 4
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6374303
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/08/18/20080818canyonflood-
on-CP.html
http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Change/uranium.htm
http://globalchange.gov/images/cir/pdf/southwest.pdf
http://washingtonindependent.com/481/sidebar-the-story-of-orphan-
uranium-mine; http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5146/
http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/waterquality.htm
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/Documents/20080328/
testimony_
shuey.pdf
Page 5
http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/whatsnew/documents/UraniumissueAZGFD
report2007_000.pdf
http://www.pr.state.az.us/publications/downloads/SCORP_2008_Chapters_3-
4.pdf
http://www.thecanyon.com/webpage.php/swmc/webpages/nps
http://www.earthworksaction.org/pubs/ComparisonsReportFinal.pdf.
http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/whatsnew/documents/UraniumJuly
2009HatchDeConciniltrtoSalazar.pdf
Page 6
http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/lib/documents/UraniumUofAStudy_
Sanchez_final2008_prelim_evaluation.pdf
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/05/teddy-roosevelt-
excerpt
200905?currentPage=1
http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelnuclear.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Clarinda Vail, Properties Manager, Red
Feather Lodge, welcome, and thank you for being here, and I
look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF CLARINDA T. VAIL, PROPERTIES MANAGER, RED FEATHER
LODGE, INC., TUSAYAN, ARIZONA
Ms. Vail. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. It is an honor to be speaking in front of you today.
My name is Clarinda Vail. I am a lifelong resident and third-
generation business owner in Tusayan, the gateway community
located one mile south of Grand Canyon National Park.
I, many of my colleagues, and local entities support H.R.
644. We are concerned about potential uranium mining on public
lands located in the Kaibab National Forest. We do not believe
that an area so close to such a natural wonder as the Grand
Canyon should be open to mining on public lands. Mining on this
Federal property would negatively impact our area, and I am in
full support of a withdrawal of this land from mining.
The Mining Act of 1872, in my opinion, should be revised
because it allows mining companies to run roughshod over public
lands. Uranium mining would impact our area in many ways and
provide no funds for the impacts that they would cause to
things such as schools, emergency services, fire protection,
and roads. Our area cannot afford more improvements on Federal
lands that do not pay property taxes to our local needs.
As president of our local school board of the only K-12
school inside of a national park, I know firsthand the impact
of a National Park Service Concessionaire conducting business
on Federal property without paying property taxes needed, both
for the current operation and to pay off bonds that their past
valuations were used for. It has created a massive tax burden,
since these properties came off the tax rolls a few years ago.
Our local property owners cannot afford another burden like
this.
If companies want to do business of any kind on Federal
property, they should pay for the impact they cause. When they
do not pay property taxes, they have an unfair market advantage
over the companies on private property. This is an unfair
market advantage that the Federal government has created for
them.
As an active citizen in my community, county, state, and
country, I am appalled, almost in disbelief, that it is 2009,
and mining companies are still allowed to mine on Federal
property without paying a penny to the Federal government or
local entities. The Mining Act should be changed to make them
pay as if they were on private property. If these companies are
good corporate citizens, they should offer it up and agree that
this is the right thing to do.
There is only one Grand Canyon National Park. It is
special, and the area should not be desecrated. When you look
at a map of all of these test sites that the Kaibab National
Forest Service is dealing with in some form or another, even a
small percentage of these becoming mines could be just too much
for our area to handle for free.
I am also concerned that this large-scale mining will
impact wildlife in the area. Unit 9, which is located in the
Kaibab National Forest, is an area known for producing world-
class elk. The large acreage that could be affected would
likely destroy habitat and disrupt wildlife populations and
migration patterns.
I would think that this mining would directly contradict
the Arizona Game and Fish and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
goals for wildlife in the area. They have achieved many of
these goals and paid for many improvements for the wildlife
around Grand Canyon. An EIS should be conducted on impacts to
wildlife if these lands are not withdrawn from new mining
development. The area cannot handle a major influx of new
residents. Housing is extremely limited near the Grand Canyon,
and Tusayan's private property taxes are already some of the
highest in the State of Arizona.
More recreation facilities are needed just for the current
residents. Phone and power needs are already stretched, and our
water is limited and valued like gold. Tusayan has done
everything it can to conserve water with our expensive, A+
quality and award-winning reclaimed system. Tusayan has reduced
its potable water usage by 50 percent. Caring about this
precious natural resource should matter to us all and
especially to this Subcommittee. I do not know what all of the
impacts could be to water but know that an EIS would be needed
with regards to it if these lands were not removed.
We are a rural area with its entire economy based on
tourism. The communities of Tusayan and Grand Canyon Village
and our entire region are set up to accommodate those services.
An EIS study would need to be conducted on the economic and
road impact to the region if this property were not removed.
This would mean more costs for the Forest Service.
It is unknown what extra truck traffic could be created
with this mining. I imagine extra semi-trucks along the winding
areas of Highway 180 or Highway 64, highways that are already
busy, especially during our high-season months, with tourism-
related traffic, roads that do not have enough passing lanes
for the motor homes and buses already on them.
The proponents may say that this will create jobs during
the recession. Do not believe it. Grand Canyon National Park is
one of the most important tourist attractions America has to
offer. Millions come from around the world each year. We hear
all languages being spoken daily at our hotel and on the rim.
To permit anything that could intrude on this experience could
cost far more jobs via reduced tourism than any gain with free
uranium mining.
All of these concerns make me think that government must do
its job here, care about what impacts they could be creating,
and care about the possible experience of the Grand Canyon
being tarnished. The tourist experience means everything to us
at Grand Canyon, and it should mean the same to all of our
elected officials in the United States.
Thank you for bringing this issue to the forefront, for
listening to my concerns, for your service to our great
country, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vail follows:]
Statement of Clarinda T. Vail, Properties Manager, Red Feather, INC. &
Tusayan Land and Cattle Company, Grand Canyon, Arizona
Honorable Members of the Committee,
As a lifelong resident and third generation business owner in
Tusayan, the gateway community located one mile south of the Grand
Canyon National Park, I, many of my colleagues and local entities
support H.R. 644. We are concerned about potential uranium mining on
public lands located in the Kaibab National Forest.
We do not believe that an area so close to such a natural wonder,
as the Grand Canyon, should be open to mining on public lands. Mining
on this federal property would negatively impact our area and I am in
full support of a withdrawal of this land from mining.
The mining act of 1872, in my opinion, should be revised because it
allows mining companies to run roughshod over public lands. Uranium
mining would impact our area in many ways and provide no funds for the
impacts they would cause to things such as schools, emergency services,
fire protection and roads. Our area cannot afford more improvements on
federal lands that do not pay property taxes to our local needs.
As president of our local school board of the only K-12 school
inside of a national park, I know first hand the impact of the National
Park Service Concessionaires conducting business on federal property
without paying property taxes needed, both, for current operations and
to pay off bonds that their past valuations were used for. It has
created a massive tax burden, since these properties came off of the
tax rolls a few years ago. Our local property owners cannot afford
another burden like this. If companies want to do business of any kind,
on federal property, they should pay for the impact they cause. When
they don't pay property taxes, they have an unfair market advantage
over the companies on private property. This is an unfair market
advantage that the federal government has created for them.
As an active citizen in my community, county, state and country I
am appalled, almost in disbelief, that it is 2009 and mining companies
are still allowed to mine on federal property without paying a penny to
the federal government or the local entities. The mining act should be
changed to make them pay as if they were on private property. If these
companies are good corporate citizens they should offer it up, and
agree this is the right thing to do.
There is only one Grand Canyon National Park. It is special, and
the area should not be desecrated. When you look at a map of all of the
test sites that the Kaibab National Forest Service is dealing with, in
some form or another, even a small percentage of these becoming mines
could be just too much for our area to handle for free.
I am also concerned that this large-scale mining will impact
wildlife in the area. Unit 9, which is located in the Kaibab National
Forest is an area known for producing world-class elk. The large
acreage that could be affected would likely destroy habitat and disrupt
wildlife populations and migration patterns. I would think that this
mining would directly contradict the Arizona Game and Fish and Rocky
Mountain Elk foundation goals for wildlife in the area. They have
achieved many of these goals and paid for many improvements for the
wildlife around Grand Canyon. The area is special to the wildlife. An
EIS should be conducted on impacts to wildlife if these lands are not
withdrawn from new mining development.
The area cannot handle a major influx of new residents. Housing is
extremely limited near the Grand Canyon, mainly, because of all the
federal property. Tusayan's private property taxes are already some of
the highest in the state of Arizona, more recreational facilities are
needed for just the current residents, phone and power needs are
already stretched and our water is limited and valued like gold.
Tusayan has done everything it can to conserve water with our
expensive, A+ quality and award winning, reclaimed system. Tusayan has
reduced its potable water usage by 50%. Caring about this precious
natural resource should matter to us all and especially to this
subcommittee. I don't know what all the impacts could be to water, but
know that an EIS would be needed with regards to it if these lands were
not removed.
We are a rural area with its entire economy based on tourism. The
communities of Tusayan the Grand Canyon Village, and our entire region,
are set up to accommodate those services. An EIS study would need to be
conducted on the economic and road impact to the region, if this
property were not removed. This would mean more costs for the Forest
Service.
It is unknown what extra truck traffic could be created with this
mining. I imagine extra semi-truck traffic along the winding areas of
HWY 180 or HWY 64. Highways that are already busy, especially during
our high season months, with tourism related traffic. Roads that don't
have enough passing lanes for the motor homes and buses already on
them.
All of these concerns make me think that government must do its job
here, care what impacts they could be creating and care about the
possible experience of the Grand Canyon being tarnished. The tourist
experience means everything to us at Grand Canyon and it should mean
the same to all of our elected leaders in the United States.
Thank you for bringing this issue to the forefront, for listening
to my concerns, for your service to our great country and I am happy to
answer any questions you may have of me.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me now ask Dr. Karen Wenrich,
Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Retired. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DR. KAREN WENRICH, RESEARCH GEOLOGIST, U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, RETIRED, GOLDEN, COLORADO
Dr. Wenrich. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. I am Karen Wenrich,
and I received a Ph.D. I am a research geologist, and I worked
for 25 years for the U.S. Geological Survey on both mining-
related and environmental projects. After my retirement, I
worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna,
Austria, on peaceful uses of atomic energy, and while I was at
the IAEA, I was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in
2005.
The race for military nuclear supremacy during and
following World War II resulted in the rapid development of a
worldwide uranium-production industry. The frantic pursuit of
these early military programs created environmental hazards and
health risks throughout the world that left a multi-billion-
dollar, Cold War uranium-production legacy. Lessons learned
from this legacy have had a profound influence on modern
uranium production. The industry has come a long way from the
time when tailings were left unprotected on the Navajo
Reservation and allowed to be transported by water and wind
into nearby streams and rivers.
The mining industry has since learned to embrace the
philosophy that it is more effective to prevent pollution than
to clean it up. This can readily be seen by the reclamation of
the Hack 1, 2, 3 mines over here on this poster, the Pigeon
mine, which is underneath on another poster, and the Hermit
mine. Not only can one no longer tell there was ever a mine
present, but, in the case of the Hack 1 mine, the former mining
company actually cleaned up the sprawling mine debris left over
from the late 1800's through the 1940's.
The mining ventures of the Navajo Reservation of the 1940's
through 1960's are not relevant to the breccia pipe province
because the Navajo mines were surface mines into an entirely
different geological and hydrological environment and because
mining technology and environmental practices used in the
breccia pipe province are 21st century technology.
Data from the 1980's and 1990's mines are available, and
they need to be used rather than mere speculation on what might
happen in the future. Mine safety for employees was strictly
enforced in the breccia pipe mines in the Arizona Strip. During
the previous mining operations of the 1980's and 1990's, there
were never any mine fatalities. In fact, the worst accident was
an employee smashing his son with a hammer.
Ventilation within the mines was excellent because there
was minimal exposure of miners to radon gas and its daughter
products. Smoking was strictly prohibited.
It is interesting to note that the cancer incidence rate
among Native Americans from McKinley and San Juan Counties with
uranium mines is far lower than the average rate among Native
Americans in other New Mexico counties where there is no known
occurrence of uranium or history of uranium mining. This does
not support the claim of increased cancer due to uranium
mining.
It is natural for people to fear what they do not
understand. A common comment against uranium mining has been
that pollution around homes in old uranium districts has been
as high as 100 parts per million. Such a level is no more than
what is emitted by massive granite cores to many mountain
ranges.
A good frame of reference for the average American
concerned about uranium contamination is to remember that a
rock containing one percent natural uranium, ten-thousand parts
per million, or what is a maximum average grade of breccia
pipes, can be held on a person's head for four hours, and the
person will receive no more radiation than they would from a
medical x-ray.
In the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada, more than 50
percent of Cogema's uranium mine staff are native people. Local
tribes in Northern Arizona could, likewise, prosper from the
mining. The royalties that the State of Arizona receives from
these mines should not be dismissed by a state that is in
financial strife. Previous uranium mining in 10 separate mines
has had absolutely no detectable negative impact on tourism.
Quite the contrary: The old head frame of the Orphan Mine that
was located within the Grand Canyon National Park was a tourist
attraction, a symbol of the powerful magnet that brought early
settlers westward.
This Orphan Mine has subsequently been used as an example
of uranium contamination as a result of mining. It was actually
the National Park Service itself that integrated the mining
claims into the park in 1988 and allowed the mine to remain
unreclaimed until the present, despite an offer from Energy
Fuels Nuclear to reclaim the mine for free. Now, there are
claims of millions of tax dollars needed to clean it up when
there should have been no cost to taxpayers, only to the
industry that offered to clean it up for free.
These are the highest-grade uranium deposits in the U.S.
Prior to 1989, over 71 breccia pipes were drilled and
identified to have ore-grade mineralization, ore bodies on the
average of five million pounds of uranium each, which brings
its total value to $200 million per pipe after expenses. This
times 71 pipes comes to $14 billion. If this bill goes through
as requested, is the government prepared to pay $14 billion for
the takings plus whatever has been discovered since 1989, which
could bring the total to $28 billion? Could not such money be
better spent on educating our children or on medical research?
On the Kanab Plateau, where eight of the producing mines
are located, down-hole data indicates that the Redwall-Muav
aquifer is the only significant source of groundwater within
the area and is under significant artesian pressure. The high
artesian pressure is an excellent safeguard, preventing seepage
from the mines on the Kanab Plateau from entering the Redwall-
Muav aquifer. Additionally, a 1,089-foot thick, unsaturated,
practically impermeable layer of Supai Group Sandstone protects
the aquifer.
Water analyses were taken actually between April 29th and
May 15th, 1991, in a water well above the Muav Redwall aquifer
adjacent to the producing Kanab North Mine, and it shows that
the uranium concentrations varied between 0.8 and 5.9
micrograms per liter. This is actual data done by Titan
Environmental that was done during the mining, so we have
actual data from this period of the 1980's to the 1990's. I
encourage the Committee to look at data from that period, not
old data.
This is lower than the uranium concentration in much of the
nation's public drinking water and one to two orders of
magnitude lower than the EPA's safe drinking level. The
environmental footprint from each mine is small, smaller than--
--
Mr. Grijalva. I think we need to wrap it up pretty soon.
Dr. Wenrich.--I am going to--is smaller than a K-Mart
parking lot and short lived, as the mine life was only five to
seven years, with a temporary disturbance of only 15 acres. The
water table seeps well below the level of mining. The mine is
dry. There is no circulation of major Northern Arizona aquifers
in any of the mining levels, so there is essentially little
chance of contamination of the groundwater.
There is no on-site processing, no chemicals, and all
mining is above the water table. Underground mining emits very
little dust. Waste rock is backfilled into the abandoned mine
shafts and tunnels. Even the concrete from the former mining
structures is broken up and backfilled into the uranium mine.
Uranium mining in the region around the Grand Canyon----
Mr. Grijalva. A pretty long wrap-up.
Dr. Wenrich.--during the 1980's and 1990's clearly
demonstrates that it can be done with no impact on the Grand
Canyon watershed. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wenrich follows:]
Statement of Dr. Karen J. Wenrich, Research Geologist
The race for military nuclear supremacy during and following World
War II resulted in the rapid development of a worldwide uranium
production industry. The adage, ``haste makes waste'', created this
legacy. The frantic pursuit of these early military programs created
environmental hazards and health risks throughout the world that left a
multi-billion dollar Cold War uranium production legacy. Above ground
military nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site before and during the
Cold War resulted in radioactive fallout in a trackway that runs across
the Arizona Strip. These manmade radioactive isotopes can still be
found in the soil today at levels far exceeding those of naturally
occurring uranium or its daughter products from mining.
Lessons learned from this legacy have had a profound influence on
modern uranium production, thereby minimizing long-term environmental
impact and health risks during uranium exploration, mining and milling.
The industry has come a long way from the time when tailings were left
unprotected and allowed to be transported by water and wind into nearby
streams and rivers. The mining industry has since learned to embrace
the philosophy that it is more effective to prevent pollution than to
clean it up. This can readily be seen by the reclamation of the Hack 1,
2, 3 mines, the Pigeon Mine and the Hermit Mine, where not only can one
no longer tell there was ever a mine present, but in the case of the
Hack 1 mine the former mining company actually cleaned up the sprawling
mine debris left over from the late 1800s through the 1940s.
Geological & Historical Background
Mining activity in the Grand Canyon breccia pipes began during the
nineteenth century, although at that time production was primarily for
copper with minor production of silver, lead, and zinc. It was not
until 1951 that uranium was first recognized in the breccia pipes.
Despite periods of depressed uranium prices, the breccia pipes
commanded considerable exploration activity in the 1980's because of
the high-grade nature of their uranium ore. During the period 1956-69,
the Orphan Mine produced 4.26 million lb of U3O8
with an average grade of 0.42% U3O8 (Chenoweth,
1986). The Orphan Mine is located within Grand Canyon National Park
where the head frame projects above Powell Point commemorating our U.S.
heritage through mining history. This history includes one of Teddy
Roosevelt's Rough Riders packing his burro down the trails of the Grand
Canyon to his Orphan mine where he dug for copper and silver during the
end of the 19th century. In addition to uranium, 6.68 million lb of
copper, 107 oz of silver, and 3400 lb of V2O5
(vanadium oxide) were recovered from the ore (Chenoweth, 1986). Between
1980 and 1988 four breccia pipes (Pigeon, Hack 1, Hack 2, Hack 3) were
mined for uranium in northern Arizona with grades averaging 0.65%
U3O8 and total production of 13 million lbs of
U3O8 (Mathisen, 1987). During the end of the
period of breccia pipe mining by Energy Fuels Nuclear, they had refined
their mining methods and the average grade of ore production approached
1% (I.W. Mathisen, oral commun., 1990).
These breccia pipes are vertical pipe-like columns of broken rock
(fig. 1); the breccia formed when layers of sandstone, shale and
limestone collapsed downward into underlying caverns. Brecciation of
overlying sedimentary strata formed thousands of pipe-shaped columns of
breccia (fig. 2). Upward stoping through the upper Paleozoic and lower
Mesozoic strata, involving units as high in the section as the Triassic
Chinle Formation, produced vertical, rubble-filled, pipe-like
structures (fig. 1). A typical pipe is approximately 300 ft in diameter
and extends upward as much as 3000 ft (Wenrich and Sutphin, 1989).
Breccia pipes extend across most of the Colorado Plateau in
northwestern Arizona and into the Basin and Range Province (Wenrich and
others, 1989). The potential for additional economic uranium
mineralized breccia pipes is greatest beneath the flat plateaus where
erosion and oxidation of the ore have been minimized (Wenrich and
Titley, 2009). It is only on the Colorado Plateau, with its history of
tectonic stability, that the uraninite has been preserved (fig. 3).
Along the edges of the plateau and in the canyons, the ore-bearing
minerals are usually oxidized to colorful secondary minerals (fig. 4)
that are popular with mineral collectors. These mineral specimens lie
in homes of mineral collectors and in most museums across the country
and pose little threat to the casual viewer.
Human Impact
The mining ventures of the Navajo Reservations of the 1940s through
1960s are not relevant to the breccia pipe province, because the Navajo
mines were surface mines into an entirely different geological and
hydrological environment, and because mining technology and
environmental practices used in the breccia pipe province are 21st
century technology. Even if one does not trust the mining companies to
self regulate, they are under strict control and monitoring by Arizona
regulators governed by modern legislation and laws.
It is natural for people to fear what they don't understand. One
comment made against uranium mining has been that pollution around
homes in old uranium districts has been as much as 100 ppm. Such a
level is no more than what is emitted by massive granite cores to many
mountain ranges. A good frame of reference for the average American
concerned about uranium contamination is to remember that a rock
containing 1% natural uranium (10,000 ppm) can be held on a person's
head for 4 hours and the person will receive no more radiation than
they would from a medical X-Ray (Paul Hlava, written communication,
2008). The average breccia pipe ore is less than1% uranium.
Mine safety for employees was strictly enforced in the breccia pipe
mines of the Arizona Strip. During the previous mining operations of
the 1980s and 1990s there were never any mine fatalities. In fact, the
MSHA records show that for one of the 5 reclaimed mines about the worst
accident was an employee smashing his thumb with a hammer. Ventilation
within the mines was excellent, so there was minimal exposure of miners
to radon gas and its daughter products. Smoking was strictly prohibited
within the mines. Radon in itself is not the problem with its 3.8-day
half-life; the miner breathes it in and breathes it out. It is actually
the radon alpha emitting progeny (lead and polonium) in the form of
aerosols that are the nasty devils. They attach themselves to various
areas of the respiratory system. Epidemiological studies have shown
that the lung cancer risk to smokers is 10-20 times greater than
``never'' smokers at exposures to environmental levels of radon (such
as 20-150 Bq/m3). The uranium industry now understands this increased
risk that smoking miners have, and have adjusted their operations
accordingly.
It is interesting that the University of New Mexico Cancer Research
Center records confirm that the cancer incidence rate among American
Indians for McKinley and San Juan counties (with uranium mines) is far
lower than the average rate among American Indians in other New Mexico
counties where there is no known occurrence of uranium or history of
uranium mining. This does not support the claim of increased cancer due
to uranium mining. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Indian Health Service (IHS) 2006 report ``Facts on Indian Health
Disparities'' states ``The American Indian and Alaska Native People
have long experienced lower health status when compared with other
Americans. Lower life expectancy and the disproportionate disease
burden exist perhaps because of inadequate education, disproportionate
poverty, discrimination in the delivery of health services and cultural
differences. These are broad quality of life issues rooted in economic
adversity and poor social conditions.'' Breccia pipe mining would offer
Indians a chance at improved economic status just as uranium mining has
in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada, where 50% of the staff
for Cogema's uranium mines is native people.
Economic Impact
Uranium mines have a significant impact on the economic condition
of Northern Arizona. The opportunity for employment in economically
ravaged towns such as Colorado City is enormous. During the 1980s and
1990s this town as well as Fredonia, Arizona and Kanab, Utah saw
reduction in poverty and welfare from wages earned by their citizens
from the mines and associated jobs. The royalties that the State of
Arizona receives from these mines should not be dismissed by a state
that is in financial strife. Previous uranium mining in 10 separate
mines has had absolutely no detectable negative impact on tourism.
Quite the contrary--the old head frame of the Orphan Mine, located
within Grand Canyon National Park, is a tourist attraction, a symbol of
the powerful attraction that brought early settlers westward. The
Orphan mining claim was first located in 1893 by a prospector named Dan
Hogan who discovered copper on the south wall of the Grand Canyon, 1100
feet below the rim. After serving as a Rough Rider during the Spanish
American War, Dan Hogan returned to prospecting. In 1906 he filed for a
mining claim patent on the Orphan Mine and his old Commandant, Theodore
Roosevelt, signed it himself. From this it might be construed that
Teddy Roosevelt believed in multiple land use, and that the beauties of
the Grand Canyon could coexist with mining. The Orphan Mine was mined
for uranium within Grand Canyon National Park from 1953 to 1969. The
mine was situated off the scenic and well-traveled routes, resulting in
most park visitors being unaware of the mine's existence. Similarly,
the other 9 mines, 8 on the North Rim, are far from the view of most
tourists. Mining has occurred for over 4 decades in the breccia pipe
province, with only a positive financial impact on the economy of
Arizona.
The highest-grade uranium deposits in the United States, and some
of the highest in the world, occur in a breccia pipe environment in
northwestern Arizona. Prior to 1989 over 71 breccia pipes were drilled
and identified to have oregrade mineralization (Sutphin and Wenrich,
1989). These orebodies would have on the average of 5 million pounds of
uranium each, which brings their total value, based on $100/pound
uranium average this past year, to $500 million, or roughly $200
million/pipe after expenses. This times 71 pipes with ore comes to $14
billion. If this bill goes through as requested, is the government
prepared to pay $14 billion for the takings, plus whatever has been
discovered since 1989, which could bring the total to $28 billion? A
precedent has been set for such remuneration for a takings: in United
Nuclear Corporation vs BIA in 1983 the company asked for $75 million
for a mining property that had been withdrawn and the court awarded the
Plaintiff $67 million.
Electricity generation in the U.S. is 19% nuclear power; providing
domestic U.S. uranium to those plants would provide more jobs and cash
flow for U.S. citizens. Such deposits give the U.S. a unique
opportunity for energy self-sufficiency with fuel that is clean and
emits no CO2 gases. This is critical at a time when (1)
there is intense global pressure for the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse
gases, and (2) we are being held financially hostage by dependence on
imported oil. Such dependence jeopardizes our national security, and if
the trade routes are severed our country's economy could shut down. We
send off our youth to fight patriotically in wars in foreign countries
to defend our access to oil. Would it not be best to save thousands of
their lives by demonstrating patriotism at home through support for
uranium mining that is clean, safe and will put us on the path to
energy independence? There would be no more need to find oil or to
fight for oil in the Middle East, supporting regimes that we would not
normally support. True patriotism is the ability to use our own
resources to become free of foreign economies whose goal is to dominate
our own.
Environmental Impact
These deposits are higher grade than most uranium deposits
elsewhere in the world, with the exception of the Canadian deposits
(with an average grade around 20% uranium). However, the word uranium
brings fear to many who live in Arizona because of the uranium legacy
that was left behind on the Colorado Plateau over 50 years ago. Yet,
these breccia pipe mines are different--the uranium is deep beneath the
plateau surface, the mines are underground, and nothing extraneous is
left on the surface after mine closure. The breccia pipe deposits were
so successfully mined and reclaimed in the 1980s and early 1990s that
few people even realize that there were eight producing mines in the
Arizona Strip near the end of the 20th century. Today even uranium
geologists can no longer find the location of the three former
producing uranium mines that are located in Hack Canyon (figs. 6-7).
An example of the distorted allegations against the clean safe
mining that was carried out during the 1980s and 1990s on the Arizona
Strip is manifested in testimony from one of the witnesses in the March
2008 hearing in Flagstaff, AZ before this subcommittee. The witness
alleged that there was a massive uranium spill of over 4 tons of high-
grade ore from the Hack Canyon mine, which flowed downstream into Kanab
Creek. Yet, employees of the mine picked up all of the ore in 2
wheelbarrows (that is hardly 4 tons). Additionally, they scanned the
entire width of the canyon with scintillometers down the 8 miles to
Kanab Creek, and found no anomalous radioactivity.
Watershed Impact: The major aquifers in the Grand Canyon are the
Mississippian-age Redwall and Cambrian-age Muav Limestones. The breccia
pipe orebodies extend no deeper than the Esplanade Sandstone of upper
Pennsylvanian age (fig. 5). On the Kanab Plateau (where 8 of the
producing mines are located) down hole data (Titan Environmental, 1994)
indicate that the Redwall-Muav aquifer (fig 5) is the only significant
source of ground water within the area. No other continuous ground
water sources were encountered on the Plateau in the overlying
formations because these strata have been intersected and drained by
the deep canyons and the large-scale faults associated with the
formation of the plateaus (USGS, 1979). Additionally, on the Kanab
Plateau, the only other aquifer in the Grand Canyon region of any
significance above the Redwall Limestone is the Permian Coconino
Sandstone, which pinches out in this area to a thickness of 0 north of
the Hack Canyon Mine, where dissection is less. Within the Kanab
Plateau area, the Redwall-Muav aquifer is under significant artesian
pressure. This high artesian pressure is an excellent safeguard
preventing seepage from the mines on the Kanab Plateau from entering
the Redwall-Muav aquifer. Additionally, a 1,089-foot thick unsaturated,
practically impermeable, layer of Supai Group Sandstone protects the
aquifer (fig. 5). ``Therefore, it is inconceivable that mine seepage of
substantially lower hydraulic head (20 ft) will ever seep through the
Supai Group, even when geologic time is considered'' (Titan
Environmental, 1994). Similarly on the south rim in Kaibab National
Forest, the Environmental Impact Statement (1986, U.S. Dept of
Agriculture) on the Canyon Uranium Mine concluded ``construction and
operation of the Canyon Mine will not impact the Redwall-Muav aquifer,
which is well below the shaft depth.''
Statements were made that water from the Orphan Mine has been
polluting Horn Creek. These are false statements intended to defame the
mining operation. Rare can one see water coming from the Orphan Mine
and going into Horn Creek. Most important though, is that actual data
from a comprehensive USGS water report (Monroe and others, 2004) of the
Grand Canyon shows no such pollution. Water analyses from 2000-2001
show uranium concentrations at Horn Creek to be between 8.6-29 ppb.
These values are within the EPA level of safe drinking water.
The Orphan Mine has been used as an example of uranium
contamination as a result of mining. It was actually the National Park
Service that integrated the mining claims into the park in 1988 and
allowed the mine to remain un-reclaimed from 1988 until the present
despite an offer from Energy Fuels Nuclear to reclaim the mine for
FREE. NPS rejected the offer and allowed the claims to remain un-
remediated for 20 years. It is important to note that this continued
contamination was the result of government agency negligence, not that
of a mining company. Despite all of this alleged contamination
preliminary results from a new 2009 study by the University of Arizona
show that uranium-mining activities near the Colorado River do not lead
to contamination in the Colorado River. The study shows that what
uranium is in the river occurs from natural uranium occurrences that
are undisturbed by man.
Water analyses taken between April 29, 1991 and May 15, 1991 in a
water supply well into the Redwall-Muav aquifer adjacent to the
producing Kanab North Mine shows uranium concentrations varying between
0.8-5.9 ppb (mg/l) (Titan Environmental). This is lower than the
uranium concentration in much of this nations public drinking water and
1-2 orders of magnitude lower than the EPA safe drinking level of 30
ppb. Water well samples from the Redwall/Muav aquifer (sampled between
June, 1988 and October, 1994) adjacent to the Pinenut Mine on the Kanab
Plateau had an average Total Dissolved Solids (TDS=the sum of dissolved
calcium and other major elements such as magnesium, sodium) content of
1695 ppm (parts/million or mg/l). The EPA maximum allowable amount for
drinking water is 500 ppm. Hence, the natural water in the Redwall/Muav
aquifer on the Kanab Plateau of the Arizona Strip is not fit for human
consumption. The mining company could only use the water for showers
for the miners; drinking water had to be hauled from Kanab.
Furthermore, the well only produced about 10 gallons/minute (Donn
Pillmore, written communication, 2008). From this it can be seen that
the contribution of any water into the Colorado River from the Kanab
Plateau is essentially negligible, and what is discharged is naturally
contaminated with excessive amounts of dissolved solids and does not
qualify as potable water.
Even in the parts of the Grand Canyon region where the Redwall-Muav
Fms provide a good drinking water supply their contribution, even when
the entire Grand Canyon is considered in total, is almost imperceptible
to the mighty Colorado River itself.
The surface water impact of the mines is negligible even at Kanab
Creek, because the level of the mine workings, at such mines as Kanab
North that sits at the edge of Kanab Creek, is below the Kanab Canyon
floor. All ore is trucked 300 miles into Utah, so little uranium-
mineralized rock will remain on the surface even during the mining
operation.
The uranium production industry is well aware that they are faced
with the environmental legacy of early uranium production. The uranium
industry has undergone a significant evolution in the level of
environmental understanding and management practices over the past 30
years. Experience has shown that there has been, and continues to be,
ongoing development of enhanced environmental management practices in
order to the meet the call from the public and the regulatory agencies
for long-term environmental protection, and socio-economic benefits
sharing with communities adjacent to the operations. Failure to
incorporate best environmental practices in initial mining and milling
plans can lead to such uranium legacies as we have witnessed in the
past. The nuclear industry knows they cannot afford any more
environment-damaging legacies.
Higher-grade deposits, such as the breccia pipes, produce more
uranium with less environmental footprint. The environmental footprint
duration for each mine is short as the life for each mine in the past
was only 5-7 years. There is only a temporary disturbance of three or
four acres per mine, as the mines are underground. The water table is
deep, well below the level of mining. The mines are dry. There is no
circulation of major northern Arizona aquifers within any of the mining
levels so there is essentially little chance of any contamination to
the ground water. There is no on-site processing, no chemicals and all
mining is above the water table. Underground mining emits very little
dust. Waste rock and tailings can always be, and have been, back-filled
into the abandoned mine shafts and tunnels. Even the concrete from the
former mining structures was broken up and backfilled into the old mine
workings. As in the past the area to be disturbed would be searched by
an archeologist and any cultural features found will be either avoided
or mitigated by detailed study. The area will also be studied by a
biologist to see if there are threatened, endangered, protected, or
other special status species or critical habitat present. There is no
greater testimony to the mining and environmental success of these
breccia pipe operations than a view of the previous operations in
comparison to the current environment of the terrain (figs 6-9). This
former mining company followed the modern mining philosophy: ``It is
more effective to prevent pollution during mining operations than to
clean it up later.''
The mining impact from 1980-1995 when all mining ceased on the
Kanab and Coconino Plateaus is so negligible that visitors today can no
longer find where the 3 former reclaimed mines were located. Water
analyses show no alteration to any of the aquifers. In testimony before
the House Subcommittee the chairman of the Kaibab Piute Tribe claimed
that ``the mining company went bankrupt and left leaving them with the
mess''. Such a statement is irresponsible and has no factual basis, and
can only be intended to mislead uninformed citizens to turn against the
mining industry. ``Energy Fuels Nuclear (``The company'') did not go
bankrupt. Its assets were sold to International Uranium Corporation.
During that time all environmental required monitoring and sampling was
continued. There was never any lapse in meeting these requirements. All
of the mines that had been depleted were reclaimed as per BLM
requirements and signed off on by the BLM and the bonds were released.
The BLM made a documentary file of the Pigeon Mine reclamation to show
other companies what ideal reclamation looked like. The mines that were
not reclaimed were placed on standby and requirements for sampling and
monitoring these facilities on standby has been performed on a regular
basis. There were never any ore truck accidents that resulted in any
spilled uranium on the Arizona Strip. Even though the Mt. Trumble Road,
that was used for hauling ore, is a public county road (Mohave Co 109)
Energy Fuels Nuclear made special provisions with the Paiute Tribe to
haul across a corer of their reservation and offered to give them a
college scholarship every year while ore hauling took place. The Tribe
declined the scholarship in lieu of a $25,000 cash payment. That cash
payment was made every year while ore hauling was taking place, even
though there was no legal or social obligation to do so. Air monitors
were placed along the haul road and up close to the village where the
Tribe resides to establish a baseline and monitor for any increase in
radiation. There never was any increase.'' (Donn Pillmore, written
communication, 2008).
This author challenges anyone to show a ``mess'' on the Kanab
Plateau. What did happen was that the mining company paid the Kaibab
Piute Tribe $25,000/year for the privilege to cross their reservation,
on a county road open to the public, as a courtesy to the Indians. So
when the company ceased ore hauling across their reservation on the
county road no more payments were made to the Paiutes. In response,
rather than being appreciative of the money that was provided to the
tribe, we must listen to such vicious misleading statements as the
money ``went away''. Would anyone continue to pay a rental car agency
for a car they had returned and were no longer leasing? Then why should
the industry be labeled as taking their money and leaving behind a
mess. Such statements are false and downright hostile to an industry
that has endeavored hard to treat its neighbors in a respectful and
friendly manner
Summary
1. Uranium mining in the region around the Grand Canyon during the
past 30 years with its updated technology has clearly demonstrated that
it can be done with NO impact on the Grand Canyon watershed. Hence,
there is no mining to protect the Grand Canyon watershed from, and the
``Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of 2008'' is frivolous
legislation. Mining was done for 15 years followed by a 13-year hiatus
of no mining. During this hiatus no water analyses from in and around
the Grand Canyon have detected any contamination with elevated
radionuclide concentrations.
2. Mining uranium from the breccia pipe district gives the U.S. a
unique opportunity for energy self-sufficiency with fuel that is clean
and emits no CO2 gases. This is critical at a time when (1)
there is intense global pressure for the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse
gases, and (2) we are being held hostage by dependence on imported oil.
This dependence has created wars. If we are truly patriotic we will
look away from the ``not in my backyard'' approach, and salute mining
to promote clean energy and independence from other nations who
currently supply our fuel. With energy independence we might not be
caught in international wars.
3. We learn history in school so we learn from mistakes and can
benefit from positive experiences. From 1980 to 1995 there were 15
years of uranium mining from the region around the Grand Canyon with
positive economic gains for the northern Arizona communities and the
State of Arizona. There was NO negative impact to water, land,
vegetation, air, or humans. The spots that were mined and reclaimed
show no visible sign of where the mine was located. The history lesson
here is that mining can be positive.
4. Figure. 9 shows our dependence on energy fuels and metals. There
is no indication that with our ever increasing population there will be
any reduction in stresses on the land for mining. Each person in the
U.S. will use 9383 pounds of uranium in their lifetime (Minerals
Management Institute). The northern Arizona breccia pipes can fulfill
this demand leaving no footprint in on the environment.
5. To use the sins of a 60-year old uranium mining legacy to punish
mining in a different district, which has clearly demonstrated safe
clean mining practices, is like the past punishing of the Navajo Tribe
by moving them eastward to Texas because of the sins of a few renegade
Apaches.
References
1. Chenoweth, W.L., 1986, The Orphan Lode mine, Grand Canyon,
Arizona, a case history of a mineralized, collapse-breccia pipe: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-510, 126 p.
2. Mathisen, I.W., Jr., 1987, Arizona Strip breccia pipe program:
Exploration, development, and production [abs.]: American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 71/5, p. 590.
3. Monroe, S.A., Antweiler, R.C., Hart, R.J., Taylor, H.E.,
Truini, M., Rihs, J.R., and Felger, T.J., 2004, Chemical
charactreristics of ground-water discharge along the south rim of Grand
Canyon in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2000-2001., U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5146, 59p.
4. Sutphin, H.B. and Wenrich, K.J., 1989, Map of locations of
collapse-breccia pipes in the Grand Canyon region of Arizona: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-550, 1 plate with text,
1:250,000.
5. Wenrich, K.J., Billingsley, G.H., and Huntoon, P.W., 1996,
Breccia pipe and geologic map of the northeastern Hualapai Indian
Reservation and vicinity, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Investigations Series Map I-2522 (2 plates, scale 1:48,000, 16 p text).
6. Wenrich, K.J. and Sutphin, H.B., 1994, Grand Canyon caves,
breccia pipes and mineral deposits: Geology Today, v. 10, no. 3, p. 97-
104.
7. Wenrich, K.J., Chenoweth, W.L., Finch, W.I., and Scarborough,
R.B., 1989, Uranium in Arizona, in Jenney, J.P., and Reynolds, S.J.,
eds., Geologic evolution of Arizona: Arizona Geological Society Digest
17, p. 759-794.
8. Wenrich, K.J. and Sutphin, H.B., 1989, Lithotectonic setting
necessary for formation of a uranium rich, solution collapse breccia
pipe province, Grand Canyon region, Arizona, in Metallogenesis of
uranium deposits, Proceedings of a technical committee meeting on
metallogenesis of uranium deposits organized by the International
Atomic Energy Agency and held in Vienna, 9-12 March 1987: Vienna,
Austria, International Atomic Energy Agency, p. 307-344.
9. Wenrich, K.J. and Titley, S.R., 2009, uranium exploration for
northern Arizona breccia pipes in the 21st century and consideration of
genetic models, in: Spencer, J.E. and Titley, S.R., eds., Ores and
oregenesis circum-Pacific tectonics, geologic evolution, and ore
deposits, Arizona Geological Society Digest 22, p. 295-309.
Author's Background
Karen Wenrich received her Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State
University in Geology. She retired from the U.S. Geological Survey
after 25 years of experience working on mining related and
environmental projects. Following her retirement from the USGS she
worked as a senior uranium geologist for the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) in peaceful uses of atomic energy. While at the
IAEA she was a recipient of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. She is the
author of over 160 published papers.
[NOTE: Figures have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me start with Mr. Trautwein. Thank you
for being here.
You mentioned in your testimony the release language that
was controversial at the time of the AWA, but Chairman Udall
fought very hard to include that in the final Act. Could you
maybe elaborate on why Mr. Udall wanted to ensure that it was
included? Opponents at the time argued that the lands not
designated for conservation purposes should be barred from any
future consideration, and Chairman Udall did not believe that
that was good policy. Both of those points: Why wasn't it good
policy, and why did he want to include that release language in
there?
Mr. Trautwein. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
let me thank you for your ``Mo story.'' Among all of us who
knew him and loved him, one of our favorites leisure activities
is to collect Mo stories. As you know, they are legion.
In the early part of the eighties, the question of release
language was a very significant controversy that held up the
consideration of many wilderness bills, statewide wilderness
bills, that were being legislated to resolve the, rare to
Forest Service, wilderness review process and, as you said, the
question was, what is the status of the lands that are not
designated wilderness?
Under the National Forest Management Act, the Forest
Service has a statutory responsibility to engage in a cyclical
planning process. The presumption is it will happen every 10
years. As part of that process, they are required to review any
lands that meet the criteria for wilderness set forth in the
Wilderness Act for possible recommendation and action by
Congress to designate them as wilderness.
So the concern was what would happen to these lands that
had been reviewed and not designated? Would they ever be
reviewed for wilderness again by the Forest Service?
It was the position of many people who opposed the
wilderness bills that they should never be reviewed for
wilderness ever again, that Congress should protect those
lands, in effect, from ever being studied for wilderness again.
That point of view actually found its way into a number of
bills that came over from the Senate side.
Mo strongly opposed that position. His belief was that
these lands should be reviewed again periodically under the
National Forest Management Act by the Forest Service and,
potentially, by Congress, and he eventually won that argument.
The provision in the Arizona Wilderness Act, which became
boilerplate and was replicated in every statewide wilderness
act, is that the lands that were released were considered to
have been sufficiently reviewed in the current forest-planning
cycle, but it made them available to be reconsidered in
subsequent forest-planning cycles and, obviously, it has been a
generation since passage of the Arizona Wilderness Act. We have
now gone through several planning cycles since passage of that
Act, so your lands would be eligible to be reconsidered as
wilderness.
Mr. Grijalva. One other point, Mr. Trautwein. As you know,
there was a letter to me from Senator Kyle and Senator McCain
that specifically said that AWA foreclosed Congress from taking
any further action on the lands adjacent to the Grand Canyon.
They cite that as the reason, the AWA, for why they choose not
to take action on the Grand Canyon watershed issue from the
impacts that could occur of uranium mining now.
I think the legislative history you have provided in your
testimony was important in disputing that claim, but I am
wondering, were there other instances in which Chairman Udall
advocated revisiting or expanding on his own legislative
efforts?
Mr. Trautwein. Well, I think you have to look no further
than the Alaska Lands Act, which is his signature
accomplishment. It is certainly the greatest stroke of
conservation in the history of Man. It was forged in this very
room. He always felt that the provisions addressing lands in
Southeast Alaska on the Tongass National Forest were
inadequate, and within, I believe, six or seven years, he was a
very strong supporter of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, which
would have designated additional wilderness in Southeast Alaska
and addressed other questions that the Alaska Lands Act
addressed.
Mo viewed conservation as a dynamic process over time to
which every generation brought its own understanding of what it
meant to love the land, and he lived that belief himself, and
certainly the Alaska Lands Act was a good example of it.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to
have a different issue be presented for the record. It is a
letter from one of the key negotiators in that period of time
on the Arizona Strip Wilderness Act, which may put a different
light on some of the testimony we have had: a letter from
myself, Mr. Hastings, and Mr. Beiner to Secretary Salazar;
testimony from the Uranium Producers of America; the concurrent
resolution passed by the Arizona House and Senate urging
Congress to oppose efforts to withdraw lands from mining; a
letter to you requesting the Administration to testify; a
letter from Senator Hatch and former Senator DeConcini opposing
withdrawal; I think the letter from Senator McCain and Senator
Kyl, I think, you just referenced; and also the resolution from
Mohave County supporting uranium mining. I would like for those
to be put into the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
[NOTE: The information submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask just a couple of very quick
questions. You are lucky Mr. Young is not here.
Dr. Kreamer, you gave us some speculation there about the
damages of mining activities to the Grand Canyon aquifer
system. I would like you to try and deal with some hard
science, if you could.
During the eighties and nineties, are there any, any, peer-
reviewed, published reports on the Arizona Strip that show that
there was contamination or discharge damage to the North Rim
aquifer system from any previous mining that was done on these
pipes in the eighties and nineties?
Dr. Kreamer. Not that I am aware of in the North Rim, and I
do object to speculation.
Mr. Bishop. Don't we all? Dr. Wenrich, would you respond to
that same question? Are there any peer-reviewed studies that
demonstrate there was damage to the aquifer?
Dr. Wenrich. No, not from the 1980's and 1990's, no.
Mr. Bishop. Is there damage later on, or is there something
that I am not seeing?
Dr. Wenrich. No.
Mr. Bishop. Do they say, then, quite the opposite?
Dr. Wenrich. Yes, they do. We have a USGS report by the
Water Resources Division by Monroe that actually shows the Horn
Creek that Dr. Kreamer alleged had ninety parts per million
uranium in it. They claimed that they could not reproduce
those. They took the samples right from the spring head, which
I believe Dr. Kreamer's samples came from down across the Tonto
Trail, where there could have been later contamination by
humans.
The study by the U.S. Geological Survey covered a period of
two years. The data ran from 8.6 ppb to 29 ppb below the EPA
safe drinking level.
So I am afraid that the analyses from Horn Creek are a bit
misleading, and what I object to is the fact that we have good,
hard, peer-reviewed science here, and Dr. Kreamer did not
reference it, which I think is a pity.
Mr. Bishop. I will come back to you on that same issue.
Dr. Wenrich. OK.
Mr. Bishop. Dr. Kreamer, let me ask you, did you actually
do this, or was it a colleague of yours that did the initial
study?
Dr. Kreamer. No, no. I was actually involved in the study.
It is Dr. Kreamer from the university.
Mr. Bishop. Just do not call me ``senator.''
Dr. Kreamer. That is all right, Congressman. Our work was
peer reviewed. It was published last year by the University of
Arizona Press. We did not sample at the Tonto Trail for our
samples. Particularly, one of the high ones we found was 92.7
micrograms per liter. That is three times the EPA limit. The
level that Dr. Wenrich just referred to, 29, I believe,
micrograms per liter, the EPA standard is 30, so it is just
under the EPA limit.
Over the course of a year, we sampled uranium
concentrations in Horn Creek. The average was 48 micrograms per
liter. We did occasionally go below 30 micrograms per liter.
I might point out that the NCO is 30 micrograms per liter,
but the recommended EPA limit is zero.
Mr. Bishop. I am actually going to come back here, but how
do you reconcile the fact that there are three other studies
that contradict the findings that you had?
Dr. Kreamer. They do not contradict it, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Well, Dr. Wenrich, was that what you were
saying?
Dr. Wenrich. Well, I am saying these are a more recent
study, and they could not replicate those high values, and his
studies are his data result, and I have not seen it published.
Mr. Bishop. I guess ``contradiction'' was the wrong term to
use, but they do not replicate the numbers----
Dr. Wenrich. They could not replicate it, so either
somebody magically cleaned up Horn Creek, or we just cannot
replicate it.
Dr. Kreamer. May I clarify? There is a reason for that,
actually.
Mr. Bishop. If you can do it in 13 seconds.
Dr. Kreamer. I can do it in 13 seconds. The higher the
flow, the higher the concentration generally, from what we have
found, as far as the concentrations go, so it was variable
according to flow.
Mr. Bishop. I have 20 seconds left on my time. Dr. Wenrich,
is there anything else that you have not been able to cover?
Dr. Wenrich. Yes. I am concerned, more than anything else,
about the total misrepresentation that we see so often here,
such as Mr. Hedden's reference to this massive spill down Kanab
Creek. As it turns out, the reports that were submitted to the
Arizona department were the fact that the mine had some rocks
that were carried downstream by a flash flood. The mine
geologist went down and picked them up with two wheelbarrows,
so that is his massive mine spill. So it is a
misrepresentation. There were only two wheelbarrows full of
ore, and it was just simply rock, no tailings.
Mr. Bishop. But we, in Utah, look at all rocks as being
massive. I apologize for that.
Mr. Chairman, I am running out of time here, and I
apologize. I have another meeting, so I apologize if I walk out
in the middle of this. It is meant as no disrespect either to
you or to the witnesses who have traveled a great deal to be
here. Thank you for all of your time and effort to be here.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Mr. Heinrich, any
questions?
Mr. Heinrich. You know, actually, I believe Ms. Shea-Porter
needs to get back to a markup, and so I would be happy to defer
to her first and then come back to my questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Ms. Shea-Porter?
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you very much, Congressman. You
know, I, too, have a markup in another place, so I have been
reading the testimony, and I would use the word ``confusing,''
but what I get from some of the witnesses is that, somehow or
another, the Earth just magically contaminates itself, the
water just magically gets contaminated, and that human beings
do not have any role to play.
So I just wanted to ask a couple of questions based on the
first testimony that we heard from Supervisor, and I apologize
if I mispronounce your name--is it Archuleta? Did I get that
close? She wrote that her county ``has witnessed the
contamination of creeks and aquifers providing public drinking
water.''
I would just like each one to say if they think that that
is an accurate statement, that the county has witnessed the
contamination of creeks and aquifers providing public drinking
water.
Dr. Wenrich. Well, I would say we do not have any published
data on that, peer-reviewed published data. There is nothing.
Ms. Shea-Porter. You know nothing about that.
Dr. Wenrich. No.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Anybody else want to say yes or no?
Ms. Vail. I would just say that, as a constituent of that
board, I would support the Coconino County Board of
Supervisors.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK.
Mr. Hedden. Yes. We have heard conflicting testimony about
that today.
Dr. Kreamer. The studies that we did have been peer
reviewed, including by the U.S. Geological Survey and published
in the University of Arizona Press. The numbers are consistent
with a USGS study that followed later, and those contamination
levels go above the MCLs occasionally. So, yes, we have found
contamination.
Mr. Trautwein. I am afraid the question is beyond my
expertise, as a former staffer who just listened to other
people who knew what they were talking about.
Ms. Shea-Porter. So let me go back to the first statement.
Everybody else believes it, believes they have seen data to
back it up, and you are saying, as a research geologist, no,
you have not seen it, and you do not have any data to prove it.
Dr. Wenrich. I have data here that show that there is no
contamination in the water of the Grand Canyon area. The only
thing we have is one analysis that we have heard about from
Horn Creek that was not replicated by the U.S. Geological
Survey. People are speculating. We have data from the North Rim
that, in fact, was very low, much lower than the EPA safe
drinking level.
I want to point out also that, even though the EPA safe
drinking level is 30 micrograms per liter, streams across the
country are being used all of the time, including the South
Platte River at Julesburg, which has 70 parts per billion. Even
70 parts per billion is nothing that is threatening to anybody.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK. My second question. I think the reason
I am asking it in such a simple manner is because the public
who watches this and will see this on television is saying,
``Well, do you have the science, or don't you?'' Let us, at
least, agree that there is something out there.
Then I heard the native tribes say that they have had
medical problems and, surely, we must have some data about
that. So can I ask each one of you, are you aware of data, and
does it indicate that there have been health problems, that
they have that contaminated water? And I will start with you.
Dr. Wenrich. I would suggest that you take a look at the
New Mexico Cancer Research Institute out of Albuquerque. We
have data there that show that the counties that have not had
mining or any mining actually have a higher cancer incidence
rate with the Native Americans than the counties that did have
uranium mining.
Ms. Shea-Porter. So would you draw the conclusion, based on
what you just told me, that if you have mining, you will
probably be healthier?
Dr. Wenrich. I guess that is what that says, if you want to
draw that kind of conclusion, but I think the point is that it
is close enough that you certainly cannot say that people who
have done the uranium mining or lived around it have higher
cancer rates.
We do know, though, and I will add this, that people who
smoke are very vulnerable to cancer from uranium mining.
Ms. Shea-Porter. But based on what you have told me, to
begin with, that if you have mining in the area, your data
indicate that people would be healthier. Is that----
Dr. Wenrich. That is what we have seen, and we are kind of
half-thinking that part of the reason for that is that they
received more money and had better medical coverage.
Ms. Shea-Porter. But would money and medical coverage take
care of a problem----
Dr. Wenrich. If you can get medical treatment, a lot of
times you can avert dying from the cancer.
Ms. Shea-Porter. The cancer that is caused by the uranium?
Dr. Wenrich. We did not say it was caused by uranium; just
cancer in general.
Ms. Shea-Porter. I am just asking the questions.
Dr. Wenrich. Yes.
Ms. Shea-Porter. I am thinking, what would a constituent of
mine wonder, hearing this kind of conversation here?
Dr. Wenrich. The Cancer Research Institute in Albuquerque
has the data, and we have tabulated it, and those are the
results that have been shown.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK. Can somebody else get in on this as
well, the answer to the question, have native populations been
harmed, and do you have other data to indicate yes or no?
Dr. Kreamer. Congresswoman, I am not a medical doctor, but
I understand that uranium accumulates in the kidney, and it
builds up over time.
Some of the data--groundwater springs that come out of the
Grand Canyon--are over 50 years' old, according to the
groundwater-dating methods that several of the USGS and others
have done. Therefore, it is a long-term effect and a time bomb.
Disruption, and uranium release would take a long time to
manifest at the springs and then take a long time, then, to
build up in people's systems. So I am unaware of any data, at
this time, but the potential is a long-term one, both with the
groundwater system and in the human body, is my understanding.
Dr. Wenrich. Also, I might point out, I remember what we
were just saying, that uranium mining in the eighties and
nineties was done very differently than what we are referring
to even----
Ms. Shea-Porter. I am so glad that you brought that up
because that is what actually you get to, and thank you for
your comments about it.
I think that even though we do not have experts watching TV
wondering what we are talking about, they certainly know that
they are supposed to stay away from uranium. They understand
that.
So what I wanted to ask you is, I am very certain, if I had
sat here in the eighties, and certain people had testified
before this Committee, they would have said that the methods
they were using at the time were appropriate. I will go right
back to the 1950's, where scientists, and there was an article
in Reader's Digest, at the time, telling the people of St.
George, Utah, that they did not have to worry about exposure
that collected in the bones.
So the point that I am making is that we hear from certain
people, and certainly yourself, that it was bad before, but it
is good now. We have it down, it is safe, and there is nothing
to worry about. The next generation will come along and say,
``Well, that was 20 years ago. We are sorry about that, but we
had it wrong, but now we know how to do it.'' How can we know,
sitting here, that you are right?
Dr. Wenrich. Well, I would say that, in the 1950's, we
already knew by the 1970's that we had trouble 20 years ago,
but we are sitting here looking back 20 years now, into the
1980's, and we do not have any problems from the mining that
was done then.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Well, I think that we actually have some
testimony that there might be problems, but the point that I am
making----
Dr. Wenrich. Not from the eighties and nineties.
Ms. Shea-Porter.--is it seems to me that the level of
confidence that you are expressing your data versus everybody
else's data is troubling because when we are dealing with
something that we really do not know everything about, that we
do not understand fully long term; we know we have seen enough
people ill, and we certainly saw that happened to the people of
Utah and to the people in other areas that have been exposed,
but I do not think we should be so certain that we are not
going to do any harm.
I think we need to move very slowly and cautiously and
carefully and consider that we do not know everything. They
talk about having that fourth parachute on the airplane and, to
me, this is what we are talking about, making sure that, in
spite of our best beliefs that we are not doing any harm, just
in case.
So I do support this legislation, and I appreciate the fact
that people are here talking about this because I do not want
another generation sitting here saying, ``Well, that was 2009.
We did not know then.''
So what we are trying to do here is to make sure that we do
not have to go back and apologize to this generation and to the
people who live in this area, and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Heinrich.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
I want to start by saying I do not think there is any
general question, even among the medical community in New
Mexico, that there have been impacts from former activity.
Whether those apply to today's methods is another issue
entirely, but if you go to communities like Pojoaque or Laguna
Pueblo, or you talk to people in the Navajo community who have
worked in those mines, there were some very, very serious, real
health impacts.
I am a little confused, Dr. Wenrich, by a statement that
you did not quite get to because you ran short during your
testimony because I just do not quite understand it. You wrote,
number five, on page 10 of your testimony: ``To use the sins of
a 60-year-old uranium mining legacy to punish mining in a
different district which has clearly demonstrated safe, clean
mining practices is like the past punishing of the Navajo Tribe
by moving them eastward to Texas because of the sins of a few
renegade Apaches.'' What exactly did you mean by that
statement?
Dr. Wenrich. What I mean is that we keep hearing repeated
information about the mining on the Navajo Reservation in the
fifties and the forties, and that is not relevant to the
breccia pipe mining. As you remember, Mr. Bishop's question to
everybody was, was there any evidence for anything that was bad
in the 1980's and 1990's, and there is not, and we need to
concentrate on the data from the 1980's and 1990's mining,
specifically, in the breccia pipes--we have examples of it--
rather than looking back at the old uranium.
Mr. Heinrich. And maybe I am just missing a piece of
history. How is that analogous to the Navajo and Apache Tribes?
Dr. Wenrich. Because the mining in the eighties and
nineties in the breccia pipe is being punished for the sins of
what was done in the forties and fifties during the military
race for supremacy.
Mr. Heinrich. OK. Moving on, Professor Kreamer, I wanted
ask you about a statement you made about perched aquifers and,
specifically, I am wondering what the legal ramifications are
of potential hydrological changes that you see occurring there.
If I have land in the Rio Grande Valley, and I decide,
despite the fact that I do not have water rights permits, that
I am going to open the floodgates and flood irrigate my fields,
I would probably need an armed guard to protect me for the rest
of the growing season.
If there is one of these pipes, as a result of mining it,
this allows an aquifer to drain and, therefore, you no longer
have an active spring someplace in the park or even outside the
park, what is the legal ramification of that?
Dr. Kreamer. I am not a lawyer. I do know that there would
be impacts to the ecosystem. Some of these springs and seeps
are very, very small. It would not take much diminishment of
the perch aquifer to impact those springs and the habitat and
wildlife that inhabit them. These springs are about a quarter
of the way down the Grand Canyon and not in the Redwall-Muav.
The uranium mining actually would pierce the underlying aquifer
of the Hermit Shale, and flow would go down.
The Orphan Uranium Mine had spontaneous springs begin after
they began mining that were below this level that were opened
up, and there was drainage downward, according to people who
worked the mine in the fifties.
So I think there is a potential, but I am not a lawyer. I
do not know what all of the legal implications would be. I just
know that there would be impacts to not only water quantity,
and probably water quality as well, but species depend upon
those springs.
Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Hedden, I wanted to ask you a question as
well. We heard a lot about the unusualness of the Secretary of
the Interior's recent decision regarding segregation and a
process looking forward in an EIS for the areas. Has that been
used by previous Secretaries of the Interior?
Mr. Hedden. Yes. It has been used three times before, and
it is a provision of FLPMA that the House Resources Committee
used last year to instruct the Secretary to do that with----
Mr. Heinrich. Correct me if I am wrong, but did not
Secretary Norton also utilize the exact same process regarding
the Dolores and the Green and maybe the Colorado Rivers just a
few years ago?
Mr. Hedden. Secretary Norton withdrew 200 miles of the
Dolores, Colorado River, and Green, and a number of side
tributaries, not in response to a directive from the Resources
Committee, but she did do that, the withdrawal using her
Secretarial authority.
Mr. Heinrich. With a two-year segregation followed by an
EIS estimate.
Mr. Hedden. She did a 20-year withdrawal.
Mr. Heinrich. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Just a couple of quick follow-ups.
Professor Kreamer, can you respond to the comments that
uranium mining of the eighties and nineties was paying for the
sins of the mining of the fifties, sixties, and seventies? That
is a clean tablet now, from that point forward, and I am
curious about your response to that.
Dr. Kreamer. Well, first of all, I think it is important to
recognize that we do not fully understand the system. There are
very few in this 100-by-100-square-mile area. We have very few
wells and, typically, for a site characterization for a
possibly contaminated site, you have several monitoring wells
that measure water quantity, quality over a period of time. The
flow in these systems takes a long time to get out to the
springs very often, and so, therefore, the impacts of mining in
the eighties and nineties might not be recognized for decades.
So, therefore, without adequate monitoring of these
systems, without a long-term effort to monitor the springs, I
think it is a bold claim to say that there are no impacts of
the eighties and nineties mining in breccia pipes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Hedden, it was stated that you
misrepresented the Kanab spill. Would you like to clarify that
for the record?
Mr. Hedden. It was reported at the time that four tons of
ore were washed down Kanab Creek and into the Grand Canyon, and
I repeated that. I believe the word ``massive'' was Dr.
Wenrich's word, not mine.
Mr. Grijalva. Ms. Vail, I have three or four questions
dealing with social impacts of mining activity, economic-impact
issues. I will be submitting those to you for a written
response, and thank you very much for being here.
It has been a good hearing, and the reason is that the
backdrop of the Secretary's action to segregate this acreage
afforded us an opportunity now to talk about permanency down
the road, but some of what we heard today was have-your-cake-
and-eat-it-too kind of discussion, that by segregating and
setting up a two-year period of time, all of the questions that
were sent to the Secretary about the effects of uranium mining,
how much is it going to cost, what are the environmental
impacts, on and on and on, well, now time is afforded to us to
be able to answer those questions that have been sent to the
Secretary and to the Administration.
Number two, the issue of jobs, and how do you balance
people's health, the Grand Canyon and its environment and its
watershed, and the dependency so many communities have on that?
How do you balance that with the potential of 2,000 jobs and
the economic loss to surrounding communities?
When this issue first came up, it was about waiving the
categorical exclusion and waiving the NEPA process, which
afforded no one the opportunity to have input into a decision
on claims and initial exploration. Now, we are afforded the
opportunity to fully study, and I would assume that all of the
panelists, and particularly the scientists on the panel, would
agree that science and fact should be a great determiner in how
we protect these lands, and I would hope we can agree on that.
The Grand Canyon, to me, and not just from Arizona, is one
of the shared treasures of this country. To the people that
live in and around the Grand Canyon, it is their life and, to
the rest of us, it is a symbol that we each can translate in
our own way about what it means to be an American and what it
means to be part of this great landscape in the West, and so it
needs to be protected.
We are not talking about some isolated BLM land where
drilling and mining extraction is going on. We are talking,
ladies and gentlemen, about the Grand Canyon, and the
consternation. That we are going to kill nuclear power--the
aspersions that are being used about this legislation are
false. The intent of this legislation, from the onset, and it
continues to be its intent, is to protect and preserve the
Grand Canyon for future generations.
That intent has not changed, and will not change, and as
this legislation moves forward, and more and more people--
initially, that poll in Arizona, I thought, was very telling--
64 percent of the people said it should be withdrawn--as it
moves forward, and it needs to move forward, we will continue
to make the case, not only on the health, the environment, the
watershed, the people, but we are going to make the case very
strongly that this is one of the treasures that needs to be
protected.
This is not about yes on mining, no on mining; this is
about yes on the Grand Canyon, and you either want to protect
the Grand Canyon, or you do not, and that is the way we are
going to pose the question to our colleagues, and that is the
way we are going to pose it to the senators, and as we move
forward, we expect to hear from you often, and thank you very
much. It has been a good hearing. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]