Uranium

 by Tim Peterson, Cultural Landscapes Director

In a place as relatively undisturbed as Bears Ears National Monument, you’d expect pristine lands and clean air. Unfortunately, just one mile east of the restored monument’s boundaries is an old uranium mill — the White Mesa Mill — that’s openly violating the Clean Air Act and has been for nearly two years, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

The Clean Air Act requires discarded radioactive wastes at Energy Fuels’ White Mesa Mill either to meet a numeric limit for emissions of radon, a cancer-causing gas, or to be completely submerged in liquid because liquid acts as a barrier to radon emissions.

TAKE ACTION. Sign the petition to protect the Bears Ears cultural landscape from radioactive waste ›

Waste left exposed to open air

According to the EPA, since at least June 2020, the mill has been violating the Clean Air Act by leaving radioactive materials in one of its waste pits (known as a “non-conventional impoundment”) exposed to the open air rather than covered by liquid. 

The violation falls under the Clean Air Act’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, specifically the National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions From Operating Mill Tailings. The standards state that “…the liquid level in the impoundment shall be maintained so that solid materials in the impoundment are not visible above the liquid surface.”

If solids are visible, the standards allow seven days to correct the situation, unless the EPA says otherwise. According to Energy Fuels’ own monitoring, this condition has persisted for almost two years now as of this writing, but without EPA’s blessing.

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe alerts the EPA

According to the EPA, Energy Fuels did not self-report this violation as required by law. In August 2021, employees of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe who flew over the mill with the nonprofit EcoFlight spotted the problem. Noticing the lack of liquid, they reported it to the state of Utah and the EPA. By October 27, 2021, Utah’s Department of Air Quality had let Energy Fuels know the company was potentially violating the law. 

In December 2021, the EPA barred the mill from accepting radioactive waste from Superfund sites (America’s most polluted places), in particular waste from the Midnite Mine on the Spokane Nation in Washington. 

Then, on April 4, 2022, a Ute Mountain Ute Tribal member and a tribal employee flew over the mill again with EcoFlight. This time there was even less water in the waste pit than before. So what gives? 

Splitting hairs over “solid waste”

These images, taken August 4, 2021 and April 4, 2022 (left to right) show falling liquid levels covering one of the mill's waste pits. LEFT: BRUCE GORDON, ECOFLIGHT. RIGHT: TIM PETERSON, FLOWN BY ECOFLIGHT

Instead of complying with the Clean Air Act’s regulations by filling the waste pit with liquid, Energy Fuels contested the EPA’s action halting Superfund waste processing and disposal at the mill.

The company argued that the solids clearly visible on the bottom of the waste pit were not solids, but “evaporite crystals” that it was okay to leave exposed, according to the company’s interpretation of regulatory language. Not so, said the EPA in a March 3, 2022 memo replying to the company’s arguments. 

The EPA clarified that only evaporite crystals on the steeply sloped sides of the pond could remain exposed to the open air, saying that “Solid byproduct material that is present on the more extensive bottom of the impoundment is ‘solid material’ subject to… [Clean Air Act regulations] that must be kept covered such that it is not visible above the liquid level.”

Radon emissions continue

In December 2021, the EPA estimated that the uncovered portion of the waste pit was emitting 10 times more radon (a radioactive gas that can cause cancer) than the covered portion. 

Although the EPA clarified for Energy Fuels in March 2022 that the company was still violating the law, in April 2022, an Energy Fuels executive still told the Cortez Journal that “the EPA gave approval to expose material in the pond because it does not emit much radon.”

The EPA’s March 2022 memo clearly states that the Clean Air Act requires Energy Fuels to cover the waste pit in liquid. 

As to how much radon is emitted, the EPA clarified that “…there is no de minimis level of radon emanation below which it becomes unnecessary to apply a liquid cover over solid materials in a non-conventional impoundment.” 

At the same time that Energy Fuels was allowing this Clean Air Act violation to grow worse by the day, in an open house for investors and journalists last September, the company’s CEO said, “We’re rebranding San Juan County as the green energy, clean energy hub of Utah, and maybe the world.” Invitees were not shown the mill’s waste pits that day. 

The EPA closed its March 2022 memo by reaffirming “…its decision not to allow the facility to accept [Superfund] waste until the facility, which is operated by Energy Fuels, returns to physical compliance with the requirements of… [the Clean Air Act].” 

Energy Fuels’ CEO has also claimed that the mill has an “impeccable environmental record,” despite more than 80 water and radiation violations since 1999. If the mill can’t store Superfund waste lawfully, should it really be continuing to process and discard other radioactive wastes?

It's unfortunate that the mill seems to be more focused on rebranding than on complying with the law and protecting human health and the environment. The communities surrounding the mill deserve better.

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the U.S. ban on imports of Russian oil, natural gas, and coal, have rekindled concerns about where the United States gets its uranium and sparked renewed opportunism on the part of companies with mining operations in the United States. How much uranium does the United States import from Russia and other countries and what’s at stake if mining ramps up in the U.S.? 

U.S. uranium imports by the numbers

In 2020, the most recent year for which numbers are available, civilian U.S. nuclear power plants purchased about 49 million pounds of uranium, the bulk of it from abroad, for an average price of $33 per pound.

About 16 percent came from Russia, 22 percent from Canada, another 22 percent from Kazakhstan, and 11 percent from Australia.

Uranium imports from Russia are tightly controlled. An agreement between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Russian Federation's State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom (ROSATOM) limits uranium imports from Russia, capping them at 15 percent from 2028 to 2040.

Uranium is a common metal that is found in varying quantities in rocks across the globe. More than 20 countries mine uranium, which is more abundant than silver or gold. But a deposit of uranium has to meet certain specifications to be considered a mineable resource. According to the World Nuclear Association, Australia holds 20 percent of the world’s uranium resources, followed by Kazakhstan (15 percent), Canada (9 percent), and Russia (8 percent), while the U.S. holds only 1 percent.

Of identified uranium resources in the United States, most are located in the Western states, many of them on or near tribal lands.

Imported uranium is cheaper

Why do U.S. power plants import most of the uranium they buy? Because it’s cheaper. In 2020, Russian uranium averaged about $25 per pound, cheaper than Kazakh uranium ($33 per pound), Canadian uranium ($35 per pound), or Australian uranium ($39 per pound).

Compare this to the $40-50 per pound the uranium company that owns Canyon Mine, also known as the Pinyon Plain Mine, (a contested uranium mine near the Havasupai Tribe’s sacred site of Red Butte, on national forest land not far from Grand Canyon National Park), has stated it needs in order to start mining.

U.S. uranium companies push for government help

The U.S. uranium industry can’t compete with the quantity and quality of uranium deposits internationally. Many countries, including Canada and Australia, have large deposits of uranium that are generally higher grade and cheaper to mine than uranium found in the United States, especially in the area around the Grand Canyon.

Since they can’t compete fairly on the open market, uranium companies hoping to mine in the U.S. have been pushing for government help, most recently in the form of a strategic uranium reserve. Such a reserve would subsidize U.S. uranium producers at taxpayer expense and could provide an economic boost for uranium operations that threaten tribal communities.

Many tribes oppose uranium mining on their ancestral lands

Havasupai tribal members protest Canyon Mine. ROGER CLARK

Many tribes across the Western U.S. have opposed uranium mining and milling on their lands, and on cultural landscapes that are important to them. In the Southwest, the uranium industry has left a devastating impact on the Navajo Nation, including more than 500 abandoned uranium mines that contaminate soil and water to this day. For decades, the Havasupai Tribe has opposed Canyon Mine on their ancestral lands and has urged the U.S. Department of Energy to exclude the mine from any federal uranium reserve program. Many tribes support a permanent ban on new uranium mines on federally managed lands around the Grand Canyon.

In southeastern Utah, a mile from Bears Ears National Monument, the only operating conventional uranium mill in the U.S. poses a threat to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s White Mesa community. As proposed by the Department of Energy, the uranium reserve would specifically include uranium produced from alternate feed processing, one of the activities at the White Mesa Mill. In 2021, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Council passed a resolution against the creation of a uranium reserve and calling for the mill to close.

Surely none of America’s uranium demand should enable Russian atrocities in Ukraine, but neither should it enable the continuation of environmental injustices against Indigenous communities in the United States. The federal government should not subsidize domestic uranium production that puts Indigenous communities and cultures at risk of bearing even more of America’s uranium contamination burden.

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

In late February, the U.S. Geological Survey updated its list of critical minerals that are essential to the economic and national security of the country — things like lithium for batteries, manganese for steel, indium for LCD screens, and many other elements. Thankfully, uranium is no longer on the list.

The Trump administration had incorrectly classified uranium as a critical mineral in 2018. During a public comment period for this year’s list, the government received more than 1,000 comments. Over 90 percent of them requested that uranium be removed.

The 2022 critical minerals list comes as a relief to many on the Colorado Plateau, where past, current, and future uranium contamination threaten the health of communities and the land. While the U.S. Geologic Survey’s revision is positive news, uranium may soon be found on another federal priority list. 

The Department of Energy may develop its own critical minerals list

To reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Department of Energy recently outlined a strategy to transition away from fossil fuels and toward clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar.  

The agency says it plans to develop its own list of minerals it views as “critical for the clean energy transition,” using different criteria than the U.S. Geologic Survey’s critical minerals list. 

The administration has so far included investment in additional nuclear power as part of the government’s plan to shift away from fossil fuels, though at the Trust, we have a more nuanced view of nuclear power. The strategy identifies uranium as a “material of concern” for nuclear energy.

Why does critical mineral status matter?

Designation on a critical minerals list gives priority to the minerals that are on it and gives those who extract, process, and sell the stuff another tool to ask regulators and decision-makers for preferential treatment. For instance, in 2019, when uranium was considered a critical mineral, the federal critical minerals strategy called for a review and revision of mining bans, which block access to critical minerals. This would have included the current 20-year mining ban around the Grand Canyon.

In a system that already affords too much preferential treatment for hard rock mining — a category of mining to which uranium belongs — such a status can be dangerous for the environment, and especially for those who live next door to the places where these minerals are mined and processed. 

Concerned members of the White Mesa community lead a spiritual walk to protest the White Mesa uranium mill. TIM PETERSON

We must take pains to ensure that a “clean energy” future doesn’t just put another label on the same forms of damage and injustices that past mineral extraction, processing, and disposal have inflicted upon communities on the front lines of these operations.

A broader problem with our country’s mining law

Hard rock mining in America is governed first and foremost by the 1872 Mining Law, which turns 150 years old in May. When it was passed, women, people of color, and Native Americans were not welcome at the polls. Despite innumerable advancements in environmental and social conduct since the late 1800s, the law has never seen substantial reform. 

Because of the 1872 Mining Law, hard rock mining is considered “the highest and best use of the land.” Communities can’t even suggest that a certain landscape is better suited for cultural practices, hunting, recreation, or other land uses. Hard rock mining claims on federal lands take precedent over other uses unless the government goes to great lengths to establish a national monument or national park or approves a permanent mining ban before someone stakes a valid claim.

LEARN about the decades-long effort to secure a permanent Grand Canyon mining ban ›

What’s the solution? 

Thankfully, there is a path forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move toward a clean energy future. But like anything worth doing, it won’t be easy. The Biden administration is on a good trajectory, and we see an awareness of possible solutions in the Department of Energy’s strategy. But the devil will be in the details. 

We need to, at long last, reform the 1872 Mining Law so that hard rock mining doesn’t have such unbending priority above human health, cultural health, and the environment. And since critical minerals are the building blocks of solar panels, batteries, and other renewable energy technologies, we need to figure out how to properly reuse and recycle materials that have already been taken out of the ground instead of solely relying on mining for more.

And most importantly, we need to recognize that even a well-planned transition to clean energy has the potential to cause serious harm. We must center social and environmental justice, especially for Indigenous communities, which on the Colorado Plateau, have already borne too much of America’s mining pollution burden. Going forward, policy makers must directly and meaningfully involve and address the needs and concerns of these communities. 

 by Tim Peterson, Cultural Landscapes Director

What’s a uranium mill to do when global uranium prices tank? At the White Mesa Mill — on the doorstep of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s White Mesa community and adjacent to the newly restored Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah — the answer has been “get creative.” 

Getting creative has meant going from paying for uranium ore to getting paid (between $5 and $15 million per year, says the mill's owner) to process and dispose of radioactive waste from polluters elsewhere. 

Now, a new report and story map collection detail what waste streams the mill has sought to process, where they came from, and what discarded leftovers now simmer together in a toxic and radioactive stew in the mill’s massive waste pits.  

The project tells the story of how this uranium mill on the edge of the Bears Ears cultural landscape became a low-cost radioactive waste disposal alternative.

Learn about the radioactive waste approved or considered for processing and disposal at the White Mesa Mill ›

Key takeaways from the report:

• More than 15 different radioactive waste streams have been approved for shipment to the mill from contaminated sites across the United States and as far away as Canada, Europe, and Japan. 
• It’s often cheaper for polluters to send their waste to the mill than to a licensed low-level radioactive waste dump.
• The mill’s radioactive waste-disposal business places the burden of radioactive contamination on a tribal community and endangers the Bears Ears cultural landscape. 
• The White Mesa Mill pollutes air, land, and water, and puts public health at risk.

How did this happen? 

The White Mesa Mill. DOM SMITH, ECOFLIGHT

Not long after opening in 1980, after only a few years of extracting uranium ore from rock and turning it into yellowcake (a precursor to nuclear power plant fuel), the mill began to look for ways to stay in business when uranium prices sank. 

Soon the mill flipped its regular business model on its head. Instead of closing and cleaning up by the mid-1990s as originally planned, the owners of the White Mesa Mill have been charging fees to accept toxic and radioactive waste streams that contain uranium (called “alternate feed,” as an alternative to natural uranium ore) from contaminated military and industrial sites.

In order to dump the toxic and radioactive materials at the mill, federal and state regulators require that the mill first run the waste through the milling process to extract whatever uranium the waste contains. After that’s done, the rest (often more than 99 percent by volume) are discarded in the mill’s hundreds of acres of waste pits. 

In this way, a uranium mill has become a player in the waste-disposal market with a budget edge over its competitors. The mill’s current owner claims it’s doing the world a service by “recycling” uranium from waste products, and that its operation provides “green jobs,” but the mill pollutes the air, land, and water.

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe calls for mill closure

Members of the White Mesa community lead a spiritual walk to protest the White Mesa Mill. TIM PETERSON

For decades, citizens of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s White Mesa community, located a few miles down the highway from the mill, have opposed the mill’s radioactive waste disposal business. Some residents are afraid to drink the water, and some have stopped collecting plants and no longer hunt deer and rabbits near the mill. Trucks bound for the mill have spilled radioactive sludge along the highway that runs through the community. 

A lot of people don’t understand what we go through here in our community. We want the mill to close. We want them to clean it up.

– Yolanda Badback, White Mesa Concerned Community 

After years of legal challenges, in August 2021, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe passed a Tribal Council resolution stating that “…the operations of the White Mesa Mill [have] had severe health impacts on the residents of White Mesa and should cease entirely…” 

With Bears Ears restored, it’s time to examine radioactive waste shipments

Until now, the issue of alternate-feed processing and disposal at the White Mesa Mill has flown under the radar. Renewed attention is focused on the region due to President Biden’s October 2021 restoration of Bears Ears National Monument. The restored monument’s boundaries lie just one mile west of the mill. This awareness, coupled with a call from the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe for the mill to cease operations, make it a good time to take a closer look at the mill’s radioactive waste disposal business.

The business of radioactive waste continues to extend the White Mesa Mill’s working life and to prolong the threats to air, water, land, wildlife, and communities nearby. Without alternate-feed processing, the mill owner’s CEO has said that “…the facility would probably have been reclaimed and wouldn’t be here.”

The White Mesa Mill is the U.S.’s last operating conventional uranium mill, but its operations are hardly conventional in the common sense of the word. A uranium processor is now acting like a waste disposal service. It’s time that law and regulation caught up with the mill’s business model. It should be regulated like the radioactive waste dump it has become.  

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

After a decade-long legal effort to halt a uranium mine on national forest land not far from Grand Canyon National Park, a court ruling last week denied an appeal that could have shut the mine down for good. The case highlights how challenging it can be to stop a uranium mine on public land — even an unprofitable one — once it gets its foot in the door.

Canyon Mine (renamed Pinyon Plain Mine in an apparent attempt to distance it from its namesake, the Grand Canyon), sits on the Kaibab National Forest, in a meadow near Red Butte, a sacred site of great religious and cultural importance to the Havasupai Tribe.   

Court decision greenlights uranium mine near the Grand Canyon

BLAKE MCCORD

On February 22, 2022, a panel of judges in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the Forest Service was justified in ignoring the millions of dollars mining companies have sunk into developing the Canyon Mine when the agency determined that a uranium deposit mere miles from the bustling south rim of Grand Canyon National Park could be profitably mined. 

This determination of profitability matters because uranium deposits on public lands are open to mining only if they can be mined and marketed at a profit. And if unprofitable, the mine’s claims could not be exempted under a temporary mining ban established in 2012 to protect the Grand Canyon region.

In the more than three decades since the Forest Service first greenlighted Canyon Mine in 1986, the mine’s owner has yet to produce a single pound of commercial uranium ore or earn a dime of profit from the mine. The Grand Canyon Trust and our partners have said it’s high time the mine close down and clean up before more damage is done, increasing the risk that the company won’t have the money to manage the mess. 

The uranium industry has a track record of abandoning uranium mines and taxpayers are still paying for cleanup, including at the Orphan Mine inside Grand Canyon National Park, where an initial cleanup effort is estimated to have cost taxpayers $15 million. Nonetheless, the court ruled that the Forest Service could ignore the total past costs of developing Canyon Mine when weighing whether the uranium company could earn enough to make the enterprise profitable. An expectation of profit going forward, the court decided, was enough.

The long legal case against Canyon uranium mine

The Havasupai Tribe has opposed Canyon Mine since miners broke ground in the mid-1980s and remains deeply concerned about radioactive pollution from the mine. In the 1990s, uranium prices fell, and the uranium company stopped work. But when uranium prices briefly rebounded, the Forest Service decided that the mine was exempt from the 20-year ban on mining around the Grand Canyon put in place 2012, and that mining could move ahead under the 1986 plan. The Havasupai Tribe, along with the Trust and others, sued. 

Last week’s decision is just the latest in a long series of appeals and challenges related to the case. Our attorneys are continuing to weigh legal options.

Water problems at Canyon Mine

The risks Canyon Mine poses to the Havasupai Tribe’s cultural identity, its water, and the environment surrounding the mine remain concerns. Workers at Canyon Mine pierced groundwater when digging the mine shaft in 2016, leading to serious flooding problems that have continued ever since. To date, more than 40 million gallons of water contaminated with arsenic and uranium have been pumped out of the mine shaft into an open-air evaporation pond, misted into the air, and hauled away by truck. The pond attracts birds and other wildlife.

Because the underlying rock is highly fractured, not just beneath Canyon Mine, but across the Grand Canyon region, scientists may never understand how far, how fast, and in what directions groundwater flows. Consequently, it’s unclear exactly where or when contaminated water from the mine could appear and that’s one reason why uranium mining has no place in such a culturally, ecologically, and economically important region.

Protecting the Grand Canyon from uranium mining

The years-long legal effort to halt Canyon Mine demonstrates how difficult it can be to stop a uranium mine once it gets its foot in the door, no matter how ill-conceived the mine might be. The temporary mining ban on public lands surrounding the Grand Canyon can’t stop mines that are exempted, but it can stop new mines. The ban, put in place in 2012, expires in 2032. There was significant pressure from the mining industry and its allies during the Trump administration to review and revise mining bans such as this one. 

More than 600 active mining claims in the current mining ban area around the Grand Canyon are waiting it out one way or another. We need permanent protection for the Grand Canyon to stop these claims from being developed and new ones from being staked. We need the temporary mining ban to be made permanent.

 by Chaitna Sinha, Staff Attorney

Late last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) halted shipments of radioactive waste from the Midnite Mine Superfund site on the Spokane Indian Reservation in Washington to the White Mesa uranium mill in southeastern Utah after finding that the mill had egregiously violated environmental laws. 

The mill sits one mile from the boundary of Bears Ears National Monument and not far from the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s White Mesa community. For decades, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and environmental organizations, including the Grand Canyon Trust, have raised concerns that the mill poses a threat to human health and the environment. 

Members of the White Mesa community lead a spiritual walk to protest the White Mesa Mill in November 2021. TIM PETERSON

On December 2, 2021, the EPA validated these concerns, finding that the mill had significant amounts of radioactive wastes sitting in its waste pits that were not covered with liquid (as required by EPA rules). The EPA estimated that these uncovered wastes were emitting 10 times more radon — a cancer-causing gas — than covered material. The EPA called this violation “egregious” and deemed the mill “unacceptable for the receipt of off-site wastes” from Superfund sites, EPA’s list of contaminated places that are badly polluted and prioritized for cleanup. The agency barred the mill from accepting Superfund waste.

The EPA’s findings are particularly concerning because the mill is authorized to accept numerous radioactive wastes from sites across the United States and abroad. While this order is an important first step, it does not require the mill to address the radon emissions, or any of the other environmental issues at the facility. Finally, the order only prevents the mill from accepting waste from Superfund sites; it does not stop the mill from accepting waste from other locations.

The world’s dumping ground

How is radioactive waste from across the country ending up so close to tribal communities and a national monument? 

Starting in the 1990s, the White Mesa Mill’s owners determined they could increase profits by accepting radioactive wastes containing remnants of uranium, which the mill referred to as “alternate feeds.” The mill processed these materials, removing small amounts of uranium, and then discarded the remaining waste in massive outdoor waste pits. In at least some, if not many cases, the fees the mill charges to accept wastes for “processing” are lower than the fees waste-disposal facilities charge. This makes the mill attractive to military and industrial sites seeking to minimize waste-disposal costs. 

The mill has been authorized to process and then serve as the final disposal site for alternative feeds from Superfund sites including the Midnite Mine, and from other contaminated sites within the United States and as far away as Canada, Japan, and Estonia. As of December 2021, over 700 million pounds of waste have been shipped to the mill as alternate feeds, although the total volume of waste disposed of at the mill remains unknown.

What the EPA’s order means

In short, the order means that, to avoid turning one Superfund site into another, the mill will no longer be allowed to accept waste from Superfund sites. The EPA’s goal is to inspire the mill’s owner to comply with EPA radon-emission rules, but the order itself does not require the mill to address the radon emissions, or any of the other environmental issues at the facility. Nor does it prevent the mill from continuing to accept radioactive materials. 

The EPA’s order prevents the mill from accepting waste from Superfund sites such as the Midnite Mine, but the mill can continue to accept alternate feeds from other contaminated sites, including foreign sites.

What next?

It’s good news that the EPA has directed the mill to stop accepting additional waste from Superfund sites, but the work isn’t done. The EPA, and the state of Utah, need to use their regulatory authority to ensure the mill protects human health and the environment from other problems, like groundwater contamination and radon emissions. Regulators should also be looking at whether the mill is safe for any additional type of radioactive waste, not just waste from Superfund sites.

Finally, the concerns of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and its members are valid. Regulators must address the tribe’s concerns. Please send a note to the EPA’s Region 8 office at r8eisc@epa.gov thanking them for their action on the White Mesa Mill and asking them to continue to take further action at the mill to protect human health and the environment.

Please also send a note to the Utah Radiation Control Board at wmrcboard@utah.gov and let regulators know that you want them to ensure that operations at the mill are safe for human health and the environment, and that the EPA’s findings merit a new evaluation of the overall safety of the mill.

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

Is 2022 the year of banning new uranium mines around the Grand Canyon forever? We sure hope so. 

As the country heads into the second year of the 117th Congress and the Biden administration with the Grand Canyon Protection Act yet to become law, we’re reflecting on how far we’ve come and what still needs to happen in 2022 for a permanent mining ban to finally become reality.

We’ve come a long way

The work to protect the Grand Canyon region and its precious waters from uranium mining has taken a variety of forms over the years as tribes, congressional allies, nongovernmental organizations like the Grand Canyon Trust, and community members and leaders have adapted to the ebb and flow of political circumstances, opportunities, and threats. 

Today, the bill to protect the Grand Canyon is called the Grand Canyon Protection Act. It would permanently ban new uranium mines on about a million acres of federal land around the Grand Canyon.

A complex groundwater system connects these lands to the Grand Canyon. In a landscape of fractured rock, how far and how fast water flows, and the paths it follows before emerging into the Grand Canyon as seeps or springs, are still not well understood. 

The substance of what is now the Grand Canyon Protection Act was first introduced in the 110th Congress in 2008 by Arizona Congressman Raúl Grijalva and originally called the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act. Between 2008 and 2013, the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act was introduced four times and had as many hearings, but died each time before even getting a vote in the House, let alone seeing daylight in the Senate. 

A temporary mining ban

In 2012, after much work by tribes, Rep. Grijalva, community leaders, the Trust, and our partners, the secretary of the interior declared a temporary administrative mining ban on the same area near the Grand Canyon. But in 2016, President Obama ultimately declined to use his executive authority under the Antiquities Act to establish a national monument in the region, which would have included a permanent mining ban. 

Bill revived in Congress

In February 2019, at the start of the 116th Congress, Rep. Grijalva introduced the legislative permanent mining ban again, this time called the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, in honor of Grand Canyon National Park’s centennial that year. The bill passed the House, and was introduced in the Senate by Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. But there it stalled and died before it could face a vote on the Senate floor. 

Remember, a bill must pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by the president in order to become law. If one chamber fails to vote, or votes “no,” the bill dies.

Another revival

In February 2021, at the start of the 117th Congress, Rep. Grijalva reintroduced the current bill to permanently protect the Grand Canyon from mining – the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Arizona senators Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly weren’t far behind, introducing their version of the bill in the Senate a week later. The House quickly passed the bill as part of a larger public lands package. But, like the previous year, things slowed way down in the Senate. 

ABOUT THE BILLS
H.B. 1052, the House version of the Grand Canyon Protection Act ›
S. 387, the Senate version of the Grand Canyon Protection Act ›

Stalled in the Senate, again

At one point, the bill was added as an amendment to the House version of a defense spending bill called the National Defense Authorization Act and it passed the House for a second time in 2021. Unfortunately, the Senate didn’t include the Grand Canyon Protection Act in its version of the defense spending building. Although senators Sinema and Kelly requested that the Grand Canyon bill be included as an amendment to the Senate version of the spending package, it was ultimately not included in the version that reached President Biden’s desk. 

Anyone following Congress over the past year knows that things are complicated. Other important priorities like the bipartisan infrastructure bill and voter rights legislation have occupied center stage. But we also know that the effort to protect the Grand Canyon from new uranium mines has come a long way since 2008 and one way or another, together, we will win permanent protection for this region.

What needs to happen this year?

2022 is the last year of the 117th Congress. If the bill doesn’t pass the Senate, the Grand Canyon Protection Act will die yet again. In order to have another chance at becoming law, the process of House and Senate bill introductions, committee hearings, and floor votes would have to start all over again in 2023. 

In 2022, we need the Grand Canyon Protection Act to be scheduled for a hearing before, and to pass out of, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, of which the bill’s co-sponsor, Sen. Kelly, is a member. We then need senators Sinema and Kelly to seize any and every opportunity to pass the Grand Canyon Protection Act out of the Senate so that it may finally, after more than a decade of work, be signed into law by President Biden. 

Please take a moment to thank senators Sinema and Kelly for their work thus far, and urge them to keep pushing. If you live outside Arizona, please urge your senators to support permanent protection for the Grand Canyon. 

 guest post by Ophelia Watahomigie-Corliss

My connection to the Grand Canyon, as a Havasupai woman, is far beyond my visual comprehension of its vastness or my verbal appreciation for its beauty. It has existed in me since I was an embryo. 

If you genuinely intend to comprehend what it means to protect a place, this place, the Grand Canyon, and the lands that surround it, your appreciation must go deeper than what your eyes and ears can perceive. Step into the history of its epochs, immerse yourself in its formation, and in the creation of its peoples. 

At 39-weeks pregnant it is as clear as day to me what it means to have an umbilical connection to the Grand Canyon. From the Havasupai stronghold, Supai Camp, inside Grand Canyon National Park, where Havasupai people living in Ha’a Gyoh (also known as "Havasupai Garden") and other areas of the South Rim were forcibly relocated, to Supai Village located on the Havasupai Reservation, which has survived colonialism and genocide and never been eradicated, to Red Butte on sacred land south of the park’s southern entrance, our cultural ties here are unbreakable.

We are the land, we are the water

We are the Havsuw 'Baaja, the People of the Blue-Green Water. We are the land; we are the Grand Canyon. Items we use in the blessings for our newborn children are quite literally earth and water. From birth, we are connected to the Grand Canyon by the water that created Supai life, and by the earth of the red rocks of this land which our hearts are buried beneath. These practices help ensure we are meeting the expectations to protect the land like our contract with the creator requests of us.

We are guided to protect the land through the blessings of water and earth; the land will protect us in the same way we are to protect the land. Our lives are imbued in the Grand Canyon through millennia because of our culture; we are of the land and therefore we are the land.

As the need to adapt to the modern world continues, so does the trust that we have the ability to maintain the lands where we live and raise our families. This land holds our entire lives as we have been building them throughout time, from the ancestors who have allowed all of our bloodlines to survive and live life at this very moment. We too are trying to sustain our current lives, and the future lives of our children and relatives, but how do we do this? Where do we look? The answer is simple: to our Indigenous communities.

The wisdom of generations

Listen to the wisdom of the people who have lived on the lands you now occupy. No animosity could possibly exist when we work in partnership. And that is exactly the intention of the Havasupai who, since the 1980s, have been fighting against uranium mining that threatens our only water source and our sacred aboriginal territory. 

Uranium mining has proven to have devastating effects on real people within the Grand Canyon region, and their stories should be held in the highest regard; we can see exactly what their families have and are still going through. 

As a mother, I will explain the dangers of uranium mining to my daughter in an age-appropriate way. It will take some years before I can explain that there are people out there who would choose to ignore the observable evidence of uranium mining’s dangers, and its effects on Navajo and Hopi communities, or its potential to poison our water for monetary gain. A mining company has the power to poison our water. This is what we are working to stop. 

My daughter will be there with us on the front lines, she will be at the Red Butte gatherings, she will hear these things being talked about during our community get-togethers. She will begin to connect the dots, and when she is ready for a more complicated explanation I, her father, her community, and our allies (you) will be here for her. 

Pinyon Plain Mine is now the official name of a uranium mine near the Grand Canyon and our sacred mountain, Red Butte. The mine has been threatening our only water source since 1986, but it hasn’t always been known under this name. The mine changed its name from "Canyon Mine" — the name I grew up in the shadow of — perhaps to get you to forget about the mine entirely. As if, by changing the name, the mine somehow moved away from the Grand Canyon, and no longer poses a threat to our blue-green waters. But of course, the mine did not move; it is still in the same place. This attempt to make people forget about the mine and where it is could have serious implications in our collective fight to oppose it. 

I haven’t entirely made the name switch in my mind; the mine is still Canyon Mine. It is also true that it doesn’t matter what the name of the mine is, it is still a uranium mine and it still needs to be stopped. 

The mine is the largest looming threat to the future of the Havasupai’s only clean water source, the water I grew up drinking, the water my daughter will drink, a water source for the entire Grand Canyon region’s residents and its visitors. 

A threat to our sacred mountain and our water

Canyon Mine with the Grand Canyon in the background. ECOFLIGHT

Millions of gallons of contaminated water continue to be pumped out of the mine, water we could someday end up drinking, or using to sustain our lives, if it ever finds its way into the deeper aquifer, but yet the mine’s owner is still permitted to operate the mine. The mine is still the same threat. This threat exists today within miles of our sacred mountain, Red Butte, and of the south rim of Grand Canyon National Park. 

Do not allow this name change to distract from all the work we have all accomplished together, and the work we must continue to do as individuals, as friends, as colleagues, as the people of this land, this land needing our help and protection from Canyon Mine or Pinyon Plain uranium mine, or whatever you choose to call it.          

I think about my grandmother, who while carrying my mother, was actually carrying me too, inside her womb, while she also prepared to have her own daughter. She instilled my mother’s identity through the same methods, teaching our identity of place, to be proud and take care of the land always. Yes, we do this for our children, but when you are a woman who has an opportunity to have a daughter, you are also instilling this identity and responsibility into your future grandchildren. 

I know that having a daughter will change my life forever, and it is my duty to continue to raise awareness around this threat of uranium mining, its potential threat to my daughter, to my grandchildren, the Havsuw 'Baaja, and all the people who live on and visit the Colorado Plateau. Aáhangyú. 

Ophelia Watahomigie-Corliss is a former member of the Havasupai Tribal Council. She holds two bachelor’s degrees from the school of communications at Northern Arizona University.

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

In November 2021, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a study on the quality of water at 206 different sites in the Grand Canyon region. The study summarized results from testing 573 spring and well samples collected at those sites since 1981. Collecting groundwater samples in this vast and remote region is no small task, and understanding what they mean is more complicated still. 

The study’s goal was to use as many water samples as researchers could get, given practical and financial limitations (without millions of dollars to drill monitoring wells they relied heavily on springs), in order to establish water quality at various sites in the Grand Canyon region. With these baselines in hand, scientists will be able to detect any future changes in water quality at those sites that might result from uranium mining activities. 

In studying samples collected to-date (sample collection is still ongoing), researchers found that 5 percent of the sampled springs and wells have elevated levels of uranium and 73 percent of those are likely, though not conclusively, caused by past uranium mining operations.  

What does this study mean? 

We now have information on what water quality looked like at various times at 206 different sites in the region. One hundred and eighty of these sites are springs; the remaining 26 are existing wells. In the future, this information will allow the USGS to determine if water quality at any of these sites changes. 

What doesn’t it mean? 

Having this information does not allow anyone to conclude, as one mining company executive recently claimed, that so-called “modern uranium mining” does not impact groundwater. Groundwater flow paths in the Grand Canyon region are long, complex, and not well understood. 

As the lead USGS researcher on the study pointed out, "[w]hat we know about the groundwater system in that area is that some of the flow paths are really long, so it can take an extensive amount of time to get from point A to point B, so if we’re looking for effects from uranium mines on groundwater resources, they might not show up at spring sites for hundreds, to possibly thousands of years."

The study also does not identify contaminant sources. If water quality at any of these sites declines in the future, we will be able to note the change, but because the direction, how far, and how fast groundwater flows to those springs are such big unknowns, connecting that decline in groundwater quality to a specific source will be another task altogether. 

And knowing that water quality has gone down also does not mean that it can be cleaned up. Cleaning uranium from groundwater is a complicated task in the best of settings. In the Grand Canyon region, where groundwater can be thousands of feet deep and flow paths not well understood, cleanup is likely to be virtually impossible. 

Another reason to permanently ban mining

Groundwater uncertainties and risks are one reason among many that a permanent mining ban should be enacted in the Grand Canyon region. 

Most importantly, the Grand Canyon region has been home to Indigenous peoples since time immemorial. Today, the Havasupai Tribe — whose members proudly call themselves “the Guardians of the Grand Canyon” — still physically resides within the canyon’s walls. The region holds deep cultural and spiritual significance for at least 11 sovereign tribal nations across what is today known as the American Southwest. 

The Havasupai Tribe and many other tribal nations have worked tirelessly for many years to see a permanent mining ban in the region out of concern for the damage uranium mining has already caused to communities in the Southwest and could still cause to a region of such significance to their people. 

'Oh, you won't see the contamination until hundreds of years from now.' We're not willing to take that risk. There's only 757 of us left, and we just can't risk that right now for the future of our children.
–Carletta Tilousi, Havasupai Tribal Council

Water security and drought

Another important reason is water security. In 2021, as Lake Powell and Lake Mead hit lows not seen since the reservoirs were filling, the federal government declared a first-ever water shortage on the Colorado River. The designation means water supply cuts for lower basin states like Arizona, and those cuts are projected to get worse. Supply cuts from the Colorado River will mean more reliance on groundwater. The bottom line? Every drop counts and no water resource is expendable. 

The list goes on, from local and regional economies, to recreation. But the ultimate result is this: Congress must enact a permanent ban on uranium mining in this critical region. There is far too much at stake. 

You can help

Help us by calling or emailing your senators today and asking them to help the Grand Canyon Protection Act, a bill that will permanently protect the Grand Canyon region from mining, finally become law.

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

Back in 2018, for the first time in history, the Trump administration added uranium to a federal priority list called the “critical minerals list,” a move that placed public lands around the Grand Canyon and Bears Ears National Monument at increased risk of uranium mining. 

In 2019, the Grand Canyon Trust testified before Congress alongside experts on Navajo Nation uranium contamination and national security about the risks and injustices that come with unnecessarily prioritizing and incentivizing domestic uranium mining. Today, the Biden administration finally appears poised to remove uranium from the list and the public has an opportunity to weigh in. 

TAKE ACTION. Show your support for keeping uranium off the critical minerals list before the December 9, 2021 deadline ›

Putting the Grand Canyon at risk

The critical minerals list incentivizes mining of the minerals on it by making them more likely to receive government support and investment, sometimes in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies — like a proposed uranium reserve. Including uranium on the critical minerals list could offer a reason to remove obstacles to mining on public lands — such as rescinding mining bans like the one currently in place around the Grand Canyon. 

What is a critical mineral?

By definition, minerals on the critical minerals list are essential to society and their supply chains are recognized as being in danger. But for uranium — among the most abundant metals in the Earth’s crust, one that the U.S. has stockpiles of that have been considered excessive enough to sell off —availability is not an issue. As one report by the National Research Council puts it, some minerals, like copper and uranium, “can be important, fundamental, or essential for many purposes, but may not be critical.”

Fuel minerals can’t be critical minerals

Critical minerals must be both essential to U.S. economic and national security and have supply chains that are in danger, and the official definition of a critical mineral also excludes “fuel minerals.” Uranium has been labeled a fuel mineral since the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. Of course, there are some non-fuel uses for uranium, but the country’s biggest non-fuel use for the metal is nuclear weapons. 

The U.S. has plenty of uranium stockpiled

One nuclear security expert testified to Congress that the U.S. uranium inventory in 2013 was 585.6 tons, “enough to make more than 23,000 nuclear weapons” and further clarified that “the United States has maintained a policy since 1992 of not producing fissile material for nuclear weapons and of seeking a treaty to ban such production in the future.” Depleted uranium is used to build armor-plating and armor-piercing projectiles, but the U.S. already holds 40 percent of the global stockpile. And non-fuel uses of uranium outside of defense, such as in the production of radioisotopes used in medical diagnostic procedures, require only relatively small amounts of uranium. 

You can help

On November 9, the U.S. Geological Survey published a draft version of the updated critical minerals list. This time, uranium has been removed. In its public notice, the government explained that because uranium has been defined as a “mineral fuel” since 1970, it was not considered for the revised critical minerals list. The public has until December 9, 2021 to comment. 

Please tell the Biden administration that you support its decision to remove uranium from the list. Uranium doesn’t belong there, and its presence since 2018 has endangered landscapes like the Grand Canyon and Bears Ears, and threatened to deepen injustices faced by communities on the frontlines of uranium contamination across the Colorado Plateau.