Meanwhile backstage
Who wanted to grab some of that Bears Ears land?
A uranium company launched a concerted lobbying campaign to scale back Bears Ears National Monument, saying such action would give it easier access to the area’s uranium deposits and help it operate a nearby processing mill, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and top Utah Republicans have said repeatedly that questions of mining or drilling played no role in President Trump’s announcement Monday that he was cutting the site by more than 1.1 million acres, or 85 percent.
No role, no role at all, it was a matter of principle.
“This is not about energy,” Zinke told reporters Tuesday. “There is no mine within Bears Ears.”
But the nation’s sole uranium processing mill sits directly next to the boundaries that President Barack Obama designated a year ago when he established Bears Ears. The documents show that Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., a subsidiary of a Canadian firm, urged the Trump administration to limit the monument to the smallest size needed to protect key objects and areas, such as archaeological sites, to make it easier to access the radioactive ore.
And hey, a uranium mine or two never hurt anybody, right?
The idea of uranium mining is particularly sensitive among members of the Navajo Nation, who have a reservation near Bears Ears and played a key role in pressing for its creation. More than 500 uranium mines have been left near or on their lands, and most of these designated Superfund sites have not been cleaned up. Contamination still affects drinking-water wells, springs and storage tanks.
Navajo Nation Council delegate Amber Kanazbah Crotty, who represents several communities near Bears Ears, said Friday that the nation opposes any additional uranium development. “We felt the full brunt of uranium contamination and lost a whole generation of men who were mining or milling uranium,” she said.
Oh. Well, maybe if Trump makes enough Pocahontas jokes that will all just blow over.
Once a significant piece of public land like national park is privatised, it is quite unlikely to be placed back into public hands again. Once it is gone, it is gone.
So a public vandal like Trump can do a lot of irreversible damage.
I thought the whole reason* for scaling back the amount of protected land was to open it up to all kinds of development. To let a few people profit from it. What is the (horrible) point otherwise?
*Well, and spitting in Obama’s eye.
I don’t think we know that – that once a significant piece of public land like national park is privatised, it is quite unlikely to be placed back into public hands again. There’s almost no precedent for it here, for one thing. FDR did it once and someone else did it once and that’s it (I read the other day), and both were modified back in the public direction afterward iirc. I think it’s more the other way around: taking national parks and monuments away is quite difficult. It’s not at all clear that Trump has the authority to do this, and the lawsuits are happening.
But. Of course. If mining companies etc are allowed to run in and do a lot of damage that will be irreversible.