tagged w/ Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne
-
The Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter on Monday filed suit against Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne for authorizing uranium exploration near Grand Canyon National Park in defiance of a congressional resolution prohibiting such activities across 1 million acres of public lands in watersheds surrounding the Park.
On June 25th the U.S. House of Representative's Committee on Natural Resources voted 20-2 in favor of a resolution that requires the Secretary to withdraw public lands surrounding Grand Canyon from new uranium claims and exploration. The Secretary, acting through the Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management, has defied the resolution and continued to initiate and authorize new uranium exploration within the withdrawal area north of Grand Canyon. The suit claims that in so doing, the Secretary violated the Federal Land Management and Policy Act, National Environmental Policy Act and other laws.
The Secretary has defied laws and Congress to continue uranium development that threatens the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River, said Taylor McKinnon, public lands program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. Short of putting the Secretary before a judge, nothing not laws, not Congress, and not the Grand Canyon itself will impede the Bush administration's accommodation of industry on our public lands.
Recent spikes in the price of uranium have caused thousands new uranium claims, dozens of exploratory drilling projects, and movement to open several uranium mines on public lands immediately north and south of Grand Canyon. Concerns about surface- and ground-water contamination of Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River have been expressed by Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano; the Los Angeles Water District; the Southern Nevada Water Authority; the Arizona Game and Fish Department; the Navajo, Hopi, Havasupai, Hualapai and Kaibab Paiute nations; and Coconino County.
Congressmen Nick Rahall, Ral Grijalva, and other members of the Committee on Natural Resources recognized the immediate threat that uranium mining posed to Colorado River watersheds and took the lead in demanding bold, emergency action, said Roger Clark with the Grand Canyon Trust. "It's unacceptable to allow this Administration to abuse their power by ignoring the resolution and putting the Grand Canyon, our nation's most beloved national park, at risk."
Emergency withdrawals have been enacted four times prior to this, most recently in 1981 and 1983 by the late Arizona Congressman Mo Udall and the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee to halt public lands mineral- and energy-leasing programs pursued by Interior Secretary James Watt.
Grand Canyon is a national treasure and something we should protect not just for today, but for future generations, said Sandy Bahr, chapter director for the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter. It is irresponsible for this administration to sacrifice this area, threaten the Park, and risk the water supply for millions of people, all for a few narrow special interests.
__________________
Why can't we stop these people from violating the law!?The Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club Grand Canyon... more
-
-
It wasn't much noticed at the time, but three weeks before she was chosen as John McCain's vice presidential running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin played a key supporting role in the latest episode of the Bush Administration's eight-year war on the Endangered Species Act, one of the cornerstones of American environmental law. On August 4 Alaska sued the government for listing the polar bear as a "threatened" species, an action, the lawsuit asserted, that would harm "oil and gas...development" in the state. In an accompanying statement, Palin complained that the listing "was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available" and should be rescinded.
The Bush Administration had not wanted to designate the polar bear as threatened in the first place; now Palin's lawsuit provided cover to backtrack on the decision. The Interior Department had issued the listing only after environmental groups filed two lawsuits, and the courts ordered compliance. While the polar bear population was currently stable, the plaintiffs argued, greenhouse gas emissions were melting the Arctic ice that polar bears rely on to hunt seals, their main food source. A study by the US Geological Survey supported this argument, concluding that two-thirds of all polar bears could be gone by 2050 if Arctic ice continues to melt as scientists project. The listing was the first time global warming had been cited as the sole premise in an Endangered Species Act case, and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne clearly wanted it to be the last. When Kempthorne announced the polar bear listing on May 14, he emphasized that it would not affect federal policy on global warming or block development of "our natural resources in the Arctic."
A week after Palin's lawsuit, Kempthorne delivered on that pledge. On August 11 he proposed new rules that could allow federal agencies to decide for themselves whether their actions will imperil a threatened or endangered species. The rule reverses precedent: since passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, scientists from the Fish and Wildlife Service have made such determinations independent of the agency involved. Under the new rule, if the Army Corps of Engineers is building a dam, the corps can decide whether it is putting species at risk. To make sure no one missed the point, Kempthorne told reporters that the new rule, which he termed "a narrow regulatory change," would keep the Endangered Species Act from becoming "a back door" to making climate change policy.
Kempthorne's proposal nevertheless seems likely to go forward. An obligatory thirty-day period for public comment expires September 15, after which Interior can begin to implement the rule. Congress could block funding, but few expect that to happen. Lawsuits are certain to follow, but critics say the quickest solution would be for the next administration to withdraw the rule. Barack Obama seems likely to do that; he immediately condemned Kempthorne's proposal. John McCain was silent. But his choice of Palin--who does not believe global warming is caused by humans but does think it's acceptable for humans to gun down wolves from airplanes--suggests that Arctic creatures have much to fear from a McCain administration.
FOR THE REST OF THIS REPORT, PLEASE VISIT: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/hertsgaardIt wasn't much noticed at the time, but three weeks before she was chosen as John... more
-
-
CHICAGO — The American Petroleum Institute and four other business groups filed suit last week against Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall, joining Alaska Gov. SARAH PALIN'S administration in trying to reverse the listing of the polar bear as a threatened species.
On Aug. 4, Alaska sued to oppose the polar bear’s listing, arguing that the animal’s populations as a whole are stable and that melting sea ice does not pose an imminent threat to their survival.
The suit says polar bears have survived past warming periods. The federal government has 60 days from the filing date to respond.
One of the plaintiffs in Thursday’s lawsuit, the National Association of Manufacturers, lauded the choice of PALIN as the Republican vice presidential nominee for reasons including her ADVOCACY of Alaskan oil and gas exploration, which many fear could be affected by the bear’s protected status.
The manufacturers association and the petroleum institute were joined in the lawsuit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the American Iron and Steel Institute.
They object to what they call the "Alaska gap" in relation to the special rule the federal government issued in May in conjunction with the polar bear’s protected status.
The rule, meant to prevent the polar bear’s status from being used as a tool for imposing greenhouse gas limits, exempts projects in all states except Alaska from undergoing review in relation to emissions.
Manufacturers association Vice President Keith McCoy said the group sees the rule as unfairly subjecting Alaskan industry to greenhouse gas controls and opening a back door for regulation nationwide.
"This could significantly curtail oil and gas exploration," especially on Alaska’s North Slope, he said. "It’s discrimination against the state of Alaska. During a time when gas prices are high and we need to look at all options, to issue something that shuts off a viable resource" is ill-advised, he said.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit, notes that greenhouse gas emissions worldwide contribute to global warming and says that projects in Alaska should not be subject to special SCRUTINY because of the polar bear’s STATUS.
Kassie Siegel, climate program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, which originally petitioned to list the polar bear as an endangered species in 2005, decried the assertion in the Alaska suit that science does not prove that polar bear populations are declining. The center is also suing the federal government, seeking to change the polar bear’s status from "threatened" to "endangered."
At least four current federal lawsuits challenge aspects of the listing.
CHICAGO — The American Petroleum Institute and four other business groups filed... more
-
