This is a site mirroring the emails of California Water News emailed by the California Department of Water Resources

[Water_news] 1. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS - Top Item for 5/5/08

 

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment

 

May 5, 2008

 

1.      Top Items –

 

 

 

Uranium claims spring up along Grand Canyon rim: A rush to extract uranium on public lands pits environmentalists, who worry about the local effect, against mining companies, which point out that nuclear power wouldn't contribute to global warming.

The Los Angeles Times – 5/4/08

 

 

Mining Surge Near Colorado River Threatens Drinking Water For 25 Million: Claims Near River's Edge Have Doubled in 5 Years

 

Outrage over plans to extract uranium ore from the Grand Canyon

The United Kingdom Times Online – 5/5/08

 

Mining Surge Near Colorado River Threatens Drinking Water For 25 Million Claims Near River's Edge Have Doubled in 5 Years

Yubanet - 5/5/08

 

Delta canal idea revisited

San Gabriel Valley Tribune – 5/3/08

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

Uranium claims spring up along Grand Canyon rim: A rush to extract uranium on public lands pits environmentalists, who worry about the local effect, against mining companies, which point out that nuclear power wouldn't contribute to global warming.

The Los Angeles Times – 5/4/08

By Judy Pasternak, Staff Writer

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZ. -- Thanks to renewed interest in nuclear power, the United States is on the verge of a uranium mining boom, and nowhere is the hurry to stake claims more pronounced than in the districts flanking the Grand Canyon's storied sandstone cliffs.

On public lands within five miles of Grand Canyon National Park, there are now more than 1,100 uranium claims, compared with just 10 in January 2003, according to data from the Department of the Interior.

 In recent months, the uranium rush has spawned a clash as epic as the canyon's 18-mile chasm, with both sides claiming to be working for the good of the planet.

Environmental organizations have appealed to federal courts and Congress to halt any drilling on the grounds that mining so close to such a rare piece of the nation's patrimony could prove ruinous for the canyon's visitors and wildlife alike.

Mining companies say the raw material they seek is important to the environment, too: The uranium would feed nuclear reactors that could -- unlike coal and natural gas -- produce electricity without contributing to global warming.

And uranium is in short supply. In recent years, mines closed in Canada and West Africa, yet the United States as well as France and other European countries have announced intentions to expand nuclear power. Predictably, the price of uranium has soared -- to $65 a pound as of last week, from $9.70 a pound in 2002.

In the five Western states where uranium is mined in the U.S., 4,333 new claims were filed in 2004, according to the Interior Department; last year the number had swelled to 43,153.

The push to extract more uranium has caused controversy not just involving federal land but private and state land as well. In Virginia, a company's plan to operate in a never-mined deposit spurred a hearing in the Legislature. In New Mexico, a Navajo activist group is challenging in federal court a license issued just over the reservation's east border.

Uranium claims are also encroaching on stretches of Western parkland such as Arches National Park, Capitol Reef National Park and Canyonlands National Park, all in Utah, as well as a proposed wilderness area in Colorado called the Dolores River Canyon.

But by far the most claims staked near any national park are in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon, which draws 5 million people a year. The park is second in popularity only to the Great Smoky Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee.

"If you can't stop mining at the Grand Canyon, where can you stop it?" asked Richard Wiles, executive director of the Environmental Working Group.

The energy-versus-environment debate is apparent within the Interior Department, which granted the mining claims through its Bureau of Land Management. Among the mining critics is Steve Martin, superintendent of the Grand Canyon park and an Interior Department employee himself. "There should be some places that you just do not mine," Martin said.

Uranium is "a special concern," he added, because it is both a toxic heavy metal and a source of radiation. He worries about uranium escaping into the local water, and about its effect on fish in the Colorado River at the bottom of the gorge, and on the bald eagles, California condors and bighorn sheep that depend on the canyon's seeps and springs. More than a third of the canyon's species would be affected if water quality suffered, he said.

Martin is not the only one uneasy about potential water contamination. Add to the list the Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles, which sells wholesale water throughout Southern California from its Colorado River Aqueduct. "In addition to the public health impacts, exploration and mining of radioactive material near a drinking water source may impact the public's confidence in the safety and reliability of the water supply," the district's general manager, Jeffrey Kightlinger, wrote in March to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne.

No one is mining near the Grand Canyon yet, but wooden claim stakes can be spotted throughout the brush-covered plains north and south of the park.

Vane Minerals, a British company, applied last year to start exploratory drilling on seven sites in the Kaibab National Forest, near the canyon's popular South Rim.

Under current mining law the Forest Service had no choice but to allow the drilling, Regional Forester Corbin Newman testified in March to Congress. The mission of a national forest is different from that of a national park, he pointed out. Indeed, signs at the Kaibab Forest's border proclaim that visitors are entering the "Land of Many Uses."

In response to the approval, the Grand Canyon Trust, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club sued in federal court, alleging that the Forest Service didn't thoroughly investigate the environmental effect of drilling and prospective mining. In April, a judge issued a temporary restraining order until the case could be heard, probably in the summer.

Drilling had already begun near Deer Tank Wash just off a dirt road about five miles from the canyon park's east entrance. Now, the only signs of that activity are a 6-inch pipe sticking up half a foot from the ground near a large piñon tree, and hay scattered in the mud.

The wash is prone to flooding, said Taylor McKinnon, a public lands advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Would the water from a flash flood go through the bore hole to the aquifer? We don't know because there wasn't an analysis," he said.

 

Meanwhile, five additional proposals for exploratory drilling have recently been submitted to the Kaibab National Forest, according to Newman. And three old uranium mines near the canyon park are on standby, ready to resume operations.

Many of the companies are based abroad, said McKinnon, so their directors don't understand the special place that the Grand Canyon holds in this country's lore: "What if an American company went to drill at Stonehenge?"

 But the region is special in another way, said Kris Hefton, chief executive of Vane's American uranium operation. The uranium is found in "breccia pipes," contained geological formations that hold higher-grade deposits than elsewhere in the U.S., he said.

Breccia pipe mines can be compact, less than 20 acres in size, and uranium producers say they are among the easiest to restore after mining is done. And because the ore holds so much uranium, it's cheaper to mine. "They're not as susceptible if the price drops," Hefton said, adding that mining can be profitable in the region even if uranium fetches only $20 a pound.

"You won't have to depend on foreign uranium," he said. Though higher-grade deposits are found in Canada, and more mines are opening in the next five years, "you never know what the Canadians will do. It just makes sense to protect our industry from a national security standpoint."

Nevertheless, Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has introduced a bill that would withdraw a million acres of federal land around the Grand Canyon park from future mining and mineral leases. The bill would not affect the claims already staked if they are found to contain uranium deposits.

And so uranium mining could end up being part of the view at Gunsight Point, a promontory north of the park at the end of a rutted dirt road on public land. There, two striking gorges merge into one, with a dry wash at the bottom of Snake Gulch coming in from the east and Kanab Creek flowing in from the west.

Overlooking the creek are 14 uranium claims, according to an analysis of Interior Department data by the Environmental Working Group. The claims are held by companies such as Energy Metals and Uranium One Ventures, and by an official with Quaterra Resources Inc., which boasts to investors that it is "one of the largest claim holders in the Arizona Strip District."

On a hazy morning, the canyon is still visible downstream. And Martin, charged with its protection, is apprehensive. His experience with uranium mines is confined to one that actually operated right at the canyon's edge, grandfathered in because it opened before Congress created the national park in 1919. The U.S. bought the site in 1962, and mining stopped in 1969.

Now the remains of the aerial tram that carried the ore can be seen at the South Rim. Special strips have been placed atop the structure to keep California condors from resting there, to protect them from lightning strikes. And a chain-link fence keeps hikers away from mine wastes.

Elevated radiation has been detected in Horn Creek below, and signs have been posted warning visitors not to drink the water. A National Park Service sign explains to the public that uranium deposits also lie just outside the park.

 

"What does the future hold?" the note asks, and concludes: "Mines and other industry near parks often bring unforeseen impacts on park resources."#

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-uranium4-2008may04,0,5607560.story?page=1

 

 

Mining Surge Near Colorado River Threatens Drinking Water For 25 Million: Claims Near River's Edge Have Doubled in 5 Years

By Environmental Working Group (EWG)

 

WASHINGTON, May 5, 2008 -- Mining claims near the Colorado River have doubled in the last five years, raising fears that the West's most important waterway - a source of drinking water to 25 million people - could become contaminated by toxic heavy metals, including radioactive uranium waste.

The Colorado, which provides drinking water to Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas and other cities, and irrigation water for agriculture in California's Imperial Valley - one of the nation's most important sources of food - is under assault by multinational corporations rushing to cash in on record prices for uranium, gold and other metals. Yet under the antiquated 1872 Mining Law, federal officials are virtually powerless to prevent mining even if it would affect the West's most precious commodity.

An investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG) of Bureau of Land Management records found that hardrock mining claims within 10 miles of the 1,450-mile-long Colorado have increased from 2,568 in January 2003 to 5,545 in January 2008. In that period, claims within 5 miles of the river more than doubled, from 395 to 1,195.

Recently, the governor of Arizona and the chief of Southern California's largest water supplier have expressed their concerns to the Bush Administration that uranium mines could mean contamination of the river with toxic mine waste. Under current law, the Secretary of the Interior can intervene to stop a potentially harmful mine, but there is little that other federal and state officials or citizens can do once a claim is staked.

"The Colorado River is the lifeblood of the West," said EWG Analyst Dusty Horwitt. "It should be protected from pollution by toxic mining waste. We need a federal mining law that places our rivers, national parks and communities off-limits to mining companies."

In addition, US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) issued a statement in support of EWG's findings. In the statement, the Senator said, "I believe strict environmental standards should be in place to protect the Colorado River and other critical public resources from contamination due to mining activities. This report underscores the need to reform the 1872 mining law."

Metal mining has a long history of contaminating drinking water. The EPA has reported that mining has contaminated the headwaters of more than 40 percent of Western watersheds. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency has identified metal mining as the nation's leading source of toxic pollution for nine consecutive years. And with the likelihood of new mines growing due to soaring metals prices, the Colorado River faces increased risk of contamination.

The House of Representatives passed a comprehensive mining reform bill last fall that would empower federal officials to exercise discretion about where mining occurs, but the Senate, under the leadership of Harry Reid (D-NV), has yet to act on its own version and the legislative calendar is running short.#

http://yubanet.com/california/Report-Mining-Surge-Near-Colorado-River-Threatens-Drinking-Water-For-25-Million.php

 

 

 

Outrage over plans to extract uranium ore from the Grand Canyon

The United Kingdom Times Online – 5/5/08

By Chris Ayres

 

A Mayfair mining company has caused uproar with plans to extract uranium from the Grand Canyon – prompting one official to ask how Britons would react “if an American company went to drill at Stonehenge”.

 

The Grand Canyon is not only one of the world’s most famous natural landmarks, attracting five million visitors a year and offering a home to bald eagles, condors, bighorn sheep and exotic fish. It also happens to contain vast reserves of uranium ore – suddenly in huge demand, thanks to renewed interest in nuclear power as part of the search for “green” fuel.

 

But while demand for uranium has risen, supply has fallen as mines have closed in Canada and West Africa. As a result, the price has soared – and that has sparked a rush to find new deposits.

 

The Mayfair company VANE Minerals is at the forefront of this scramble, planning to drill at up to 39 spots on seven sites within the Kaibab National Forest, which borders both the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon, in north-central Arizona. A further thousand claims are thought to be pending from other companies – up from just ten in 2003.

 

National Park officials, Indian tribal leaders and even some scientists are doing everything they can to stop the exploration, going so far as to call a congressional “field hearing” in Flagstaff, Arizona. “The Grand Canyon is something we depend on for visitors, for tourism, it’s one of the wonders of the world, and here we are as the federal Government allowing the distinct possibility of uranium mining,” Raul Grijalva, a congressman for the state, said.

 

Environmentalists point out that uranium is both a toxic heavy metal and a source of radiation. As a result it could kill local wildlife and poison the water in the Colorado River Aqueduct, which provides drinking water to Los Angeles and much of southern California, Tribal leaders also complain that they have previously been forced to clean up after bankrupt mining concerns, while radiological assessments at one past exporation site – the Orphan Mine – have shown gamma-radiation at more than 450 times the background level after uranium was brought closer to the surface.

 

Yet with fears rising over global warming, many argue that the dangers of continuing to burn coal for electricity far outweigh the potential dangers of uranium mining. And while solar, tidal and wind technologies show promise, they are nowhere near as reliable.

 

Kris Hefton, chief operating officer of VANE Minerals, has tried to reassure environmentalists by arguing that his industry is far more safety-conscious than it was. “I’m not talking about the industry of 50 years ago that impacted the Navajo Nation,” he told the congressional hearing. “We ask you to judge our industry on its current performance rather than on past, unrelated events.” The company reportedly believes that the deposits in the Grand Canyon are of a higher grade than elsewhere in the US, because they are in geological formations known as “breccia pipes”. This means the mine could be profitable even if the uranium price falls.

 

VANE Minerals’ exploration permits were initially approved by the Forest Service, which cited laws created during the Wild West era to allow mining on public land. The permits were granted with minimal conditions, such as bore areas being close to existing roads, but were immediately challenged by environmentalists in the US District Court, where a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order.

 

In an interview over the weekend with the Los Angeles Times, Taylor McKinnon, a public lands advocate for the Centre for Biological Diversity – one of the parties that sued for the restraining order – raised questions over the safety of the exploration, such as whether floodwater could pass through the bore hole and contaminate the water supply. “We don’t know because there wasn’t an analysis,” he said.

 

Mr McKinnon added that VANE did not understand the importance of the Grand Canyon to Americans. “What if an American company went to drill at Stonehenge?” he asked.

 

A full hearing of the case is expected to be held this summer.

 

Power politics

Uranium is a very dense radioactive metal, occurring naturally in rocks and seawater, with a melting point of 1132C (2070F)

 

 It was apparently formed in supernovae about 6.6 billion years ago. Its slow radioactive decay in the Earth’s mantle heats the planet

 

After mining, the ore is crushed and treated with acid. This dissolves the uranium, which is then extracted from the solution

 

It is used in building yachts and aircraft, in medicine and food preservation, but more often in the production of nuclear power

 

Uranium now sells for around $65/lb, up from $9.70 in 2002#

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3872547.ece

 

 

 

Mining Surge Near Colorado River Threatens Drinking Water For 25 Million Claims Near River's Edge Have Doubled in 5 Years

Yubanet - 5/5/08

By Environmental Working Group (EWG)

 

WASHINGTON, May 5, 2008 -- Mining claims near the Colorado River have doubled in the last five years, raising fears that the West's most important waterway - a source of drinking water to 25 million people - could become contaminated by toxic heavy metals, including radioactive uranium waste.

 

The Colorado, which provides drinking water to Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas and other cities, and irrigation water for agriculture in California's Imperial Valley - one of the nation's most important sources of food - is under assault by multinational corporations rushing to cash in on record prices for uranium, gold and other metals. Yet under the antiquated 1872 Mining Law, federal officials are virtually powerless to prevent mining even if it would affect the West's most precious commodity.

 

An investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG) of Bureau of Land Management records found that hardrock mining claims within 10 miles of the 1,450-mile-long Colorado have increased from 2,568 in January 2003 to 5,545 in January 2008. In that period, claims within 5 miles of the river more than doubled, from 395 to 1,195.

 

Recently, the governor of Arizona and the chief of Southern California's largest water supplier have expressed their concerns to the Bush Administration that uranium mines could mean contamination of the river with toxic mine waste. Under current law, the Secretary of the Interior can intervene to stop a potentially harmful mine, but there is little that other federal and state officials or citizens can do once a claim is staked.

 

"The Colorado River is the lifeblood of the West," said EWG Analyst Dusty Horwitt. "It should be protected from pollution by toxic mining waste. We need a federal mining law that places our rivers, national parks and communities off-limits to mining companies."

 

In addition, US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) issued a statement in support of EWG's findings. In the statement, the Senator said, "I believe strict environmental standards should be in place to protect the Colorado River and other critical public resources from contamination due to mining activities. This report underscores the need to reform the

1872 mining law."

 

Metal mining has a long history of contaminating drinking water. The EPA has reported that mining has contaminated the headwaters of more than 40 percent of Western watersheds. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency has identified metal mining as the nation's leading source of toxic pollution for nine consecutive years. And with the likelihood of new mines growing due to soaring metals prices, the Colorado River faces increased risk of contamination.

 

The House of Representatives passed a comprehensive mining reform bill last fall that would empower federal officials to exercise discretion about where mining occurs, but the Senate, under the leadership of Harry Reid (D-NV), has yet to act on its own version and the legislative calendar is running short.#

http://www.ewg.org/sites/mining_google/ColoradoRiver/index.php

 

 

Delta canal idea revisited

San Gabriel Valley Tribune – 5/3/08

By Jennifer McLain, Staff Writer


A decades old and unsuccessful conversation about building a canal that could bring more water to Southern California is being revisited.

 

On Tuesday, a Senate committee agreed to shelve a bill calling for the construction of a canal around the Sacramento River, telling the author, Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, to wait for the findings of a Governor appointed task force that is examining solutions to the environmental and seismic problems in the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta.

 

"I think that it is tremendous progress that people are openly talking about it," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. "For a while, it was a third rail, and no one would mention it.."

 

Voters rejected a bill for the Peripheral Canal in 1982. The word became so politically charged that many have veered from using the word and have started calling it a "bypass" canal or conveyance system, said Tim Quinn, executive director at the California Association of Water Agencies.

 

But a canal could be one of the answers to the Delta's many problems, including declining fish populations, rising ocean levels and concerns that the Delta will not be able to sustain a major earthquake.

 

"We are increasing living in a world where things have to work for the environment and the economy," Quinn said. "We need to change the system that we have today because it is very bad for fish." Water supply has been reduced due to low snow pack, little rainfall and a decrease in pumping of the Delta by 30 percent because of environmental issues.

 

"If the public doesn't want to be going year to year wondering whether we have to ration water, they need to understand that we need a more reliable water supply," Kightlinger said. "And the canal is one of the pieces to that."

 

Simitian's bill would have asked voters for a $4 billion bond to pay for environmental restoration of the Delta, and would have created a seven-person board to contract for the design and construction of a new facility to move water from the Delta to pumps that send water to cities and farms.

 

Some local officials said that while the canal could solve many of Southern California's squeeze on water, Simitian's bill did not have all the answers.

 

"The bill sounds good, the title sounds good, but it had several poison pills within the bill," said state Sen. Bob Margett, R-Glendora.

 

Among them is that the bill increases the fees for MWD, which imports water to nearly 18 million residents, and the proposed oversight overlaps with those of existing state and federal agencies.

 

Those were some of the reasons why the local water giant did not support the bill.

 

"We were very pleased that Simitian took on the issue," Kightlinger said, "but we did not like his approach."

 

As lawmakers continue to look for solutions to the environmental challenges that the Delta faces, many believe the answer to anticipated water shortages will be found in regional sources.

 

"We've got to develop local supply," Quinn said, "because water supplies of the future will come from local resources."

 

This water supply will come as a result of more desalination, recycled water, groundwater cleanup and conservation programs.

 

The San Gabriel Valley receives up to 30 percent of its water supply from the Delta and the Colorado River Aqueduct.

 

"Water has become like foreign oil," Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-El Monte, said. "The more that we are dependent on water from other areas, the more that we are subject to the roller coaster ride that involves politics, climate change and environmental issues."#

http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_9143436

 

 

 

No comments:

Blog Archive