- Dick’s Sporting Goods lays off 478 PGA golf pros
- Senators: Cease-fire must allow Israel to defend against rockets, tunnels
- Sierra Leone doctor fighting Ebola catches disease
- Iraq welcomes Russian fighter jets, helicopter gunships into ISIL fight
- John McCain laments: Obama’s ‘self-pity … is really kind of sad’
- GOP offer to fix VA gives $10 billion in emergency funds
- Paul Ryan offers to repair U.S. economic safety net with a single grant stream
- Kim Jong-un builds bond with Putin: $250M Russia-backed addition to key port opens
- Pope Francis meets Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman sentenced to death
- Detroit porch shooting trial: Suspect says he didn’t know gun was loaded
PENDLEY: Massive land lockup threatens nuclear future
Salazar exceeded his authority in banning uranium mining on 1 million acres
Question of the Day
President Obama’s commitment to “all of the above” energy development apparently does not include nuclear power in light of a January order issued by Interior Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar. The edict locks up 1 million acres of federal land in northwestern Arizona that holds the nation’s highest-grade uranium ore. That is according to lawsuits filed in a federal district court in Arizona by two mining groups - the Northwest Mining Association of Spokane, Wash., and the National Mining Association of Washington, D.C., allied with the Nuclear Energy Institute - challenging the legality and the constitutionality of the order.
The Arizona Strip, which lies north of the Colorado River in northern Arizona, is bordered to the south by the northern rim of Grand Canyon National Park. In the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984, Congress designated 250,000 acres of federal land on or near the Arizona Strip as wilderness and released 600,000 acres of land in the same area for multiple use, including uranium mining, as a result of a historic compromise among environmental groups, uranium mining interests, the livestock industry and others. It was that compromise that permitted exploration for domestic sources of uranium. In fact, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, lands withdrawn by Mr. Salazar’s order contain uranium that, if mined to capacity, would generate sufficient electricity to power Los Angeles for 154 years.
Researchers say the United States must develop domestic sources of uranium in the face of higher prices and increased global demand. America is more than 90 percent dependent on foreign sources of uranium to fuel the 104 nuclear reactors that provide power for 1 in 5 American homes and businesses. A major source of U.S. imports is uranium from dismantled Russian warheads; however, the agreement under which the U.S. purchases that uranium expires in 2013.
There is a global supply shortfall of about 40 million pounds of uranium per year that comes from existing stockpiles. With nuclear power generation around the world projected to increase substantially - even after Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi reactor disaster - these shortfalls will increase and stockpiles will dwindle. There are 435 nuclear reactors operating worldwide, but, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there are 65 reactors under construction and 491 reactors planned or proposed around the world. The World Nuclear Association estimates there will be 602 to 1,350 reactors in the world by 2030, an increase of 38 percent to 210 percent. Therefore, worldwide competition for uranium will increase dramatically.
Nonetheless, environmental groups consistently attack efforts to develop domestic sources of uranium. For example, at the national level, leasing of uranium lands by the U.S. Department of Energy was halted by a lawsuit by environmental groups demanding more study. At the state level, a permit issued by Colorado for a uranium mill in economically hard-pressed Montrose County is under attack by environmental groups. In 2009, Mr. Salazar joined in the assault by proposing to withdraw the million acres in Arizona to “protect the Grand Canyon watershed.” After environmental studies found no significant risk of environmental harm, Mr. Salazar issued an “emergency” withdrawal order in June last year.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Salazar’s order violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The lawsuit contends that the land policy and management act gives Congress authority to veto withdrawals of federal lands made by the secretary that exceed 5,000 acres.
If America is to have a nuclear energy future, a federal court, perhaps the Supreme Court of the United States, will have to issue the order opening the door to that future.
William Perry Pendley is president of Mountain States Legal Foundation.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
The subsidies are a hit with patients who don't exist
Get Breaking Alerts
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Algerian plane diverted due to storms, second aircraft: 116 missing
- Obama's empty tough-talk: Gun prosecutions plummet on his watch
- Obama says public not familiar enough with issues
- Conservative groups decry Democrats' 'war on women' tactic
- House panel OKs resolution to sue president for Obamacare delays
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Astronaut shares 'saddest photo' from space: Bombs bursting over Israel, Gaza
- EDITORIAL: Obamacare enrollees faking for freebies