Uranium Mining in Arizona - Pros & Cons of Mining Around The Grand Canyon

Pros & Cons of Mining Around The Grand Canyon

Much debate has existed around the risks and benefits of mining around the Grand Canyon and Colorado River. These topics are still widely debated today. The first major controversy discussed is the mining’s effects on the Colorado River and its water. In her article, Suzanne Goldenberg quotes the president of the League of Conservation voters Gene Karpinski: "Extending the current moratorium on new uranium mining claims will protect drinking water for millions downstream.” Many environmental groups agree that the mining would endanger the Colorado River as a source of water for tens of millions of people and countless wildlife. Major cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas and even Los Angeles rely on the river for healthy, drinkable water. With areas of contamination already noted in United States environmental impact reports on old mining operations, opposition fears that allowing mining to expand and continue would only increase the levels of contamination in the river. With this risk in mind, supporters of the mining around the Grand Canyon argue that large-scale contamination from accidents involving mining are unlikely. According to an Arizona Geological survey, “60 metric tons of dissolved uranium is naturally carried by the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon in an average year". J.E. Spencer, AZGS Senior Geologist, argues that in one hypothetical, worst-case scenario experiment, a truck carrying “thirty metric tons (66,000 pounds) of one-percent uranium ore” spilling and washing into the Colorado River increases the natural uranium level in the river by an insignificant amount. Providing further data on uranium levels in the Colorado River, a 2010 United States Geological survey found that the river carries about 40 to 80 tons through the canyon each year.

Opposition to mining around the Grand Canyon also lists tourism-related jobs as a major risk of the mining. The WISE Uranium Project cites The Public News Service as it stated that in 2011 many small businesses across Arizona advocated to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar sign the 20-year ban on new uranium mining near the Grand Canyon in order to preserve thousands of tourism-related jobs. More than 200 small businesses in Arizona addressed postcards to Salazar to support signing the moratorium. President of the League of Conservation voters Gene Karpinski agreed that protecting the tourism industry, which relies on the Grand Canyon, is more important economically than allowing mining companies to act on their claims around the canyon. Opposition to the mining argues that the mining jobs created by allowing mining around the Grand Canyon would not be worth the natural risks such as water contamination. In contrast, support of the mining argues that halting the progress in job creation within the mining industry would be a mistake. Jonathan DuHamel states that a permanent ban on mining would eliminate hundreds of potential jobs. Former presidential candidate John McCain argues that opposition to the mining provoked by environmental groups who have the goal of killing mining and grazing jobs throughout Arizona.

Yet another issue arises as opposition to the mining advocates for the Grand Canyon as an important tourist attraction itself. Many believe that the park is one of the country’s most popular national parks. Coconino County Supervisor Carl Taylor noted that Uranium mining poses a great threat to the safety of this tourism in the canyon and surrounding areas. Many believe that one mining accident could be destructive for tourism in this extremely visited park. Even without accidents, the Environmental Working Group believes that proposed mines in the north of the canyon require helicopter transportation of supplies that intersects with many tourist flyovers that already exist in the area. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar states that “the Grand Canyon attracts more than 4 million visitors a year and generates an estimated $3.5 billion in economic activity”. In his speech to the National Geographic Museum, Salazar also stated that people from the United States and even all over the world come to visit and see the Grand Canyon. He believes that allowing mining in this area to be pursued would negatively impact this tourism industry.

Just as the opposition argues for the protection of tourism, supporters of the mining claim that not allowing it to occur will only drive up uranium prices and hurt both federal and local economies. The increasing number of claims that began in 2006 was a direct result of the rising uranium prices that began that year. The Environmental Working Group cited that “uranium prices have jumped from about $10 a pound in 2004 to approximately $80 a pound today, caused by renewed interest in nuclear power”. With the prices of uranium increasing, it is becoming more profitable for mining companies to locate and mine new deposits like the ones found around the canyon area. Even in 2011, when the price of uranium lowered about 35%, it remained profitable for companies to use these untouched areas. Similarly, many Republicans argue that not allowing the mining to occur destroys years of resource development. Hal Quinn, president and CEO of the National Mining Association states that banning mining in the Grand Canyon only deprives the United States of energy and minerals that are critical to the survival and strength of our economy. The mining industry agrees, believing that a ban on mining around the Grand Canyon would negatively impact Arizona’s local economy and the United States’ energy independence.