E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Don Bills / USGS
Tribes and environmentalists oppose allowing new uranium mines like this one, the Kanab North mine, which is located just north of Grand Canyon National Park. It and other mines with existing claims are not affected by the Interior Department's decision.
The Obama administration on Monday announced a 20-year ban on new mining on federal lands near Grand Canyon National Park, saying the move would allow current mining to continue while officials monitor potential impacts.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar made the announcement after an area covering 1 million acres had been opened up under the Bush administration, mostly for uranium mining.
"The withdrawal maintains the pace of hardrock mining, particularly uranium, near the Grand Canyon," Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey said in a statement, "but also gives the department a chance to monitor the impacts associated with uranium mining in this area. It preserves the ability of future decision-makers to make thoughtful decisions about managing this area of national environmental and cultural significance based on the best information available."
Republican lawmakers from Arizona had blasted temporary bans imposed by Salazar in 2009 and again last year., arguing that hundreds of jobs will be lost. They are also backing legislation to block Salazar's order.
The mining industry said the decision was driven by politics, not science. "The administration’s announcement is not supported by the findings of its own impact analysis, which provided no evidence to justify a massive withdrawal of land," National Mining Association President Hall Quinn said in a statement.
Environmental groups praised the move, noting that the Colorado River, which runs through the Grand Canyon, is the source of drinking water for 26 million Americans.
"Secretary Salazar has defended the Southwest's right to plentiful, clean water and America's dedication to one of our most precious landscapes," said Dusty Horwitt, senior counsel for the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group.
"Despite significant pressure from the mining industry, the president and Secretary Salazar did not back down," added Jane Danowitz, U.S. public lands director for the Pew Environment Group.
Salazar has said that uranium, which is used in nuclear power reactors, remains an important part of a comprehensive energy strategy. But he said the Grand Canyon is a national treasure that must be protected.
The Grand Canyon attracts more than 4 million visitors a year and generates an estimated $3.5 billion in economic activity, Salazar said. Millions of Americans living in cities such as Phoenix and Los Angeles rely on the Colorado River for clean drinking water.
The Interior Department emphasized that the ban would not affect 3,200 mining claims already staked in the area near the Grand Canyon.
Supporters of the ban say any increase in mining jobs is not worth risks to the Colorado River, lands considered sacred by American Indian tribes or wildlife habitat. A mining mishap also could be disastrous for tourism in one of the nation's most-visited parks.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Of course Koch Industries needs to buy the Grand Canyon.... is there nothing that the GOP will not do in the name of BIG BUSINESS?....
You cannot have contaminated uranium mining runoff into the Grand Canyon !!
The Colorado River is the major source of drinking water for millions of people in the southwest.
The mining industry needs to go find other deposits that do not threaten the drinking water for millions of people.
.
If there are no other Deposits, or the other deposits are in even worse places how will you fuel your precious Nuclear alternative to Oil? Buy Uranium from IRAN?
i dont even know why anyone wants to mine uranium anymore anyway. after the triple melt out at fukushima the nuclear power industry is dead, no one wants nuclear anything near them anymore.
Right. The only remaining uranium deposits in the entire world are in the Grand Canyon.
They find it all over the place, just easier to mine where there are no people.
Uranium mining has been going on in this region for a long time without contaminating the Colorado River, and the US Government has studies to prove it.
As for people wanting nuclear power, plenty still do, including most Americans. The reality is that the current risks America's nuclear reactors pose us is the fault of the anti-nuclear activists who have prevented us from improving the technologies that run our reactors, or from building safer reactors.
When nuclear power returns to America, it will be MUCH safer THANKS to those activists.
Blah, blah!
It's lovely to see all the unqualified nonsense in writing. We want uranium but don't want to "dirty" our hinterland.
Wake up folks. Progress has a cost to it and the green crap is just that, crap.
As usual David Noah, you posit false premises.
Perhaps you would prefer to simply impound the Colorado river downstream of the Grand Canyon, rename it Grand Reservoir, and re-purpose it for hydro-electric generation. That would be the conservative approach.....right?
Is profit the only thing you folks hold sacred?
m
How soon before we hear from the GOP morons about treehuggers having their way....in 5.....4.....3....
It was a 100% POLITICAL move when Bush Jr decided to open millions of acres of public land for the prospecting and rape of OUR natural resources. Political in the way of corporate string pulling that allowed these "speculators " to stake claims without ever having been to the area and doing nothing but getting rich off the backs of our citizens. Most of these 3200 leases already granted are in the names of people that will never mine a single thing, they are there to sell these leases to others. Why aren't they trying to reopen "rare earth" deposits HERE because China has restricted export of 95% of their materials. It is extremely undesirable for ANY earth destroying mining concern to be allowed to degrade one of the worlds most beautiful vista's. Mining concerns will always want more, never less, it is up to us to make sure they adhere to rules and regulations, and not be allowed to rape our natural resources without us be duly compensated and our land never polluted in any way.
In an early attempt at fracking, the Energy Dep't during the Nixon Administration allowed the Rulison Project to proceed, which was one of three attempts to use nuclear weapons to crack the shale layer that traps some of our natural gas reserves beneath it. The Rulison Project detonated a 40-megaton nuclear bomb underground within five miles of the Colorado River in 1969. The Rulison Project was the 2nd of the three similar tests, the others being Project Gasbuggy and Project Rio Blanco, all of which were in the Colorado River watershed, and in all cases, large amounts of trapped natural gas was released, but unfortunately was too radioactive to use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Rulison
What's a little more uranium mining going to hurt when there are tens of thousands of abandoned mines all over that portion of the country leeching toxic metals into the river and its tributaries plus the results of three attempts at nuclear fracking which will continue to pollute the Colorado watershed for many years to come?
Yes, using the Colorado for hydropower would be a much less polluting use.
What does the Impact study say..
IF the mining industry is correct, and this is a 100 percent political move, then it needs to be stoped. IF the study says there will be a huge impact, then the ban should be in place. That is what impact studies are for.
How did that impact study BP, Trans-ocean, and Halliburton did for the Horizon well in the gulf work out.
I would like to see those studies too. But the reality is the Bush administration particular turned out a ton of impact studies that were hugely skewed by politics. In fact that was to be one of the big scandals in his administration, and save for the cover of 9/11 and his wars, would have been. There were tons of whistleblowers coming forward in NOAA, USFS, and the Interior complaining that entire sections of studies prepared by scientists were redacted by political appointees to bring the studies in line with the administration's ideology. So if it's THOSE studies the mining industry is referencing, they're garbage.
Can't they just put a plastic fake rock over the top of the mine?
Im going to go out on a limb here and say you ( and the 6 other people who voted you up) have no clue what an impact study is.
Jeremy - thats the problem with impact studies...it's hard to trust them.
I would be willing to bet the mining acknowledges the "mess" mining creates, but downplays it's "affects" on humans, wildlife and the natural area.
You should check out all the studies done on fracking, and then go talk to the folks who live downstream from the fracking...they'll tell you definitely those studies are a load of bull, and their drinking water (they are usually on wells) is ruined.
At the end of the day, the folks standing to profit from the mining (of any sort) arent that concerned about the environment, just their own profits.
I dont see that destroying healthy drinking water for 2-3 states worth of people, so that a handful of people can get filthy rich. Doesnt make sense to anyone but the miners.
Im going to go out on a limb here and say you ( and the 6 other people who voted you up) have no clue what an impact study is.
I don't know Jeremy would an impact study be what impact the project they are doing an impact study on would give indications what impacts that project would have on various factors such as the environment.
If that is way off please enlighten us. I'll bet the people who do the study are bought and paid for by the people who want a positive impact study report.
Its federal land, mining it should not be allowed, period.
That land was set aside to remain, natural, and untouched.
Mining uranium, or anything else for that matter, is not "Natural" in any way shape or form.
Allowing the mining totally defeats the purpose of setting it aside to begin with.
There are far better ways to make a few 100 jobs in the area, and destroying federal lands is not one of them.
People that argue the "jobs" part of it need to do nothing more than look at other land to do it on.
Last time I checked, there was other land around that area.
I would be curious to see how much those companies were paid to mine there, and what the kickbacks, incentives were to go there in the first place.
To top it all off, if something were to go wrong with it, who pays to clean it up?
And you cant tell me that if it caused a disaster, like a canyon collapse or introduces acids into the river, that they could just fix it and put it back the way it was before.
That isn't going to happen.
As a conservative, I find this ban to be wise and good...words not well associated with the Obama administration very often.
Nice to see a CONSERVative that understands the word. Today's Right-Wing (for they are hardly conservatives) forget that prior to Reagan, the Republican party was the enviromentalist's party, establishing (among other things) both the National Park Service, and the EPA.
Don't let any other "conservatives" hear you say that, because everything Obama does is bad and everything Republicans do is good.
Apparently it's "conservative" to blow up the deficit (see Reagan, Ronald and Bush, George and George W.) because "deficits don't matter" (quoting Dick Cheney).
Well that's a lie. I don't care for nuclear also and I'm conservative. In fact I push solar all the time.
Obama's first two deficits were larger than the combined total of Bush's eight years. Reagan's don't even register compared to Obama's.
It's a typical propaganda ploy to make going from $1 debt to $2, eqivalent to $1000 to $2000. Both are doubled but they are in no way equivalent.
Keep drinking your tea, don't take into account the recession, all the lost revenue, and all the money we had to continue to spend to pay for Bush's failures.
Most of the companies mining the area are foreign-owned and selling the uranium to France and South Korea so no real loss economically. There is plenty of uranium available for mining in other parts of the U.S. that don't require putting at risk an international natural icon and world heritage site; Grand Canyon National Park. Arizona representatives and senators who supported the mining industry (and took their donations) should find another state to represent. (Gosar, Flake, McCain, Franks, Quayle, Schweikert)
How about Virginia? Oh, wait, the libs won't let us mine in Virginia, either, even though the owners of the land and the residents around it all WANT mining.
smith
No, they want the money!
How about putting out some of those coal seam fires, fill in a few thousand abandoned strip mines and actually enforce a few mine safety rules in Virginia before you start whining about libs being such bullies.
Unlike an oil spill (bad as they are) ONE spill, or other loss of containment of a toxic substance like uranium will be a disaster for generations to come. this argument that job creation is the only criteria to be used when deciding if something is good or bad has gotten old. Libs indeed. the EPA was formed because business could not be trusted to police itself in regards to polluting the environment. and for a group of people so concerned about the world we leave to our grandchildren, keeping it clean does not seem to matter.
A mine near the Grand Canyon is like a pimple on a knats ass. The decision will be reveresed once the GOP controls both houses and the executive branch.
A purely political decision.
The GOP is a boil on America's ass. We shall lance it, soon.
Did you mean gnats? And Rick....get a grip, not going to happen. The Dems had their chance, blew it. I do think some care should be taken where Grand Canyon is concerned...not enough jobs to make any difference...I vote to err on the side of caution in this case.
That will be in the year 2525... if man is still alive; in woman can survive!
Grandfather, the republicans blew it from 2000-2008 but sadly most republicans can't remember anything further back than last year if they are lucky.
Bush/republican congress average unemployment 5%, average deficit $230 billion
Obama/democrat congress average unemployment 9%, average deficit $1.3 trillon
Democrats claimed they could do better, they did far worse. They were treated appropriately Nov 2010.
No amount of leftist propaganda will erase those numbers.
nice twisting of statistics there p111. here's the cycle: republicans drive debt up and employment down by reducing taxes on teh wealthy and shunting economic wealth their way away from lower and middle class and then lose the white house and democrats reverse it, reinstate more progressice taxes, and heal the economy. doesn't take looking beyond the reagan-clinton cycle to see it but it appears to be repeating now in the george w-obama period as well. it was just a deeper well good ol' W left us in so it will take longer, especially amidst an unprecedentedly obstructionist congress.
P111 same post different article, get some new material this BS is old BS
Pubs only care about money. Nothing else at all.
That's BS and you know it.....
Grandpa you're getting senile.
Larry,
Liberals love money every bit as much as Pubs. They just want others to make it and spread it around.
Gramps is right, money comes in 3rd to the GOP. God first, party second, then money. Other people only exist to help the special people see just how special they are by being so beneath the specials.
Well that's an obvious lie. Try liberty first, prosperity second, family third. Liberty for everyone, prosperity for everyone. Taking care of family means earning enough to be self sufficient.
Equality of opportunity, NOT equality of results. Personal responsibility overall.
yea!
The Grand Canyon cannot be found anywhere else. The minerals can. There is no reason to destroy everything nature has given us. As for the Republican's claim that "a permanent ban on the filing of new mining claims would eliminate hundreds of jobs", that's hog wash - you can't eliminate something that doesn't exist yet.

here-let me correct that for you...
"There is no reason to destroy anything nature has given us."
So you've never killed a Mosquito or swatted a fly.
John
There's only 1 Grand Canyon, there are millions of mosquitos and flys.
Who are the Federal turds fooling? It is an apparent move to facilitate the mines already in place with a monopoly on uranium mining..... Question #1 Who owns the mines already operating?
Probably the politicians listed in #5.
Nah....this is just a way to be a good, politically correct, $2 hooker for the tree-hugger lobby.....election coming up. [interesting that last year nobody in DC was worried about mining near the Grand Canyon....or the year before...or the year before that.]
Yep, absolutely nothing done until election season. Pathetic.
That is because the employees of the Minerals Mining Service (MMS under the Department of the Interior) were too busy doing coke and meth with the people they were supposed to be regulating. Guess who's administration was in power when that happened? No, really, guess? (cue up Jeopardy theme song). You can read the full report of the investigation here:
www.scribd.com/doc/31940400/IOC-REDACTED-05-25-2010
There is a hard truth that no one wants to face and it is this....
The planet cannot sustain our onward march in the name of progress. At some point we will have to be content with what we have or self destruct. Natural resources are finite.
Those in control of the world's wealth and power know this but do not care. They have no belief system, and don't care what happens when they are dead and gone as long as their comfort zone and power structure is at maximum overload while they yet exist.
When they pollute the water systems in the U.S. beyond usable levels, their wealth will enable them to move to another country where there is drinkable water. They simply do not care. That is why they push for globalization, so that everyone in the world can be governed from afar.
I speak the truth and if you take the blinders from your eyes you will know it is so.
You're absolutely right. Less than 3% of the Earth's water is drinkable now and much of that is tied up in glaciers. Ask T. Boone Pickens...he's buying up watersheds and aquifers in Texas because he knows he can sell it to the highest bidder when there is no other potable water. I live in Minnesota, land of 10,000+ lakes but on most you can't drink the water or eat many of the fish due to mercury poisoning.
What you fail to recognize is that progress doesn't only unlock more resources on Earth, but allows us to use fewer resources, recycle resources we have used better, and even re-create the resources we used from the waste they put out.
Unfortunately, the tree-huggers who oppose progress oppose those improvements, too.
DUH DUH DUH hey everybody look at me I can talk out of my Ass.
I suggest you move...soon....the sooner all the folks there die off from mercury poisioning, the more water there will be for the rest of us. It's going to be ugly, what with only 3% of the water potable in the world. just one question, though....how is it the world's population continures to grow at such an alarming rate? You'd think folks would be dying of thirst all over the place....hard to understand. Does anybody know how many people the earth's potable water will support? And, did that 3% used to be 5% or 10%? Or has it pretty much always been about 3%? Just wondering.....
You let me know when that happens, okay? So far all progress has done is create more pollution, more over crowding, more greed, and more destruction of natural resources. Every step of progress has resulted in the destruction of land, water, and the animals and plants that populate them.
"WARNING: No Swimming!" "WARNING: No Fishing!" Don't eat the tuna, don't make snowcream, don't drink the rainwater... dead lakes and rivers, the oil spills in the ocean waters that wash ashore and kill the wildlife in the wetlands as well....
Oh, yeah... progress has certainly given us better ways to take care of our natural resources. What part of "natural resources are finite" did you not understand?
BigMow,
I suggest you research how much fresh river water is required to make solar panels. The numbers will shock you.
Okay, let's try these numbers: Ninety-eight percent of the water on the planet is in the oceans, and therefore is unusable for drinking because of the salt. About 2 percent of the planet's water is fresh, but 1.6 percent of the planet's water is locked up in the polar ice caps and glaciers. Another 0.36 percent is found underground in aquifers and wells. Only about 0.036 percent of the planet's total water supply is found in lakes and rivers. That's still thousands of trillions of gallons, but it's a very small amount compared to all the water available. I'm staying in MN because compared to the rest of the US, we do have the cleanest water. As long as you boil the parasites out and don't stir up the sediment on the bottom, and don't eat the fish more than once a month, you should be ok. Like I said, ask T. Boone Pickens what the value of water is. Anyone who pays for water metering right now is experiencing a fresh water shortage.
Many natural resources ARE finite. Many are recycleable. If you'd like to go live in a cave, be my guest. Unless your clothes are homespun and you grow your own food, you need to get a grip on reality, buddy. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that since you're on the internet, you probably live in a home with many of today's modern amenities including (but not limited to): food, electricity, running water, sewer, furniture, decorations, appliances, computers, cell phones, and some form of transporation (car, bike, public transit, etc.). You have clothes to wear, a bed to sleep in, and hopefully some money in your pocket. ALL of those things are made available to you by using little bits of Earth's resources. Nearly ALL of man's polluting of the Earth is done to bring you the aforementioned amenities. So, unless you're willing to give up "yours," just shut up. If you are willing, props to you, and I hope that you start practicing what you preach very soon.
Why not just ban mining everywhere and be done with it? We could also ban all forms of economic activity that do not involve gathering (because hunting is not politically correct) or community organizing. Why stop at these half measures when you could regulate everything?
"Americans For Choice", a conservative think tank has long advocated a strategy of making the national parks and state parks as "unattractive" as possible using strip logging (which is worse than clear-cutting), billboards, mining and especially displaying waste products such as slag piles and ore skags in clear view of roads and trails. They believe, probably correctly, that if the vew around national parks is sufficiently despoiled, people will stop going there for recreation and if people stop going there, more minims and logging on taxpayer land will be allowed. So many people thnik all these things are unrelated.
Why do you think that the oil companies are pusing "drill, baby, drill" when the US is one of the largest oil exporters in the world. If we were short of oil, wouldn't we supply the domestic market before selling it to Japan and South Korea at bargain prices?
The corporations in this country have bought all the politicians. The only ones being challenged are the ones who are poorly organized and widely despised in their home turfs, such as the mining industry. And even they are beginning to get traction with the "America for sale" GOP plliticians and to a lesser the "I can't do good unless I get re-elected" ends justify the means Democratic politicians.
Yea.. Let's clear the land. Take down all the trees, strip mine the land and fill up that big hole. Once we're done, black top it all and put in an amusement park and charge everyone $40 to come in and see pictures of how it used to look. Good, sound republican money making idea..
Chris,
I think if you check you'll find out that United States is one the largest exporters of refined petroleum products, not crude oil.
"They paved Paradise and put up a parking lot."
Good. Mining around the Grand Canyon should be stopped. Am tired of uncontrolled greed in this world. Man is hellbent to destroy everything good on this earth for money. If you support raping the earth and everything living on it for money, please die and make the world a better place for the rest of us who happen to like this planet and all the creatures living here.
Viva "Terra Nova". Mankind's last refuge. At least while Republican "Take-all" Politicians are in Office.
the repubs dont look at it as land worth preserving, only to profit from
Why exactly? Haven't Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima already proven that nuclear energy can and does come at a steep cost? Obviously I'm not just talking about money either.
I suggest you study the history of those three incidents more closely. Three-mile island wasn't a 'nuclear accident' as most people mean it. It was a nuclear scare. No one died directly because of it, and the best statisticians in the world have failed to provide any credible evidence that anyone got sick because of it. Chernobyl happened because the Russians cut corners and didn't care what happened to their people. Fukushima was a worst-case disaster who's failure still hinged on the back-up for the back-up generator not having the right kind of hook-ups (human failure, not technology).
Compared to the lives nuclear power has saved, and compared to the safety records of EVERY other form of power generation available (yes, even solar power), nuclear power is cheap, in every form of cost.
@C.Smith
Your claim that nuclear energy is cheap is nothing but BS. It is a great money maker for the industry since it's the people (taxpayer) who ends up paying the true long term cost of nuclear. So I guess all the $$$Billions in costs of long term storage and security that the government pays for is a GREAT deal for America? You must be an industry insider, mouth piece for the GOP or just dumb as a plain old rock.
Investigate "who" were hired to mine Uranium for the Manhattan Project. Answ. Native Americans. Cause of Death in majority: Radiation exposure. Info about hazards: None. Danger: Uranium particles in water within the Grand Canyon along with other heavy metals.
It seems to me conservatives are not taking the expenses that occur from allowing pollution. People get sick and that costs money. If rivers are polluted, fisherman can't fish and tourists won't spend money there.
The waters in and around the Grand Canyon ARE polluted with heavy metals and have been so for decades.
So rather than trying to clean it up we should just make it worse?
It's all about money as usual. If Heaven existed and there was some way to exploit it for profit the Republicans would just do it, God be damned.
Over the years, I have noticed that the consistent position of Republicans on ANY issue involving the environment is: If anyone can make a buck, then f*** the environent! And the tradition continues...
Whereas the position of the Democrats seems to be: Regulate them back to the stone age. If they aren't living in caves, then f*** the taxpayers.
Of course, there is always the middle-ground majority of both parties, but who listens to them?
Since I'm anti Nuclear I think this is a good thing. Why are we continuing to dig up more Uranium to create fuel rods and bombs with? Aren't the 87,000 metric tons of Spent Nuclear Fuel sitting around Nuclear power plants across the U.S. and 108 contaminated sites in the U.S. enough?
At the same time I'm curious as to why its so important to protect the Grand Canyaon from Uranium mining but Building 100 Nuclear Power plants across the U.S. is a good thing considering how much land, water sheds, aquifers, etc.. they have the abilty to affect.
Are you claiming they cant mine Uranium safely and there endangering the Colorado River but you can use it safely and cleanly as a Nuclear Fuel without any risk to the environement? You do realize Nuclear Reactors require water for Cooling which is why they are always next to rivers, oceans, lakes, etc., right?
1.) Nuclear power is the cheapest, safest, and cleanest source we have available to us today. That includes wind, solar, and hydroelectric, who's manufacturing processes are often toxic (solar) or which pose dangers to the environment (wind and hydroelectric).
2.) If we recycled our nuclear fuel rods, like Europe does, then we wouldn't have so much nuclear waste. But the anti-nuke crowd has prevented us from building reactors capable of doing so.
3.) Safe uranium mining us MUCH harder than safely handling refined uranium rods. The process of mining inherently renders some of that uranium into dust, which has to be VERY carefully managed to prevent contamination. Using uranium rods doesn't produce uranium dust.
4.) While the cooling water in nuclear plants does become radioactive, that water is NEVER released (except to prevent catastrophic failures, like with Fukushima, and there it's steam being released, not water). Instead, it goes through a non-contact heat exchange process with water which is regularly pumped into and then out of the power plant. This water is never directly exposed to anything radioactive, even the radioactive cooling water.
Chalk up 1 small win for Mother Nature....
Crooked Politicians from both sides have been bribed and bankrolled by the polluting gas, mining and oil industries. Follow the money to these greedy politicians and arrest them. Then take all the industry Lobbyist put hem in a boat and sink it.
If money could be made, these greedy sons of bitches would mine at Arlington Cemetery!
I hear lots of assumptions. In what way will mining the uranium pollute the river? Since the river runs through the same formations is it not cutting through some uranium already. Also the national park stretches for miles and miles beyond the grand canyon. the mines would not necessarily be right next to the canyon as pictured. They always show the worst Scenario to get the vote. Recently I have seen shutting down coal, shutting down oil, shutting down wind farms, and now uranium for nuclear. Where do the environmentalists suggest getting power from then? Oh and shutting down logging too. All this from people who sit in the cheap seats and have not really taken the time to visit and understand how things are really done. People who drive down a perfectly paved oil polluting road in a polluting car and look off the rim of the canyon then condem all the processes that went into providing access to that site to them. Oh, and condem anyone making use of any of the resouces that they can (and cannot) see from their top of the canyon view.
The problem is that the natural process causes minimal contamination of water and land while mining can cause maximum contamination because of the release of dust into the air and water borne "dust" into streams and rivers. Science 101, Elementary School Level.
Damn! Next they will ban the Koch Bros from installing a steam generator over Old Faithful!
Whaaat!! The uranium is already in the ground and in the water...how can it not be?? Did anyone happen to look at this landscape? I believe the environmentalist should be a tad more objective in their assessment and protection of this area. There isn't much anyone can do do damage, destroy, or desiccate it. It's barren rock formations, cut and shaped by millions of years of weathering. There is nothing to save except votes from the liberal, left, environmental extremists.
Rob, you are so right! Nothing but a great big ditch caused by massive erosion. It should be filled in with the rubble from the West Virginia mountains that are being "topped off" for coal extraction.
And while we're at it, what's all this crap about saving the ocean? It's salt water for pete's sake. How can chemical wastes from farming, mining and manufacturing make it any less drinkable.
Hey, you got me on a roll now. Who needs all these trees that just litter up the land with dead leaves, and then their own dead stumps? Find the one or two species that make good furniture, plant them under perfectly controlled conditions for consistently optimum growth, then harvest efficiently like wheat. Burn all the other species to the ground to make room for some really nice shopping malls.
Nature is so damn messy and inconsistent. It needs to be updated for maximum utilization. Yeah, how about Man buys out God's interest in Nature and comes out with version 3.0 that eliminates the ugly rock formations and makes other improvements in performance characteristics.
There's so much to do and so little time!
Let's Roll!!
Politicians can always find a method of destroying nature for profit. That is why they become Politicians -- for their own profit (they are open to any and all bribes from anybody and everybody).
3000 already approved, unaffected permits that haven't been drilled. I think Big business (and Republicans) should shut up until new permits are needed. SOS as the golf oil permits; thousands of permits never explored but the greedy bastards want more.