[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1373, ``GRAND CANYON CENTENNIAL PROTECTION ACT'' AND H.R. 2181,
``CHACO CULTURAL HERITAGE AREA PROTECTION ACT OF 2019''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-658 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ Paul Cook, CA
TJ Cox, CA Bruce Westerman, AR
Joe Neguse, CO Garret Graves, LA
Mike Levin, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Debra A. Haaland, NM Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Jefferson Van Drew, NJ Daniel Webster, FL
Joe Cunningham, SC Liz Cheney, WY
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Mike Johnson, LA
Diana DeGette, CO Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO John R. Curtis, UT
Debbie Dingell, MI Kevin Hern, OK
Anthony G. Brown, MD Russ Fulcher, ID
A. Donald McEachin, VA
Darren Soto, FL
Ed Case, HI
Steven Horsford, NV
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
Matt Cartwright, PA
Paul Tonko, NY
Vacancy
David Watkins, Chief of Staff
Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS
DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Chair
DON YOUNG, AK, Ranking Republican Member
Joe Neguse, CO Louie Gohmert, TX
Diana DeGette, CO Tom McClintock, CA
Debbie Dingell, MI Paul Cook, CA
Steven Horsford, NV Bruce Westerman, AR
Jared Huffman, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Ruben Gallego, AZ Daniel Webster, FL
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA John R. Curtis, UT
Ed Case, HI Russ Fulcher, ID
Paul Tonko, NY Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
Vacancy
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, June 5, 2019.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Curtis, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Haaland, Hon. Debra A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Evans, Hon. Coral, Mayor, City of Flagstaff, Arizona......... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Hesuse, Delora, Navajo Indian Allottee, Nageezi, New Mexico.. 67
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
Questions submitted for the record....................... 69
Johnson, Hon. Buster D., Supervisor District 3, Mohave County
Board of Supervisors, Lake Havasu City, Arizona............ 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Questions submitted for the record....................... 41
Lizer, Hon. Myron, Vice President, Navajo Nation, Window
Rock, Arizona.............................................. 56
Prepared statement of.................................... 58
Menchego, Hon. Timothy, Governor, Pueblo of Santa Ana, New
Mexico..................................................... 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Nedd, Michael D., Deputy Director of Operations, Bureau of
Land Management, Washington, DC............................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Questions submitted for the record....................... 10
Reimondo, Amber, Energy Program Director, Grand Canyon Trust,
Flagstaff, Arizona......................................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Sage, Samuel, Community Services Coordinator, Counselor
Chapter House, Farmington, New Mexico...................... 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 64
Tilousi, Hon. Carletta, Councilwoman, Havasupai Tribe, Supai,
Arizona.................................................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Torres, Hon. E. Paul, Chairman, All Pueblo Council of
Governors, Albuquerque, New Mexico......................... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), April 30,
2019 Letter to Representatives Haaland and Young in support
of H.R. 2181............................................... 76
City of Flagstaff Resolution 2019-13 in support of H.R. 1373. 78
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 87
Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva
Coconino County Board of Supervisors Resolution 2019-08
in support of a permanent mineral withdrawal around the
Grand Canyon........................................... 79
Havasupai Tribal Council Resolution 12-19 in support of
H.R. 1373.............................................. 80
Hopi Tribal Council Memorandum and Resolution H-025-2019
in support of H.R. 1373................................ 82
Hualapai Tribal Council Resolution 67-2009 in opposition
to uranium exploration and mining...................... 84
National Congress of American Indians Resolution MKE-17-
058 opposing the reversal of mineral withdrawals....... 85
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1373, TO PROTECT, FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE
GENERATIONS, THE WATERSHED, ECOSYSTEM, AND CULTURAL HERITAGE OF THE
GRAND CANYON REGION IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``GRAND CANYON CENTENNIAL PROTECTION ACT'' AND H.R. 2181, TO PROVIDE
FOR THE WITHDRAWAL AND PROTECTION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND IN THE STATE
OF NEW MEXICO, ``CHACO CULTURAL HERITAGE AREA PROTECTION ACT OF 2019''
----------
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Debra A.
Haaland [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Haaland, DeGette, Horsford,
Gallego, Lowenthal, Case, Grijalva (ex officio); Westerman,
Webster, Curtis, Fulcher, and Bishop (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Lujan, O'Halleran, and Gosar.
Ms. Haaland. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests,
and Public Lands will now come to order. The Subcommittee is
meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon
Centennial Protection Act, and H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural
Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record,
if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
In addition, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Representatives Lujan, O'Halleran, and Gosar be allowed to join
us and participate on the dais.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBRA A. HAALAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Haaland. Thank you all for attending this Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands legislative
hearing on H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection
Act, and H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection
Act of 2019.
I would like to start by expressing my gratitude to
Chairman Grijalva and Representative Lujan for introducing
these bills that preserve the sacred and ancestral lands of the
Pueblo people and other Native Americans in those areas, and
also the irreplaceable resources they hold.
I would also like to thank our witnesses, many of whom have
traveled great distances to join us today.
Since 2008, Chairman Grijalva has championed the central
provisions of the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act. It
was encouraging in 2012 when the Obama administration acted to
protect over 1 million acres surrounding the Grand Canyon
National Park with a 20-year moratorium on new mining claims.
However, recent actions by this Administration suggest they may
be seeking to end this moratorium, exposing tribal communities
and Arizonans to the dangerous impacts of uranium mining.
We need to act to ensure that political expediency doesn't
undermine these existing protections which are so essential to
the economic and cultural viability of the region. It would be
especially appropriate to make the protections permanent on
this year, the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the
Grand Canyon National Park.
Closer to my home, the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area
Protection Act of 2019 would permanently protect the integrity
of sacred sites in and around the Chaco Culture National
Historical Park by prohibiting Federal oil and gas leasing
within a 10-mile radius of the park. This action would prevent
the degradation of cultural resources, preserve the
environment, and protect the health of the surrounding
communities.
Earlier this year, I, with members of this Committee, went
to Chaco Canyon in New Mexico to learn more about the
importance of the region and to better understand the threats
that nearby oil and gas extraction pose. We used cutting-edge
technology to examine pollution coming off of oil and gas
operations, which form a toxic cloud that hangs over parts of
northern New Mexico.
Long before these extractive and polluting industries came
to be, this region was the heart of the Chacoan culture from
850 to 1250 A.D. The Sovereign Pueblo Nations of New Mexico and
the Navajo Nation still have intimate connections with the
Greater Chaco Region, recognizing the area as a spiritual place
to be honored and respected.
Over hundreds of years, my ancestors engineered and
constructed massive multi-story structures that became the
ceremonial, administrative, and economic center of the region.
In recognition of the area's outstanding universal value, Chaco
culture was recognized as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in
1987.
Today, thousands of ancestral sites are spread across the
landscape, both within and beyond the boundaries of Chaco
Culture National Historical Park. With the Trump
administration's continued push for energy dominance, these
sacred sites and national treasures are threatened by
extraction. Extraction in this sacred place will only scar our
land, contaminate our air and water, and create health risks
for our communities.
Just last week, Secretary Bernhardt joined Senator Martin
Heinrich and tribal leaders on a tour of Chaco Canyon.
Following that meeting, Secretary Bernhardt acknowledged the
region's significance, but committed to only a 1-year
moratorium on oil and gas leasing within the Chaco landscape.
While I appreciate this gesture, it should be clear to anyone
who has visited Chaco that 1 year is inadequate to protect the
cultural significance of this land.
It is my priority, as it should be that of the Trump
administration, to permanently protect this place--in
recognition of its significance to our Native American culture,
this country's history, the public health of nearby
communities, and others around the world. It is time for our
words to become actions. We must protect both of these
exceptional sites, Chaco Canyon and the Grand Canyon, in
perpetuity.
I would like to thank the sponsoring Members and witnesses
again for being here today. I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Haaland follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Debra A. Haaland, Chair, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
Thank you all for attending this Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests, and Public Lands' legislative hearing on H.R. 1373, the Grand
Canyon Centennial Protection Act, and H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural
Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019.
I would like to start by expressing my gratitude to Chairman
Grijalva and Representative Lujan for introducing these bills that
preserve the sacred lands of our ancestors and the irreplaceable
resources they hold.
I would also like to thank our witnesses, many of whom have
traveled great distances to join us today.
Since 2008, Chairman Grijalva has championed the central provisions
of the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act. It was encouraging in
2012 when the Obama administration acted to protect over 1 million
acres surrounding Grand Canyon National Park with a 20-year moratorium
on new mining claims. However, recent actions by the Trump
administration suggest they may be seeking to end this moratorium--
exposing tribal communities and Arizonans to the dangerous impacts of
uranium mining.
We need to act to ensure that political expediency doesn't
undermine these existing protections, which are so essential to the
economic and cultural vitality of the region. It would be especially
appropriate to make these protections permanent, on this year, the
100th Anniversary of the establishment of Grand Canyon National Park.
Closer to home for me, the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection
Act of 2019 would permanently protect the integrity of sacred sites in
and around the Chaco Culture National Historical Park by prohibiting
Federal oil and gas leasing within a 10-mile radius of the park. This
action would prevent the degradation of cultural resources, preserve
the environment, and protect the health of the surrounding communities.
Earlier this year, I, along with many members of this Committee
went to Chaco Canyon in New Mexico to learn more about this important
region, and to better understand the threats nearby oil and gas
extraction poses. We used cutting edge technology to examine pollution
coming off of oil and gas operations, which form a toxic cloud that
hangs over parts of northern New Mexico.
Long before these extractive and polluting industries came to be,
this region was the heart of the Chacoan Culture, from 850 to 1250 A.D.
The sovereign Pueblo nations of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation still
have intimate connections with the Greater Chaco Region--recognizing
the area as a spiritual place to be honored and respected.
Over hundreds of years, my ancestors engineered and constructed
massive multi-story structures that became the ceremonial,
administrative and economic center of the region. In recognition of the
area's ``Outstanding Universal Value,'' Chaco Culture was recognized as
a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1987.
Today, thousands of ancestral sites are spread across the
landscape--both within and beyond the boundaries of Chaco Culture
National Historical Park. With the Trump administration's continued
push for ``energy dominance,'' these sacred sites and national
treasures are threatened by extraction. Extraction in this sacred place
will only scar our land, contaminate our air and water, and create
health risks for our communities.
Earlier this week, Secretary Bernhardt joined Senator Heinrich and
tribal leaders on a tour of Chaco Canyon. Following that meeting,
Secretary Bernhardt acknowledged the region's significance, but
committed to only a 1-year moratorium on oil and gas leasing within the
Chaco landscape. While I appreciate this gesture, it should be clear to
anyone who has visited Chaco that 1 year is inadequate to protect the
cultural significance of this land.
It is my priority, as it should be that of the Trump
administration, to permanently protect this place--in recognition of
its significance to our Native American culture, this country's
history, the public health of nearby communities, and other's around
the world. It is time for our words to become actions. We must protect
both of these exceptional sites--Chaco Canyon and the Grand Canyon--in
perpetuity.
I would like to thank the sponsoring Members and witnesses again
for being here today. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
______
Ms. Haaland. And before I recognize the Ranking Member it
has come to our attention that we have votes.
Would you like to give your opening statement now? We have
a little bit of time.
OK. Thank you. I will recognize the Ranking Member for his
opening statement, and then we will have to recess.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN R. CURTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. As Chair Haaland noted in her
opening remarks, the Subcommittee meets today to consider two
pieces of legislation, H.R. 1373 and H.R. 2181. I will note
that both of these bills are Democrat-sponsored, and that there
is no Republican bill being considered at the hearing today.
Collectively, the two bills before us would withdraw well
over a million acres of land from mineral development in
Arizona and New Mexico. I am not opposed to mineral withdrawals
when appropriate and, in fact, have sponsored two pieces of
legislation withdrawing a total of over 2 million acres of
Federal land from extraction.
I must, however, raise a few concerns with the proposals
before us today, which I fear lack the necessary consensus that
is critical for measures of this scope.
As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I
experienced firsthand how our domestic mineral production
policy impacts the greater international community. Sending our
resources to allies abroad opens opportunities to protect our
interest, while also benefiting the international partners. For
this reason, mineral withdrawals, particularly of such large
scale, should be analyzed carefully.
However, the most concerning part of this hearing is that
the Arizona bill, H.R. 1373, continues the Committee's
troubling trend of taking up legislation introduced in another
Member's district without consultation or support from that
Member. For this reason, I yield the remainder of my time to my
friend from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, whose northern Arizona district
contains a large portion of the lands covered by H.R. 1373.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John R. Curtis, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Utah
As Chair Haaland noted in her opening remarks, the Subcommittee
meets today to consider two pieces of legislation: H.R. 1373 and H.R.
2181. I will note that both of these bills are Democrat sponsored, and
that there is no Republican bill being considered at the hearing today.
Collectively, the two bills before us would withdraw well over a
million acres of land from mineral development in Arizona and New
Mexico. I am not opposed to mineral withdrawals when appropriate, and
in fact have sponsored two pieces of legislation withdrawing a total of
over 2 million acres of Federal land.
I must, however, raise a few concerns with the proposals before us
today, which I fear lack the necessary consensus that is critical for
measures of this scope.
As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I experience
firsthand how our domestic mineral production policy impacts the
greater international community. Sending our resources to allies abroad
opens opportunities to protect our interests, while also benefiting
international partners. For this reason, mineral withdrawals,
particularly of such a large scale, should be analyzed carefully.
However, the most concerning part of this hearing is that the
Arizona bill continues the Committee's troubling trend of taking up
legislation introduced in another Member's district without
consultation or support from that Member.
With that in mind I'd like to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Gosar
of Arizona, a member of the Full Committee, whose district is directly
impacted by H.R. 1373, be allowed to sit on the dais and to participate
in today's hearing. I yield the remainder of my time to my friend from
Arizona, Mr. Gosar, whose Northern Arizona district contains a large
portion the lands covered by H.R. 1373.
______
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Utah for his strong
leadership and for yielding me time.
As he noted, Representative Curtis is always very
thoughtful and considerate when it comes to considering
potential mineral withdraws and legislative actions that occur
in another Member's district. And, like the gentleman from
Utah, I strongly oppose both of these land bill grabs being
debated today.
H.R. 1373, the so-called Grand Canyon Centennial Protection
Act, is an anti-mining, anti-American attack on my district.
Depending upon what map you look at, somewhere in the range of
30 to 40 percent of the proposed withdrawal lands in this bill
are in my district. The rest are in Representative O'Halleran's
district. And none of the lands--let me repeat--none of the
lands are in Representative Grijalva's district.
Having said that, the majority of the mining claims are in
my district. In fact, just about all of the active and historic
mines are in my district. And the main point of this bill is to
lock up these lands in my district. This unnecessary
legislation seeks to impose a 1-million-plus acre land grab on
the Arizona Strip, and permanently prohibit mining and other
multiple-use activities. This dangerous bill threatens both our
national security and energy security, and seeks to permanently
sequester critical minerals that contain the highest grade and
largest quantity of uranium reserves in the entire country.
As Deputy Director Nedd notes in his testimony, the
proposed withdrawal area covers an area 80 percent the size of
Delaware. Well, let's think about that, folks. This bill seeks
to impose a lifetime ban on mining and other multiple-use
activities on more than 1 million acres, an area of land that
is nearly the size of Delaware.
Keep in mind that this area where such activities are
desired and were explicitly designated for such use through an
Act of Congress supported by the entire Arizona and Utah
delegations, and large majorities of both chambers. This
fundamentally flawed legislation has existed in one form or
another for more than a decade, and has failed to gain any
traction over that time.
In 2009, Dr. Madan Singh, Director of the Department of
Mines and Mineral Resources for the state of Arizona testified
in strong opposition to a nearly identical bill. Dr. Singh
testified there is no threat to the Colorado River or
surrounding watersheds if uranium mining in the area was
allowed to occur. In fact, successful uranium mining in the
area occurred in the 1980s. These mines were reclaimed, and you
can't tell where they existed. There was no damage done to the
Grand Canyon watershed or surrounding communities.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have these
documents submitted for the hearing record.
Ms. Haaland. Without objection.
Dr. Gosar. I am thrilled that Mohave County Supervisor
Buster Johnson is here today. Buster knows the issue better
than most, and we have been fighting this proposed land grab
for years.
Thanks for your strong leadership, Buster. It is truly
appreciated.
The last time Buster and I were together and debating this
topic was at a field hearing in Kingman in 2016, where we heard
testimony from more than 30 different witnesses and from across
the spectrum that opposed Representative Grijalva's proposed
land grab of this area. The witnesses provided testimony--
including the Arizona Governor, the State Game and Fish
Commission, CEOs, representatives from local cattleman and farm
bureau groups, and countless other individuals and
organizations. In fact, more than 150 groups of elected
officials and concerned citizens were on record in opposition
to Representative Grijalva's proposal at that time.
Madam Chair, I ask permission to submit the press release
from the field hearing in Kingman from 2016 for the Committee
record.
Ms. Haaland. Without objection.
Dr. Gosar. In short, H.R. 1373 will harm education
revenues, kill jobs, infringe on private property rights, and
undermine American energy security.
It is opposed by the people of my district, and I urge its
rejection.
Ms. Haaland. The gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. The Subcommittee stands in recess,
subject to the call of the Chair. We will be back as soon as we
vote. Thank you so much.
[Recess.]
Ms. Haaland. Thank you all so much for all of your
patience. And thank you, Ranking Member Curtis, and also Mr.
Gosar, for your opening statement.
We will now come to order. Under our Committee Rules, oral
statements are limited to 5 minutes, but you may submit a
longer statement for the record, if you choose.
The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is 1
minute left, and red when the time has expired.
After the witnesses have testified, Members will be given
the opportunity to ask questions.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Michael Nedd, Deputy Director
of Operations for the Bureau of Land Management.
Thank you so much, Mr. Nedd. You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. NEDD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Nedd. Good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Ranking Member,
and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
to present testimony today. I am Michael Nedd, the Deputy
Director for Operations of the Bureau of Land Management. I
will briefly summarize the written statement of H.R. 1373, the
Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, and H.R. 2181, the
Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019.
H.R. 1373 would permanently withdraw over 1 million acres
of Federal land in the state of Arizona from public land,
mining, mineral and geothermal leasing laws. In January 2012,
the Secretary of the Interior administratively withdrew this
area from the mining laws for a 20-year period to study the
effects of exploration and development of uranium and other
minerals, as directed by the President. The Department is
currently assessing critical minerals resources on public lands
and offshore lands.
Uranium, like oil and gas, solar, wind, geothermal, and
other energy sources remains a vital component of a responsible
and comprehensive energy strategy. Additionally, uranium has
been identified by the U.S. Geological Survey as a critical
mineral necessary to the economics and national security of the
United States. The Department continues to study the impacts of
mining in the withdrawal area to provide future policy makers
with the scientific data necessary to make informed decisions.
The Department has concerns about the size and scope of the
withdrawal contained in the legislation. With that said, the
Department respects Congress' authority over territory or other
property belonging to the United States. If Congress chooses to
move forward with a permanent withdrawal, the Department
recommends several modifications to the bill, including
boundary adjustments to ensure local availability of minerals
material for nearby communities, and to enable environmentally
responsible development of critical minerals such as uranium
and other mineral resources.
Last, the sponsor may wish to consider language permitting
lands within the proposed withdrawal to be conveyed or leased
under the Recreation and Public Purpose Act for public purposes
or exchange to facilitate economic development for local
communities.
H.R. 2181 would withdraw approximately 201,000 Federal
surface acres and approximately 334,000 acres of Federal
subsurface mineral estates surrounding the Chaco Culture
National Historical Park in northwestern New Mexico from the
public land, mining, mineral, and geothermal leasing laws. In
Fiscal Year 2018, the total revenue generated from responsible
minerals development on Federal lands in New Mexico alone was
over $1.3 billion.
The Secretary also recognized there are some places that
may benefit from enhanced protection. Striking the appropriate
balance for public lands use is an important mission that the
Department takes seriously. Early last week, Secretary
Bernhardt traveled to New Mexico and visited a Chaco cultural
area, along with New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich and tribal
leaders. Following that visit, the Secretary expressed a great
sense of appreciation of the site managed by the National Park
Service, and a better understanding of the tribal leaders'
views of its cultural significance.
The Secretary has directed the BLM to promptly publish a
draft resource management plan that includes an alternative
that reflects the tribal leaders' views, which are similar to
the proposed legislation boundaries included in H.R. 2181. At
the Secretary's direction, the BLM will also defer leasing
within the 10-mile buffer zone for 1 year. The Constitution
gives Congress the power to dispose of and make all needful
rules and regulations respecting the territory or other
properties belonging to the United States, and we respect
Congress' role in this regard. As such, the Department has no
objection to H.R. 2181.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to
answer any questions you may have on these bills.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nedd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Nedd, Deputy Director for Operations,
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior on H.R. 1373
and H.R. 2181
Statement on H.R. 1373, Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1373, the Grand
Canyon Centennial Protection Act. H.R. 1373 would permanently withdraw
over 1 million acres of Federal lands in the state of Arizona from the
public land, mining, mineral, and geothermal leasing laws.
Under President Trump and Secretary Bernhardt's leadership, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has made it a top priority to develop
the vast domestic energy resources on public lands in an
environmentally responsible manner to create jobs, lower costs for
working Americans, and build a strong economy. The Secretary
recognizes, however, that there are some places that may benefit from
protections. Striking the appropriate balance for public lands use--
whether it be energy development, recreation, grazing, or
conservation--can be a challenge, but it is a mission the Department of
the Interior (Department) takes seriously.
The United States has an extraordinary abundance of mineral
resources, both onshore and offshore, and is a major mineral producer,
but relies on other countries for more than 50 percent of dozens of
minerals that are vital to our economy and security. To address this
vulnerability, in 2017 the President issued Executive Order 13817, A
Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical
Minerals, calling upon agencies across the Federal Government to
develop a report that lays out a strategy to reduce the Nation's
susceptibility to critical mineral supply disruptions. The Department
is currently assessing critical mineral resources, including mapping on
Federal public lands and offshore lands. Uranium, like oil and gas,
solar, wind, geothermal, and other energy sources, remains a vital
component of a responsible and comprehensive energy strategy.
Additionally, uranium has been identified by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) as a critical mineral necessary to the economic and national
security of the United States. The Department continues to study the
impacts of mining in the area proposed for permanent withdrawal to
provide future policy makers with the scientific data necessary to make
informed decisions.
The Department has concerns about the size and scope of the
withdrawal contained in the legislation; at over 1 million acres, the
withdrawal covers an area that is 80 percent of the size of the state
of Delaware.
Under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, Congress
has the ``power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
United States,'' and we respect Congress' role in this regard.
If Congress chooses to move forward with a permanent withdrawal,
the Department recommends several modifications to the bill, including
boundary adjustments to ensure local availability of mineral materials
for nearby communities and to enable environmentally responsible
development of uranium and other mineral resources, if determined to be
appropriate through site specific analysis. The sponsors may also wish
to consider language permitting lands within the proposed withdrawal to
be conveyed or leased under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act for
public purposes or exchanged to facilitate economic development for
local communities.
Statement on H.R. 2181, Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of
2019
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 2181, the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019, which would withdraw
approximately 200,652 Federal surface acres and approximately 333,827
acres of Federal subsurface mineral estate surrounding the Chaco
Culture National Historical Park (CCNHP) in northwestern New Mexico
from the public land, mining, mineral, and geothermal leasing laws.
Under President Trump's and Secretary Bernhardt's leadership, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has made it a top priority to
responsibly develop the vast domestic energy resources on public lands
to create jobs, lower costs for working Americans, and build a strong
economy. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, the total revenue generated from
responsible mineral development on Federal lands in the state of New
Mexico alone was over $1.3 billion, the vast majority of which came
from oil and gas operations. The Federal disbursement to the state of
New Mexico was over $634 million; the remainder was directed to the
U.S. Treasury for the benefit of all American taxpayers.
The Secretary also recognizes there are some places that may
benefit from enhanced protection. Striking the appropriate balance for
public lands use--whether it be energy development, recreation,
grazing, or historic preservation--can be a challenge, but it is a
mission the Department takes seriously.
Early last week, Secretary Bernhardt traveled to New Mexico and
visited CCNHP, along with New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich and Tribal
leaders. Following that visit, the Secretary gained a greater sense of
appreciation of the site managed by the National Park Service, and a
better understanding of the Tribal leaders' views of its cultural
significance.
In response, the Secretary has directed the BLM to develop and
publish a draft Resource Management Plan that includes an alternative
reflecting the Tribal leaders' views, which are similar to the proposed
legislative boundaries included in H.R. 2181. The Secretary also
directed the BLM to defer leasing within the 10-mile buffer zone for 1
year.
Under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, Congress
has the ``power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
United States,'' and we respect Congress' role in this regard. As a
result, the Department has no objection to H.R. 2181.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Michael Nedd, Deputy Director
of Operations, Bureau of Land Management
Mr. Nedd did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative O'Halleran
Question 1. Mr. Nedd, much was made about abandoned mines near the
Grand Canyon, but that debate focused mainly on proximity to the Rim,
rather than on the impacts these mines have had on communities and the
environment.
1a. How far is the Orphan mine from the Rim?
1b. What has the Department of the Interior done to prioritize
remediation of the Orphan mine?
1c. How much longer will this process take?
1d. How much will it cost?
Question 2. During the hearing, it was suggested that uranium
imports are a national security and energy supply risk.
2a. Why do utilities support the import of Uranium? Is it less
expensive?
2b. Does the United States import uranium from a diverse group of
nations? Are the majority of imports from long-standing allies?
2c. What percentage of uranium is imported from Russia?
Question 3. Is it true that Wyoming and New Mexico have by far the
largest Uranium reserves and constitute over two-thirds of the national
supply?
3a. Are mines in these states already developed?
3b. Are these mines free from contamination?
3c. What is the remediation plan for these mines?
Question 4. Much was made of USGS' ongoing studies in the region.
4a. Have these studies ever been funded at the level recommended in
their strategic plans?
4b. At current funding levels, when will these studies be
completed?
4c. Will these studies complete all of the goals outlined in their
initial planning documents?
Question 5. One issue with detecting uranium in the Grand Canyon
region is that, as experts have testified in the past, the groundwater
hydrologyis not well understood.
5a. Does USGS currently have a detailed mapping of groundwater flow
patterns throughout the region's that would be impacted by mining?
5b. Can USGS say definitively what the impacts of mining on
groundwater have been?
5c. How many well sites does USGS maintain around each operating
mine in the region?
Question Submitted by Representative Curtis
Question 1. Chairwoman Haaland read a statement from Representative
Lujan during the hearing: ``The BLM has testified that this legislation
would not affect tribal interests or allottees, while the bill itself
includes language that recognizes the rights of Navajo allottees such
as yourself, Ms. Hesuse, to continue to develop their lands.'' Rep's
Haaland and Lujan were referring to testimony from you on May 16 before
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
Public Lands, Forest and Mining regarding S. 1079. In answer to this
question from Senator Mike Lee: ``Do you know how tribal allottees and
horizontal drilling on allotted lands might be affected by the
protection zone and by this legislation?'' you answered, ``It is my
understanding that Tribal and allottees would not be affected by this
withdrawal. However, there will be challenges given the intermixing of
public, tribal and private land and of course the geography of the
lands.''
Were you referring to a specific analysis that BLM has done of the
allottee resources contained within the exclusionary zone that shows
how they will be affected by the withdrawal, or was it a general answer
to the plain language of the bill? If there has been an analysis, how
thorough was it? Did the study assess the resource potential, ownership
of the fluid minerals, and geological factors that would affect how
well allottee resources could be developed if the exclusionary zone
were enacted, and the economic impacts of stranded minerals?
Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
Question 1. Chair Haaland read a statement from Representative
Lujan during the hearing: ``The BLM has testified that this legislation
would not affect tribal interests or allottees, while the bill itself
includes language that recognizes the rights of Navajo allottees such
as yourself, Ms. Hesuse, to continue to develop their lands.'' Rep's
Haaland and Lujan were referring to testimony from you on May 16 before
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
Public Lands, Forest and Mining regarding S. 1079. In answer to this
question from Senator Mike Lee: ``Do you know how tribal allottees and
horizontal drilling on allotted lands might be affected by the
protection zone and by this legislation?'' you answered, ``It is my
understanding that Tribal and allottees would not be affected by this
withdrawal. However, there will be challenges given the intermixing of
public, tribal and private land and of course the geography of the
lands.'' Were you referring to a specific analysis that BLM has done of
the allottee resources contained within the exclusionary zone that
shows how they will be affected by the withdrawal, or was it a general
answer to the plain language of the bill? If there has been an
analysis, how thorough was it? Did the study asses the resource
potential, ownership of the fluid minerals, and geological factors that
would affect how well allottee resources could be developed if the
exclusionary zone were enacted, and the economic impacts of stranded
minerals?
Question 2. Besides uranium, flag stone, sand and gravel, vanadium,
copper, oil, coal, rare earths as well as other critical and strategic
metals would be locked away forever under Rep. Grijlava's bill. Deputy
Director Nedd, are you concerned that H.R. 1373 seeks to lock away
critical and strategic minerals on a one-million-plus-acre swath of
land forever?
Question 3. Uranium is critical for nuclear power, the most
reliable and clean zero-emission energy source. If the socialists
pushing the Green New Deal really want to transition off fossil fuels,
it defies logic and common sense that they oppose all domestic mining
and think we can just import enough of those minerals from Russia and
China to make this transition occur. Sheer insanity. Deputy Director
Need, is there enough domestic mining taking place in this country for
us to transition to 100 percent wind, solar and batteries for all our
energy needs and have all the minerals necessary for those energy
sources and that transition be produced in America?
Question 4. You testified that Uranium is on the critical minerals
list. Deputy Director Nedd, is importing 99 percent of the uranium we
need for nuclear reactors an energy security risk? How about a national
security risk?
Question 5. The breccia pipe formations in the withdrawal area in
H.R. 1373 represent the largest deposits of uranium in the United
States and contain the largest quantities of reserves and the highest
grades of American uranium ore by a factor of 6. The withdrawal area
constitutes the bulk of a 326,000,000 acre uranium reserve which the
Nuclear Energy Institute estimates would provide California's 45
million residents 22.5 years of electricity. Are you concerned that
H.R. 1373 seeks to lock away the largest quantities of reserves and the
highest grades of American uranium in the country?
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Nedd. Thank you for that
valuable testimony.
The Chair will now recognize Members for questions. Under
Committee Rule 3(d), each Member will be recognized for 5
minutes, and I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nedd, last month, when you testified before the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on the Chaco Cultural
Heritage Area Protection Act, you stated that the BLM places a
strong emphasis on government-to-government relations with
tribes, and continues to work closely with tribes.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Oil and
gas leasing in the area continues, despite calls from the
National Congress of American Indians, the Navajo Nation, and
the All Pueblo Council of Governors for a moratorium on leasing
until a comprehensive assessment of cultural resources in the
region is completed.
Can you briefly describe the efforts your agency has made
to engage with tribal governments on leasing decisions?
Mr. Nedd. Madam Chair, it is my understanding that at the
beginning of any planning process or attempt to lease, the
agency will reach out with phone calls, with letters, and on-
site visits by the local manager. It is my understanding that,
over the many years, there have been contacts or discussion
with the tribes. And as we sit here today, in that planning
effort we continue to be open to consultation and meeting with
the tribes.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Nedd.
Second, how has the January 31, 2019 BLM memorandum on
updating oil and gas leasing reforms influenced BLM's decision
to propose leasing in the Chaco area, despite the known
opposition and concerns?
Mr. Nedd. I am sorry, Madam Chair. I didn't hear your
question. What was the question?
Ms. Haaland. How has the January 31, 2019 BLM memorandum on
updating oil and gas leasing reforms--that is the title of the
memo--influenced BLM's decision to propose leasing in the Chaco
area, in spite of the known opposition and concerns from tribes
and other groups?
Mr. Nedd. Yes, Madam Chair, thank you for that question.
The memorandum laid out some guidance for the BLM to exercise
the discretion that is given to the Secretary. In that context,
again, BLM reaches out to the community, reaches out to
stakeholders in deciding, again, what will be leased, what will
not be leased. So, I see the aim as just laying out some
guidance, but doesn't get us away from consultation or from
working with our stakeholders.
Ms. Haaland. Do you believe that these internal policies
should supersede legal and moral obligations to consult with
Indian tribes?
Mr. Nedd. Madam Chair, what I will say is our policy is and
should continue to be consistent with the law, or the
regulatory framework that is in place. So, that is our attempt
whenever we put out a regulation or a policy.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Nedd. When speaking about oil
and gas extraction around Chaco Culture National Historical
Park, BLM has stated that it is a top priority for the agency
to develop the vast domestic energy resources on public lands,
to create jobs, lower costs for working Americans, and build a
strong economy. Did you know that in New Mexico, where Chaco is
located, more than twice as many jobs depend on outdoor
recreation as the energy and mining sectors combined?
Mr. Nedd. Madam Chair, I don't have the specific--you just
mentioned about the numbers. But what I do know, energy and
minerals is a vast resource, and helps to support this country.
And the Department's position is to environmentally and
responsibly develop those resources where appropriate.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. And I just would like to emphasize
that outdoor recreation is over billions of dollars for revenue
in New Mexico, as I am sure it is in other states. So, our
public lands are a viable resource for jobs and our economy.
Last question. When making leasing decisions, does the BLM
consider the economic benefits of clean air and water,
especially in light of the world's largest methane cloud in New
Mexico? It hovers over the northwestern portion of our state.
And the water intensity of hydraulic fracturing in arid
regions. I am talking, southwest New Mexico is 5,000 feet of
high desert.
Mr. Nedd. Madam Chair, thank you for the question. The
answer is yes on the NEPA. BLM takes into consideration the
effects or the impact on the environment, the air, the social
aspect, and BLM then tries to strike a balanced approach to how
resources will be developed or how resource will be used,
whether it is for recreation or other types of activity.
Ms. Haaland. I yield, and I will now recognize Mr. Curtis
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to yield
the balance of my time to my friend from Arizona, Congressman
Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Mr. Nedd, I am going to go through some things, some facts
about H.R. 1373. The bill has zero Republicans, and is a
partisan attack on my district. Located within this withdrawal
are 19,789 acres of privately held land. Also located in there
are 4,204 acres owned by the Arizona State Land Department for
the benefit of Arizona's schoolchildren. Locking away these
resources will cost Arizona and Utah hundreds of millions of
dollars in lost revenues that will help communities and
schools.
Dr. Singh testified that in 2009--this is an important
fact--over 55.6 percent of the total geography--the total
geography--of Arizona has already withdrawn from mineral
exploration and mining, over 50 percent has been withdrawn.
The Obama administration priorly had at least 31 domestic
mineral withdrawals. Their whole attack was to prevent mining
and unilaterally enact a 1 million acre withdrawal for 20 years
in 2012. It is not 2032, is it?
Mr. Nedd. No, it is not.
Dr. Gosar. So, what is the urgency, do you feel, about this
bill?
Mr. Nedd. Say again, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. What is the urgency with this bill? If it is not
2032, and there is a 20-year moratorium, what is the rush over
there?
Mr. Nedd. I don't know, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. There are other things that we know. The House
Science Committee found that Russia funneled cash to the
extreme organizations to intentionally undermine important
American energy projects. Are you aware of that, Mr. Nedd?
Mr. Nedd. No, I am not.
Dr. Gosar. It should be no surprise that many of the same
groups that are strong supporters of Representative Grijalva's
1-million-acre land grab are exactly some of these people. It
is pretty interesting that they want the United States to be
reliant on groups like Russia and Kazakhstan for 99 percent of
our uranium. That is pretty amazing.
This bill is an anti-mining anti-American attack on my
district, because many of the mines are on my side and in my
district. Is that true, Mr. Nedd?
Mr. Nedd. That is my understanding, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. So, isn't it interesting that the problem that
we see here is we hear Russia, Russia, Russia, and it seems
like it is Russia, Russia, Russia over on the other side. It is
unbelievable.
Besides uranium, flagstone, sand and gravel, vanadium
copper, oil, coal, rare earths, as well as other critical and
strategic minerals, would also be locked up under
Representative Grijalva's bill. Would that not be the case?
Mr. Nedd. That is my understanding, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. Has Arizona really mapped effectively this
withdrawal area?
Mr. Nedd. Can you repeat that, please?
Dr. Gosar. Has the BLM really mapped effectively this
withdrawal area for all different types of resources?
Mr. Nedd. I believe we have a good understanding. One may
argue what is extensive, but I believe we have a good
understanding, yes.
Dr. Gosar. Uranium is a critical element for nuclear power,
is it not?
Mr. Nedd. Yes it is, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. So, now we bring up the Green New Deal. And one
of the things that keeps coming from the other side is that we
are going to go on all renewables. That is about 7 percent of
our portfolio, is it not?
Mr. Nedd. Somewhere around there. I don't have the exact
number, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. Are you familiar with Mr. Shackelford's
comment that it is lunacy that you could think that renewables
could actually power the world? We at least have to have
nuclear power. You are aware of that commentary?
Mr. Nedd. I am not, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. It is a really good one, because if we are going
to depend upon renewables, we wouldn't have a tree standing.
Director Nedd, is there enough domestic mining taking place
in this country for us to transition to 100 percent wind,
solar, and geothermal, and battery storage?
Mr. Nedd. That is not my understanding, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. Who controls almost all the rare earth
dictations in the world?
Mr. Nedd. Say again.
Dr. Gosar. Who dictates the availability of rare earths in
the world? Is it the United States? Is it Russia? Is it China?
Mr. Nedd. There are a number of foreign countries,
Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. The majority is China. Well over 80 percent.
They have a monopoly on it. And everyone's cell phones and
everything, they have to have these rare earths. So, it is
pretty interesting, where these are located.
I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Gosar.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lowenthal for 5 minutes.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Chairwoman Haaland. And thank you
to all our witnesses for being here to testify on these two
incredibly important bills that we have before us.
Back in April, as the Chair of the Energy and Mineral
Resources Subcommittee, I had the good fortune of traveling to
New Mexico with Chair Grijalva and Vice Chair Haaland, where we
had a chance to hear firsthand about the threats that the
extractive industry has on the environment, on sacred sites,
and on the public health in the Southwest. I, along with the
Chair and the Vice Chair, had a chance to see the tremendous--
although the sky was clear and it looked like a beautiful day,
when we looked through a special photography, we saw the plumes
of methane escaping into the air. I am not talking about a
little bit. The entire sky was filled with methane, which was
not readily apparent if you were not able to investigate that,
or see that.
Chaco Canyon, which was right there where we were looking
at these plumes, right near there, is a national treasure. It
is a culturally important place for many tribes. And I can tell
you, after having been there, like the Grand Canyon it is truly
a special place.
With that, I would like to turn to you, Deputy Director
Nedd, for just for one question. Mr. Nedd, currently over half
of our uranium supplies come from our strongest allies--we are
talking about Australia and Canada--while the U.S. Department
of Energy estimates that we already have access to enough
uranium to meet our military needs until 2060. Let me say that
again--the Department of Energy says we have enough uranium to
meet our military needs until 2060.
Former Secretary of Energy Moniz has been quoted saying he
has never considered uranium to be a major security issue. And
even the Heritage Foundation--we are talking about the Heritage
Foundation--in a November 2018 publication wrote, ``There is no
compelling evidence that foreign-sourced uranium places current
or future military operations at risk.''
Even if we agreed with this premise that uranium mining was
a national security issue--and I do not agree with that
premise--it is important to note that the Grand Canyon region
only holds 0.29 percent of known U.S. uranium reserves. That is
less than three-tenths of 1 percent of known U.S. uranium
reserves.
Your written testimony states that one of the Department's
recommended modifications to the Grand Canyon Centennial
Protection Act would be to enable the development of uranium,
which is entirely antithetical to the point that we are
discussing today in this legislation.
Mr. Nedd, why is the Administration insistent on mining
uranium from the edge of the Grand Canyon, of all places, when
there is no compelling need to develop new domestic supplies,
and even less of a case to be made that this is the place to
develop these supplies?
Mr. Nedd. Thank you, Congressman. The Administration has
clearly laid out a strategy where it identified uranium as
critical to the economic and national security. And the
Administration has clearly laid out their case as to be less
dependent on foreign resources.
Dr. Lowenthal. Of our allies? We are talking about
Australia and Canada, which is a major source of where we--so
we are worried that there could be a shut-off of uranium from
our allies?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, again, the Administration has laid
out their position to be less dependent on those sources, and
to develop the resources here in an environmentally responsible
manner.
Dr. Lowenthal. And even though the Heritage Foundation and
also former Secretary Moniz said there is no need to have this
as a national security issue?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, I am not familiar with those
statements. I am sorry.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Fulcher for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Mr. Nedd, thank
you for your testimony.
Mr. Nedd, the information that I get does differ from my
good colleague from California, and what he just shared. The
information that I have been privy to indicates that uranium
is, in fact, a product that is constricted, and we are way too
dependent on unfriendly sources for that. And therein lies
probably the single biggest concern that I have about this.
I think maybe sometimes we take for granted the safety that
we have had in this Nation. Sometimes we may take for granted
the fact that, for the most part, we don't have to worry about
the same threats that many nations do.
So, with these deposits in this region potentially being
taken off the table, can you share your thoughts about what
that does to the domestic availability, the sources we can
actually control ourselves for uranium?
Mr. Nedd. Thank you for the question, Congressman. It is my
understanding, with not having it domestically available, it
then impacts our ability to have these critical minerals used
for everyday things we use: cell phones, automobiles,
computers, even appliances in our home. And the Administration
has laid out its position that, to achieve the economic and
national security, we need to develop the resources that are
available to us in an environmentally sound manner.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Nedd.
Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. This past Monday, the
Energy Information Agency reported that domestic uranium
production has collapsed. For First Quarter 2019, production
totaled 58,481 pounds. Our 98 domestic operating nuclear power
plant reactors require roughly 50 million pounds annually.
Thus, domestic production for calendar year 2019 is on pace to
be a fraction of about 1 percent of that total demand. We will
be importing roughly 99 percent--those are the numbers we are
getting--from Russia and Kazakhstan because of the flood of the
market from them.
The U.S. Navy, which is rapidly depleting stockpiled
uranium, supported adding uranium to the critical mineral list.
You testified that uranium is on the critical mineral list, did
you not?
Mr. Nedd. Yes, I did, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. And was it the U.S. Navy that actually had
impetus on that designation?
Mr. Nedd. I believe they were a part of it. It is a number
of them. Other agencies, too.
Dr. Gosar. Director Nedd, is importing 99 percent of the
uranium that we need for nuclear reactors an energy security
risk? And is it very important to this country, as far as
electrical grid appropriation?
Mr. Nedd. That is my understanding, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. The comment was made that--``on the edge of the
Grand Canyon.'' Are any of these on the edge of the Grand
Canyon? The mine sites.
Mr. Nedd. No, they are not, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. Do individuals walk across these breccia pipes?
Mr. Nedd. That is not my understanding.
Dr. Gosar. They do. They are exposed. Some of them are
exposed.
OK, so what is so critical about these breccia pipes, Mr.
Nedd? Are they less concentrated, or are they six or seven
times more concentrated than any other known reserve?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, I don't have enough knowledge about
those----
Dr. Gosar. About six times. They are about six times as
concentrated. So, they are like a plug. It is like a stopper in
the ground.
The geological formation in Arizona--we have a basin
subsurface called caliche clays. They are clays. And what ends
up happening, we ask water to perpetrate down into these
caliche clays, forming basins. And what these breccia pipes do
is they impede that. So, when they actually mine this breccia
pipe they go down, clear it out. It is a very small footprint.
And then there is the ability for water to permeate to lower
reaches of access for water holding. Does that sound like it is
a bad deal?
Mr. Nedd. Again, Congressman, I don't have the depth of
expertise to be able to address that question, so I will take
your word at it.
Dr. Gosar. Well, in Dr. Singh's commentary over and over
again there is no perpetration in regards to radioactivity in
the water, any different than what it is currently. And
currently water seeps through these breccia pipes and runs, so
everybody is exposed to it.
So, it is very interesting, what we see here.
I will yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. Without objection, I
would like to enter for the record an information sheet from
the U.S. Energy Information Administration, showing the sources
and shares of U.S. purchases of uranium produced in foreign
countries in 2017, and it shows Russia at 18 percent. Without
objection.
Next, Mr. Horsford, the Chair recognizes you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Chairwoman Haaland, for organizing
today's legislative hearing on H.R. 1373 and H.R. 2181.
H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act,
which I am proud to co-sponsor, would permanently prohibit new
mining claims on roughly 1 million acres surrounding the Grand
Canyon National Park. This bill would protect the integrity of
the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River watershed. It would
ensure clean water for all communities and habitat that depend
on the Colorado River, which supplies drinking water for more
than 1 million people in my home state of Nevada.
Unfortunately, the area surrounding the park is being
targeted by uranium mining companies who wish to open mines
directly adjacent to Grand Canyon Park. Uranium companies have
long argued the need to mine in the region. However, the
benefits of mining in the Grand Canyon are meager, compared
with the economic and ecological impact of the park.
While uranium and other hardrock mining can help foster
economic activity and--I take objection with the assertion that
this bill will somehow squelch mining, all together--has done
so in my home state. I support mining. Mining is an important
part of our economy in my state, as well as in other states.
But it has to be done in a responsible manner, particularly an
environmentally responsible manner. And it has to be done in
consultation with the communities that it impacts. Without
diligent oversight and planning, mining can have numerous
adverse effects that impact environmental and public health.
For example, in my district, the main water source for the
town of Yerington and the Yerington Paiute Tribe is
contaminated by the Anaconda Mine. The issue has persisted for
decades, endangering the health of my constituents, and forcing
families to stop drinking water from their taps. And literally,
they are having to bring in bottled water to the local
residents. Sadly, clean-up of this site and the sites like it
takes much longer than it should, leaving families to choose
between leaving their homes or living amongst health hazards.
Mr. Nedd, why is there no requirement to monitor
groundwater in or near uranium mines?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, there are requirements to monitor
the environment to understand the impact. And USGS has been----
Mr. Horsford. Are they specifically related to groundwater
near uranium mines?
Mr. Nedd. My understanding is the USGS has been doing a
study for a number of years in that area that includes water.
Mr. Horsford. OK. If you could please provide that
information to the Committee, I would appreciate it.
There is currently a 20-year moratorium on new mining
claims surrounding Grand Canyon National Park. However, this
moratorium is only administrative. The Trump administration,
which has expressed an intention to develop more uranium, can
withdraw it at any time. That is why this bill is necessary. I
hope the Trump administration will respect the moratorium. But
we cannot stand by and trust that this Administration will make
the right decision.
Millions of people living in Nevada, Arizona, and
California depend on the water that flows through the Grand
Canyon. This bill protects their water source and their
livelihood.
Mr. Nedd, under the Trump administration, the BLM has made
the development of domestic mineral resources a top priority,
committing to do so in an environmentally responsible way.
Unfortunately, in a rush to open an unprecedented number of
mines on our public lands, including in Nevada, the agency has
often failed to adequately consult with the impacted
communities and implement the necessary safety precautions.
How is the BLM ensuring that uranium and other resources
are being developed in an environmentally responsible way?
Mr. Nedd. Thank you for the question, Congressman. As I
mentioned before, the BLM goes through a NEPA process, the
National Environmental Protection Act. And in that context, we
are looking at what impacts maybe come from development, and
looking at how best to mitigate those impacts. We do engage
stakeholders and local communities, and we do make every effort
to develop those resources in an environmentally sound and
balanced manner.
Mr. Horsford. Do you agree you can improve on that?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, I think it is always a continuous
process. But the BLM works very hard to engage every single
individual who shows an interest.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Horsford. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Westerman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Nedd.
And I want to pick up where Mr. Horsford left off.
Mining is important. When we look at these devices we all
carry around--I believe the last thing I read is they have 60
to 65 different elements and minerals, a lot of rare earth
minerals in those devices. But most of those minerals are
produced in other countries.
Before I came here to Congress, I used to do a lot of
engineering work, not in mining, but I dealt with a lot of
Federal agencies in permitting, and I know how rigorous the
permitting process is and what great standards we have in this
country to make sure that we are good stewards of our
environment. And I would dare say that we do environmental
stewardship better than anybody else in the world, not to mean
we can't improve on it.
But Mr. Nedd, to elaborate a little bit more on what we do
to ensure that we are being good environmental stewards, how
does that stack up with other countries? Have you ever looked
at that to see how many incidents we have in America in mining,
compared to other countries, and how our standards stack up to
the rest of the world?
Mr. Nedd. Certainly, Congressman. Thank you for the
question. I have been in energy and minerals development for
over 12 years, and I have had an opportunity to meet with
delegates and individuals from foreign countries. And I think
America is second to none. We certainly work harder than any
other country to make certain we develop these resources in an
environmentally responsible manner.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you for that.
I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Nedd, right now the Colorado River has a
threshold of uranium actually occurring. Is that true?
Mr. Nedd. I am not familiar with that, to be----
Dr. Gosar. Of four parts per billion. And that is naturally
occurring, because what ends up happening is that these breccia
pipes are soluble in water and air. So, when they are exposed,
when we get monsoons, when we get snow, it melts, it dissolves,
and carries it down to the Grand Canyon.
It is interesting that that is quite a bit lower than what
the EPA sets as a threshold of 30 parts per billion. Four is
less than thirty, right?
Mr. Nedd. That is less than--my math tells me----
Dr. Gosar. There is some monitoring, it is my
understanding, that goes on along all this. No one gets away
without water treatment. We see it in Resolution Copper over
and over again, where we are remediating the water. We are
remediating tailing piles, and all that stuff. Yes, I agree,
the past hasn't been great for mining. But the new mining
techniques are impressive. You can have your clean air, your
clean water, and mining, too.
So, coming back to that, it seems to me that if these are
naturally occurring uranium piles, and it constantly is
dissolving into surface water that runs down into the Grand
Canyon, it would seem to me that it would be better to take it
out than to leave it in. It just seems kind of odd to me that
we have this fight over this. It is really impeccable.
Have you seen this map before? This is the current
allocation of the Grand Canyon estate.
Mr. Nedd. I can't say I have seen this exactly. It is
challenging to my eyes from here.
Dr. Gosar. Well, my point is mine sites aren't even close
to the rim, are they?
Mr. Nedd. No, they aren't.
Dr. Gosar. That is exactly my point. It is interesting how
we skew the facts on this application.
So, remediation, have you seen the remediation on this?
Have you been there?
Mr. Nedd. There is ongoing remediation, yes.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. Typically, once they get it done, it takes
4 to 7 years in that area. It is about a 40-acre footprint. You
can't tell. I have actually been out there with groups, and we
said, ``Find it.'' And they couldn't find it.
So, it seems like we are leaving it better than we actually
found it with the mining application. You know, Arizona is
where whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over,
and we all want clean water. And it seems to me like this is a
time for a come-to-Jesus moment on this.
With that, I will yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. DeGette
for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Nedd, I was very interested in a question that the
Chair asked you, and I didn't really hear you answer her
question. She remarked that in her home state the revenues from
recreation and tourism are, I think she said, about double from
energy extraction. And we are finding the same thing throughout
the Rocky Mountain West and Southwest.
In my home state of Colorado--and you know I am a fourth-
generation Coloradoan--when I was young it was agriculture and
oil and gas development. But now we are seeing the economy
shift more and more to recreation and the outdoors. So, I just
want to ask you a couple of questions about that.
And these should be pretty easy questions. Does the BLM
believe that there is a role for protection of public lands
that would not involve oil and gas leases?
Mr. Nedd. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. The
Secretary believes there are some areas that are special and
deserve enhanced protection. So, in the multiple use he does
believe there are some areas that deserve that kind of
protection----
Ms. DeGette. Exactly. And multiple use doesn't mean every
thing every place. It means you have to look at each particular
area to decide what is the appropriate use. Some areas might be
appropriate for oil and gas leasing, some might be available
for mechanized recreation, others might be characterized as
wilderness or other types of land. So, wouldn't that be an
accurate description of the BLM's diverse policy?
Mr. Nedd. Well, the BLM has a multiple use.
Ms. DeGette. That is right.
Mr. Nedd. And in that context it is commercial,
conservation, recreation, and the BLM works hard to, again,
have a balanced approach to how we develop resources or other
use.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. And I appreciate you clarifying
that, because what we are seeing in Colorado--and I think
probably in Arizona and New Mexico, other parts of the
Southwest--is sometimes we feel that this Administration, their
default view is to issue oil and gas leases, and then to look
at the appropriateness later. Is that a policy of your agency,
sir?
Mr. Nedd. The President and the Administration have laid
out what it is calling an all-of-the-above energy strategy.
And----
Ms. DeGette. Sir, excuse me. You are not answering my
question. My question is, is the Administration's policy to
issue the oil and gas leases first, and then to determine
whether it is appropriate for that area?
Mr. Nedd. The Administration's policy is to develop the
resources we have in an environmentally sound manner.
Ms. DeGette. Yes, I understand you said that. But how do
you do that? Do you assume that it is going to be appropriate
for oil and gas, and then look at it? Or do you have another
process? It is not a difficult question.
Mr. Nedd. Well, we go through our land use planning
process. And from that land use planning process we----
Ms. DeGette. And what are the criteria in the land use
planning process?
Mr. Nedd. The criteria is to look at the values and the
best use of those properties, and then the BLM makes a decision
based on that.
Ms. DeGette. OK. And the values, what determines what the
values are?
Mr. Nedd. Congresswoman, there are a number of things that
go into that, including the economic value, including the
social values, including listening to stakeholders and
communities.
Ms. DeGette. OK. This leads to my last question, which is
about the Chaco bill. And, by the way, I have been to Chaco, it
is an amazing, magical place, and I know Mr. Gosar really
treasures it, as well as the rest of us.
But 3 weeks ago, the Administration said in front of the
Senate that it was going to go ahead and do oil and gas
leasing. Then, apparently, the Secretary went and looked at
this area with a Senator, and came back and announced that
there was a moratorium on new leasing for 10 miles of Chaco to
allow time for Congress to consider legislation. Do you have
any idea what changed in that interim time and with that visit?
Mr. Nedd. Congresswoman, I know the Secretary has been out
there. He says that some places deserve an enhanced protection,
and he has made a decision, so we are going to follow that
decision.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. And, by the way, I apologize, Mr.
Gosar. The Grand Canyon bill is in your state, not Chaco. Chaco
is in the Chair's state, sorry.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Ms. DeGette. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Gosar for 5 minutes.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Nedd, multiple use was a benefit for the
western states to have Federal land. But we share the revenues,
right?
Mr. Nedd. Yes, Congressman.
Dr. Gosar. It was supposed to be 50/50 until the Budget Act
deal Paul Ryan signed, and it is 52/48 now. Isn't that true?
Mr. Nedd. My understanding, it is less than 50 percent, and
sometimes we debate what that is----
Dr. Gosar. Well, 52 to the Federal Government, 48 to the
states.
So, now, when we talk about revenue sharing and about this
multiple use, who generates the biggest chunk of that money? Is
it mining, oil and gas, or is it recreation?
Mr. Nedd. It is energy and minerals. It would be mining,
oil and gas, and such.
Dr. Gosar. Are you aware of any study, a peer-reviewed
study, that shows any disturbance to water with fracking?
Mr. Nedd. Not that I am aware of.
Dr. Gosar. That is what I keep saying. You can't find that.
It is hard to find, so with peer-reviewed, it is a lot of scare
tactics.
You made a comment that they are not mutually exclusive.
So, having mining, recreation, all those can be done at the
same time, can they not?
Mr. Nedd. There are places where that has been successfully
done, yes.
Dr. Gosar. The point of dependable, affordable energy is
that you have to have an economy that is based on business. Is
that true?
Mr. Nedd. From my business economics class, yes.
Dr. Gosar. OK. So, to be able to travel, you have to have
some money set aside from a business, unless you work for the
Federal Government. Right? I mean they just print money. That
is why we are $22 trillion in debt.
But you have to have that disposable money to go out to
enjoy those sites, right?
Mr. Nedd. That is my understanding, my belief.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. So, there is the dependency upon a
predicated, predictable, low-cost energy factor, to the whole
process of enjoying our public lands. Right?
Mr. Nedd. That is my understanding.
Dr. Gosar. Now, I also understand that out West we have
problems funding our public schools. Have you followed that?
Mr. Nedd. To some degree in my home state, yes.
Dr. Gosar. The Federal Government doesn't pay taxes on that
land, does it?
Mr. Nedd. I am not familiar with----
Dr. Gosar. They don't.
Mr. Nedd. No, they don't.
Dr. Gosar. They don't, so we are constantly dependent upon
that multiple use for the money to come into our school
districts to actually fund public education. And when you don't
do that, then we are dependent upon robbing Peter to pay Paul.
There has to be a different way in which to break this
argument. I brought up earlier that 55 percent--55 percent--of
the geography of Arizona has been whisked away in a moratorium
for mining and anything else.
Let me ask you the next question. When you do a withdrawal
and you go into, like, a wilderness--this is where they want to
go, OK? Does that restrict multiple use on that land?
Mr. Nedd. Generally, when the wilderness is established, it
restricts various types of use, unless there is a valid and
existing use, yes.
Dr. Gosar. OK, so forest thinning is problematic, grazing
is problematic, even airplane travel is problematic. Is that
true?
Mr. Nedd. Again, unless when it was established, the
legislation or enabling act allowed those uses, yes.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I distinctly remember in my first term
having the Park System trying to have no flights over the Grand
Canyon, and we were able to mitigate that with quiet air
technology. Are you aware of that at all?
Mr. Nedd. Vaguely.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, individuals and environmental groups didn't
want people that are disabled to be able to enjoy the Grand
Canyon with a flyover. That is pretty interesting to say,
``Listen, we are going to wall this off. We are going to abuse
the multiple-use doctrine that we established with the
states,'' and then our public schools are faced with constant
funding problems. This just keeps--you can't make this stuff
up. You can't make this stuff up.
Mr. Nedd, I appreciate you. I thank you very, very much.
And thanks for coming today.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. The Chair recognizes
Chairman Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank
you very much for this hearing on two very significant pieces
of legislation.
Mr. Nedd, a couple of quick questions. Do you know, in
reviewing the legislation and your recommendation, in terms of
the acreage involved with the Grand Canyon ban, how much of
that acreage in the legislation is private?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, it is my understanding somewhere
around 19,000 acres is private surface.
Mr. Grijalva. And the legislation--and I would suggest that
the Department and the people that work with you go back
through that legislation. The withdrawal area and where the ban
on uranium mining would be is all Federal land. There is no
public land that belongs to the state or municipality. Nor is
there a private land. We were very scrupulous about making sure
that was the issue. And based on what you find out, I would
suggest you to communicate that to the Committee.
Uranium mining. What is the amount of royalties that we get
from uranium mining?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, I don't have a number to give you,
in terms of royalty we have collected from----
Mr. Grijalva. If hardrock mining is considered mining--and,
right now, based on the 1872 law, the answer is zero, isn't it?
Mr. Nedd. Again, under the 1872 mining law there are no
royalties that are paid, Congressman.
Mr. Grijalva. On Federal land.
Mr. Nedd. On Federal land, yes.
Mr. Grijalva. State land adjacent to it they pay. They pay
royalties there, but they don't pay on Federal land. So, there
is no net return for the taxpayer from hardrock mining and
uranium mining in this case, in particular.
The other issue is, in reviewing specifically uranium
mining, how much of the extracted uranium on Federal land--or
any land, any particular private or other public land, or
tribal land--how much of that is for domestic use, and how much
is exported?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, I do not have a specific figure to
give you here. We can get that information.
Mr. Grijalva. That would be very important, because this
energy self-sufficiency dominance begs the question about how
much we are sending out of the country with no royalties being
paid to the American taxpayer.
Chaco Canyon. How long is the pause for, in terms of the
protection that was laid out by the Secretary?
Mr. Nedd. The Secretary said at least for the next year
there would be no leasing.
Mr. Grijalva. And implied in that, at least I think I am
interpreting it as a direction to this Committee to hurry up
and make that permanent so it is codified into law. Would that
be an assumption of yours?
Mr. Nedd. I cannot speak to his assumption. I can speak to
what I have heard from the Secretary, and he would like to have
1 year while we continue the resource management plan. And he
asked us to get a draft out as soon as we can.
Mr. Grijalva. But if the Secretary felt that for a year,
based on his conversations with the tribal leaders, other
community people, and the Senator, obviously, that it was
necessary to impose a 1-year moratorium on activity and
extraction around Chaco, one could assume that that was not
made without consideration for one of the options being studied
to make that permanent. Correct?
Mr. Nedd. Again, Congressman, the Secretary has asked for
the 1-year, and he has asked us to incorporate an alternative
that represents the views of the tribal leaders.
Mr. Grijalva. But we heard on that trip that Mr. Lowenthal
was mentioning, that he led into New Mexico and Chaco Canyon in
particular--what we heard from tribal leadership across the
board was a permanent protection for that significant site to
Native people and to the history of the Nation.
So, I am taking that to heart, that that is what the
Secretary wanted. I think we should be about the business of
giving him what he wants. But that is down the road.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva. The Chair
recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been sitting
here kind of in amazement, but I do have a couple questions. I
wasn't going to ask this panel any questions, but I have to.
Does the Department of the Interior have a full concept of
the groundwater patterns under the Basin that is affected in
Arizona?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, it is my understanding the USGS has
been doing studies. I cannot speak specifically whether they
have it full, but I know they have been doing studies for a
number of years, and have a good idea of sort of what are the
various aspects of that.
Mr. O'Halleran. Well, my information coming from the USGS
is no, they don't. They don't have it for the sea aquifer, the
area around the Grand Canyon, or many other areas in that area.
They have been trying to get money and funding to drill
monitoring wells so they can get that understanding. They had a
program, as part of a cleanup and restoration of the Navajo
Nation uranium mines, to find out the contamination process in
that area, and they have not started that process at all.
And now it is going to be 2035 if we even get funding for
them. Are you familiar with the Navajo reservation and the
uranium mines on the Navajo reservation?
Mr. Nedd. Peripherally, if I may say that, Congressman.
Mr. O'Halleran. The 530-some mines that have not been
reclamated.
Mr. Nedd. I do not have the exact number, but----
Mr. O'Halleran. Earlier we heard that 3 or 4 percent parts
per billion was a dangerous level for uranium. Is that true?
Mr. Nedd. Again, I do not have that specificity of detail,
Congressman.
Mr. O'Halleran. Well, the EPA, on all those 500 or some odd
mines has indicated that none of them are safe. Not one of them
is safe. And I have an issue, when it is has been over 70 years
that these uranium mines have been exposed to our citizens, and
yet nothing has been cleaned up.
We had to go out and sue. Did you know that, in order to
get the money to help clean up, that we had to go out and sue
mining companies in order to get some of the money? Not all of
it, just some of it, $1.7 billion. Did you know that?
Mr. Nedd. Again, I don't have specifics on that,
Congressman, that I can respond to.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you. Do you know that the U.S.
government is on the hook for the rest of it, the citizens of
America, and that right now is running easily in the hundreds
of millions of dollars, and with an unknown amount of money
into the future? Because that only addresses about 200 mines of
the 500-and-some-odd mines that need to be remediated. Did you
know that?
Mr. Nedd. Again, no, Congressman.
Mr. O'Halleran. Have you ever been down to Havasupai?
Mr. Nedd. I have.
Mr. O'Halleran. What do you think of it?
Mr. Nedd. Like much of the West--well, much of the United
States--I think it is a beautiful area, and I enjoy visiting
the various parts of the western United States.
Mr. O'Halleran. Great. Well, welcome to Congressional
District 1, and I am sure they like folks like you being down
there.
On the other case, do you know if that water is safe or
not? Their main source of water, their only source of water,
and a tremendous impact on their economy, do you know if that
is safe or not?
Mr. Nedd. Again, Congressman, I don't have the specific
details. However, while I was in that area I drank water, so I
am assuming the water I drank is safe.
Mr. O'Halleran. Right now, but we don't know with
additional uranium mining, we don't know if it is safe or not
right now from uranium contamination.
Do you know that there is a mine in production on and off?
Because the prices in America are so low that that is why we
are seeing so much import--or so high we are seeing so much
import from outside the country on uranium.
And we have heard statistics earlier about the amount of
uranium on a total basis in America that is within the area
that we are talking about. But that mine within 6 miles from
the Grand Canyon has had a multitude of issues of not paying
correct attention to the regulatory issues on how to address
the mine in and of itself. It has taken water out of that mine
and sprayed it all over the land up there. It has not
appropriately addressed the issues to the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, or to the Federal Government. And there
appears to have not been enough thought in this whole process,
as far as how much--and I will yield, I will get back to that
later.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. O'Halleran. I thank the
witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for
their questions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Nedd, for taking your time to be
here with us today. And I now invite the second panel to take
their places at the witness table.
[Pause.]
Ms. Haaland. As with the first panel, oral statements are
limited to 5 minutes, but your entire statement will be part of
the hearing record.
The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is 1
minute left and red when time has expired.
After the witnesses have testified, Members will be given
the opportunity to ask questions.
The Chair now recognizes Chairman Grijalva of the Natural
Resources Committee.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. I thank you, Chairwoman
Haaland, I appreciate this hearing very much.
I wasn't planning on making an opening statement on today's
proceeding, but I feel the need to respond to some of the
misinformation that has been put out about the legislation,
H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act.
I want to make sure we are all looking at the same bill
text, because it seems there is some confusion between the bill
and previous versions which included a national monument. This
bill is a simple mineral withdrawal. It doesn't limit multiple
use. It doesn't limit non-mining activities in the region,
period.
Letters of opposition submitted to the record already today
oppose a monument. But bipartisan polling shows that 78 percent
of Arizonans support a mineral withdrawal around the Grand
Canyon. We have received letters of support from across the
spectrum from tribal communities, from local governments, those
governments most impacted by this ban, and the state has not
taken a position on the proposal. To suggest the bill receives
significant opposition is factually incorrect. We have received
support from hundreds of businesses and community
organizations, and thousands of Arizonans who recognize that
these protections are the right path forward for northern
Arizona and the Grand Canyon.
This legislation only involves Federal land, not other
public lands belonging to other jurisdictions, nor private
land.
I want to thank my colleague, Mr. O'Halleran, who
represents the vast majority of the lands touched by this
proposal, who has been a strong voice for advocating for these
protections, and a good partner in putting this legislation
together.
The people of Arizona know the facts. Uranium mining is a
threat to our precious water resources, to our tribal
communities, and to one of our greatest national treasures.
I strongly support the legislation, Madam Chair. I urge my
colleagues to make sure they are looking at the most updated
version of this proposal, and that they are considering the
facts when they weigh in on the legislation.
Again, Ms. Haaland, thank you and I look forward to today's
proceeding. I appreciate the indulgence, and I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 30 seconds to
introduce the Honorable Carletta Tilousi.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me get to
that part of my notes, please.
It is my pleasure to introduce Councilwoman Carletta
Tilousi of the Havasupai Tribe. Councilwoman Tilousi has been a
tireless advocate of the Havasupai Tribe and the Grand Canyon.
She was born and raised in Supai Village at the bottom of the
Grand Canyon, the Councilwoman is committed to ensuring that
the Havasupai ancestral homeland remains a safe place to live.
The Councilwoman has served on the Tribal Council for seven
terms, and has served as a U.S. delegate. The Councilwoman is
also president of the Red Rock Foundation, which focuses on
tribal, educational, and environmental issues.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. O'Halleran.
And Councilwoman, before you begin your testimony, I notice
that you have a number of tribal members with you today, and I
would like to acknowledge their presence and thank all of you
also for coming today. Thank you so much.
Councilwoman, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLETTA TILOUSI, COUNCILWOMAN, HAVASUPAI
TRIBE, SUPAI, ARIZONA
Ms. Tilousi. Good morning, Chairwoman Haaland, Ranking
Member, and Subcommittee members. My name is Carletta Tilousi.
I am an elected member of the Havasupai Tribal Council. I am
here on behalf of the Havasupai Tribe to support H.R. 1373, the
Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, which we understand
will permanently ban new uranium mines on the rims of our
canyon home, and any new mining claims.
There are currently 831 uranium claims on Federal lands
next to my reservation, the Havasupai Tribe, and also the Grand
Canyon National Park.
The Tribe supports the bill because it will permanently
protect a million acres of public lands from mining that will
contaminate Havasu Creek in my village.
Our village also has beautiful waterfalls that attract
millions of tourists from all around the world. However, many
Americans feel falsely, or believe that the Grand Canyon is
already protected from mining and development. However, the
1872 Mining Law allows any mining company to come on to Federal
public lands and stake claims and conduct mining operations on
public lands.
Uranium mining has already poisoned and will continue to
poison the springs and waters of my Grand Canyon home. It will
be poisoning the land, the plants, the animals, and the people
that live there, including all the visitors that come visit the
Grand Canyon.
We, the Havasupai people, live in one of the most remote
canyons in North America. Our village is located at the bottom
of the Grand Canyon, only accessible by horse, helicopter, or
hiking in.
The Havasupai means ``people of the blue-green water.'' My
family and my ancestors have lived in the canyon for thousands
of years. Havasupai Creek is spring-fed and naturally flows
through our village, year-round. It is our main source of water
that has sustained my family, my people, the plants, and
animals for many years. It has created beautiful blue-green
waterfalls that we live and enjoy in our home.
The Tribe has fought for over 30 years to protect our
waters from current and proposed mining on Federal lands
located on the rims of the Grand Canyon.
Currently, a uranium mine called Canyon Mine is located
right above Havasu Creek and in the flood plain of the canyon.
Our village has recently experienced devastating floods that
came right through our village, coming right off the rims of
the canyon. There is a large potential of groundwater
contamination from the mines that are being proposed on the rim
of the Grand Canyon. The water from Havasu Creek flows directly
through my village and drains right into the Colorado River,
which is the primary source of water for millions of cities
located downstream, such as Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, and Los
Angeles.
The legacy of uranium mining has already caused radioactive
contamination of the Colorado River, and any additional
contamination will add further to the problem.
The catastrophic effects of uranium mining is well known to
Native Americans in the Southwest. There are hundreds of
contaminated sites in Arizona and New Mexico that were left
abandoned by uranium mining.
After decades of struggling, Canyon Mine recently opened
and immediately caused unanticipated contamination. Reports
recently showed that Canyon Mine left and pierced a perched
aquifer, causing 18 gallons of water per minute to leak into
the mine shaft since early 2017.
In 2018, 9.6 million gallons of groundwater spilled into
the mining shaft at Canyon Mine.
The mining company is supposed to store the contaminated
water on site, per the plan of operations approved by the
Kaibab Forest Service. They did not have the proper plan or the
back-up plan to address this issue, so they started spraying it
all over the site in attempts to evaporate the pond.
Canyon Mine sits above the largest aquifer in the
Southwest, a sole source for Havasu Creek and the Grand Canyon
National Park.
According to the National Academy of Science, there are no
safe levels of consumption of ionizing radiation. The only safe
level is zero. The Havasupai Tribe is on the front lines of
uranium contamination. Every day, my people fear groundwater
contamination. Once our water is contaminated, there will be no
more Havasupai, and we will continue to affect all humans and
animals living downstream.
For these reasons we, the Havasupai, request your support
for H.R. 1373 to permanently protect the natural resources of
Grand Canyon that will include the animals, plants, and the
people that live there, as well as millions of visitors around
the world.
I have lost direct family and friends because they were
exposed to uranium. Every day I miss them, and I hope that
nobody will experience the pain that I have went through.
Thank you for allowing me to tell my story.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tilousi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carletta Tilousi, Tribal Council of the Havasupai
Tribe on H.R. 1373
My name is Carletta Tilousi and I am an elected Member of the
Havasupai Tribal Council. I am here on behalf of the Havasupai Tribe to
support H.R. 1373, which will permanently ban uranium mining and the
establishment of new mining claims on Federal lands located next to the
Grand Canyon National Park and the Havasupai Indian Reservation. The
Tribe supports the Bill because it will permanently protect 1 million
acres of public lands from mining, including uranium mining that
threatens Havasu Creek, which flows through our homeland and forms our
famous waterfalls.
The Grand Canyon is a world famous natural wonder and a national
treasure. Millions of people visit the Grand Canyon every year. Many
Americans falsely believe that public lands like the Grand Canyon, and
the Federal lands surrounding the Grand Canyon, are already protected
from development and mining. However, the 1872 Mining Law, that is
still a valid U.S. law, allows mining companies to stake mining claims
and conduct mining operations on public lands.
Uranium mining has already poisoned and will continue to poison the
Grand Canyon. It will poison the groundwater and aquifers that feed
into the Colorado River. It will poison the land, the plants, the
animals, the people that live there, and the visitors.
The Havasupai Tribe is one of the most remote communities in North
America. We are located at the bottom of the Grand Canyon in Supai
Village, which is accessible only by horse, helicopter, or 8-mile hike.
My people have lived in the canyon for thousands of years. There are no
roads or cars in our Village. Havasu Creek is a natural, spring-fed
creek that flows through our Village year-round. It is our only source
of water--for our people, livestock, crops, and orchards. It creates
beautiful blue-green waterfalls that are visited by thousands of
tourists each year. It is the lifeblood of our Tribe. Havasupai means
``People of the Blue Green Waters.'' The Tribe has fought for over 30
years to save our waters from current and proposed mining operations on
Federal lands next to the Grand Canyon National Park and the Havasupai
Indian Reservation. Currently, a uranium mine, called Canyon Mine, is
located above Supai Village in the Havasu Creek watershed and
floodplain. In fact, our village has experienced several recent
devastating floods.
The water from Havasu Creek flows into the Colorado River, which is
the primary source of water for millions of people in large cities
located downstream including Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, and Los
Angeles. The legacy of uranium mining has already caused radioactive
contamination of the Colorado River, and additional contamination will
only add to the problem.
The catastrophic effects of uranium mining are well-known to the
Native Peoples of the Southwest. There are hundreds of contaminated
mining sites in Arizona and New Mexico that have been abandoned by
mining companies. After decades of struggle, the Canyon Mine recently
opened and has immediately caused unanticipated contamination. For
example, reports show that the mining shaft pierced a perched aquifer
causing approximately 5 to 9 gallons of water per minute to leak into
the mine shaft since early 2017. In 2018 alone, 96,000,000 gallons of
groundwater spilled into the mining shaft at Canyon Mine. The mining
company must store the contaminated water on site; however, they do not
have enough capacity, so they spray the contaminated water into the air
in an attempt to speed evaporation.
Canyon Mine sits above the largest aquifer in the Southwest. This
aquifer is the sole source of water for Havasu Creek, and Grand Canyon
National Park. We share the same water. According to the National
Academy of Sciences, there is no safe level of human consumption of
ionizing radiation--the only safe level is zero. In total, as of 2018,
there are 831 uranium mining claims on Federal lands surrounding the
Grand Canyon. These cannot be allowed to proceed.
The Havasupai Tribe is on the front line of any uranium mining
contamination, but all people, all life downstream will be affected.
For these reasons, the Havasupai Tribe requests your support for H.R.
1373 to permanently protect the natural resources of the Grand Canyon
including the animals, plants, and the people that live there as well
as the millions of visitors from around the world.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Councilwoman. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 30 seconds to introduce the
Honorable Coral Evans.
Mr. O'Halleran. It is my pleasure to introduce Flagstaff
Mayor Coral Evans. Mayor Evans is the third generation of her
family to live in Flagstaff, where she is a tireless advocate
for improving the lives of Flagstaff residents and ensuring the
city's tourism economy remains strong.
Mayor Evans has been recognized by numerous business groups
for her efforts to strengthen Flagstaff's economy. These awards
include the Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce's Anthem
Award, and she was named Arizona's Most Influential Woman in
Business by Arizona Business Magazine.
And she has a tireless concern about the safety and welfare
of the citizens of Flagstaff.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CORAL EVANS, MAYOR, CITY OF FLAGSTAFF,
ARIZONA
Ms. Evans. Chairwoman Haaland, Ranking Member Young,
Subcommittee members and guests, my name is Coral Evans. I am
the Mayor of the city of Flagstaff, Arizona. Thank you for
allowing me to be here today to testify on an issue that is
very important to my community: H.R. 1373. I ask that my entire
statement be included in the record.
I would also like to say thank you to our Congressman, Tom
O'Halleran, and Chairman Grijalva for their support and
leadership on this issue.
Flagstaff is known as the gateway to the Grand Canyon. It
is the largest city in northern Arizona, with a growing
population of over 75,000 people. It is the most popular
starting point for those visiting the Grand Canyon National
Park, one of the seven natural wonders of the world. Our city
and businesses rely on the nearly 6 million visitors who come
to the Grand Canyon each year and visit and stay in our
community, which is only 85 miles from the national park.
The Grand Canyon National Park is the lifeblood of our
community and our economy, and protecting it now and for future
generations is of paramount interest. For this reason we
strongly support H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon Centennial
Protection Act. As you know, this legislation will enact a
permanent moratorium on uranium mining for approximately 1
million acres in and around Grand Canyon National Park.
Let me be clear. Uranium mining is important in the United
States and the world economy, but uranium contamination is not.
Between 1956 and 2009, it is estimated that mining companies
extracted almost 23 million pounds of uranium in the Grand
Canyon region as a resource for nuclear power plants and
weapons. Unfortunately, the history of uranium in northern
Arizona is one of destruction and waste. It is estimated that
there are nearly 500 abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo
Reservation alone, and estimates of nearly 2,000 more mines
abandoned in and around the Grand Canyon. These abandoned mines
are permanently destroying natural water resources and land,
and could have irreversible effects on the Grand Canyon
watershed and the land around it. We cannot allow this to
happen to one of nature's most beautiful landscapes.
Water in Arizona is our most precious resource. It is life.
For this reason, Madam Chair, the city of Flagstaff has passed
a resolution in support of this bill. I ask that you
unanimously consent that this resolution will be inserted into
the hearing record.
Chairman Grijalva has and continues to be a champion for
our community and the Grand Canyon. His commitment to this
issue is well known. We applaud his determination on this
critical issue.
Unfortunately, in 2017, the U.S. Forest Service began the
process of lifting the uranium ban at the Grand Canyon. If the
ban is lifted, what are some of the potential impacts on
Flagstaff?
First, our water supply could be permanently polluted. This
is unacceptable. We have a limited water supply, and we work
extremely hard to protect it.
Second, the ban could also affect tourism. Most of our
economy is based on tourism in the Grand Canyon and the
surrounding areas. Many of the businesses and their staff, as
well as support workers for the Grand Canyon and other tourist-
based industries, live and work in Flagstaff.
Finally, the city is concerned that lifting the 20-year
moratorium may lead to dangerous and harmful radioactive
materials being transported through our community.
Madam Chair, the Administration has the obligation to clean
up the hundreds--potentially thousands--of abandoned mines in
the region, some of which have permanently polluted aquifers,
negatively impacting many in northern Arizona, including
sovereign nations. Before the Administration considers lifting
the ban, they need to clean up every single one of the legacy
mines. This would be the right thing to do.
Madam Chair, it is extremely important to enact H.R. 1373
to permanently protect these lands and water that are so
valuable and precious to Flagstaff, Arizona and surrounding
communities. We are extremely thankful to Chairman Grijalva for
championing this issue, and we thank you for your leadership in
holding this hearing today. I am happy to answer any questions
that you or any of the other Subcommittee members may have.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Evans follows:]
Prepared Statement of Coral Evans, Mayor, City of Flagstaff, Arizona on
H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act
Chairwoman Haaland, Ranking Member Young, Subcommittee members and
guests, I am Coral Evans, Mayor of Flagstaff, Arizona. Thank you for
allowing me to be here today to testify on an issue that is so
important to my community, H.R. 1373. I ask that my entire statement be
included in the record. I also want to thank our Congressman, Tom
O'Halleran, and Chairman Grijalva for their support and leadership on
this issue.
Flagstaff is known as the gateway to the Grand Canyon. It is the
largest city in northern Arizona with a growing population of over
75,000 and is the most popular launching point for those visiting Grand
Canyon National Park, one of the seven natural wonders of the world.
Our city and our businesses are reliant on the nearly 6 million
visitors who come to the Grand Canyon each year and visit and stay in
our community, which is only a short 85 miles to the National Park. We
welcome these visitors with some of the finest amenities, including
great hotels, eclectic restaurants and some of the finest craft
breweries in the United States. All of this is housed in a community
surrounded by some of the most beautiful peaks in the West and land
that is 7,000 feet above sea level, which is a welcome respite from the
desert heat.
Grand Canyon National Park is the lifeblood of our community and
economy and protecting it now and for future generations is of
paramount interest. For this reason, we strongly support H.R. 1373, the
Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act. As you know, this legislation
will enact a permanent moratorium on uranium mining for approximately 1
million acres in and around Grand Canyon National Park.
Let me be clear: uranium mining is important to the United States
and world economy, but uranium contamination is not. Between 1956 and
2009, it is estimated that mining companies extracted approximately
23.3 million pounds of uranium in the Grand Canyon region as a resource
for nuclear power plants and weapons. Unfortunately, its history in
northern Arizona is one of degradation and waste. It is estimated that
there are nearly 500 abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo Nation
reservation alone and estimates of nearly 2,000 more abandoned in and
around the Grand Canyon. These abandoned mines are permanently
destroying water resources and land, and could have irreversible
effects on the Grand Canyon watershed and land around it. We cannot
allow this to happen to one of nature's most beautiful landscapes. In
Arizona water is our most precious resource, it is life. We must
protect this asset. The future of our communities is dependent on water
and access to that water.
For this reason, Madame Chair, the city of Flagstaff has passed a
resolution in support of this bill. I ask for unanimous consent that
this resolution be inserted in the hearing record: https://
naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Flagstaff_2019
_FinalResolution.pdf.
Chairman Grijalva has, and continues to be, a champion for our
community and the Grand Canyon. His commitment to this issue is well
known over the years. In March 2008, Chairman Grijalva introduced his
first bill to withdraw lands from mineral exploration near the Grand
Canyon. Over the years, he has held several Committee hearings on this
subject at the Grand Canyon and pressured both Republican and
Democratic administrations to withdraw these sensitive lands from
exploration. Because of his continued pressure, in January 2012, then-
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar ordered a 20-year moratorium on new
mining claims in the approximately 1 million acres in and around the
Grand Canyon. We applaud his determination on this critical issue.
Unfortunately, however, in November 2017, the U.S. Forest Service began
the process of lifting the uranium ban at the Grand Canyon.
If the ban is lifted, what are some of the potential effects on
Flagstaff? First, our water supply could be permanently polluted. This
is unacceptable. We already have a limited water supply and we work
incredibly hard to protect these resources. The City has gone so far as
to purchase the Red Gap Ranch, 40 miles east of town, to secure an
additional water source to ensure that we have a 100-year water supply.
In addition, we have an aggressive water recycling program and other
sustainability measures to ensure that we protect our water resources.
Every summer our residents are requested to limit their water use to
comply with our robust water conservation enforcement program. Water is
a precious commodity to the City and if we somehow poison our aquifers,
we simply can't survive.
Second, lifting the uranium ban will also effect tourism. Most of
Flagstaff's economy is based on tourism to the Grand Canyon and
surrounding areas. For instance, we have several rafting outfits and
other tour operators that conduct business out of the City. Many of
these businesses and their staffs, as well as support workers for the
Grand Canyon and these tourist-based industries, live and work in
Flagstaff. If tourists are reluctant to visit the Grand Canyon because
of potential exposure and/or opposition to uranium mining, this could
negatively impact some of our businesses and economy.
Finally, the City is concerned that lifting the 20-year moratorium
may lead to dangerous and harmful radioactive materials being
transported through the City. Again, Flagstaff has very limited water
supplies and a catastrophic accident or leak in and around Flagstaff
may permanently and negatively affect the water supply that is so
critical to the City's existence. We can't allow this to happen.
Madame Chair, the Administration has an obligation to clean up the
hundreds, potentially thousands, of abandoned mines in the region some
of which have permanently polluted aquifers that have negatively
impacted many in northern Arizona including sovereign nations. Before
the Administration considers lifting the ban, they need to clean up
every one of the legacy mines. It is the right thing to do.
Madame Chair, it is critically important to enact H.R. 1373 to
permanently protect these lands and water that are so valuable and
precious to Flagstaff and surrounding communities. We are incredibly
thankful that Chairman Grijalva is championing this issue and we thank
you for your leadership in holding this hearing today. I'm happy to
answer any questions you or the other Subcommittee members may have.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Mayor Evans.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Amber Reimondo, Energy Program
Director at the Grand Canyon Trust.
STATEMENT OF AMBER REIMONDO, ENERGY PROGRAM DIRECTOR, GRAND
CANYON TRUST, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA
Ms. Reimondo. Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman and
Ranking Member Curtis, and all the Committee members for this
opportunity to speak in support of the Grand Canyon Centennial
Protection Act.
I am Amber Reimondo, the Energy Program Director for the
Grand Canyon Trust. I am truly honored to be here to speak
today alongside my hometown mayor, the Honorable Coral Evans,
and the Honorable Carletta Tilousi, Councilwoman of the
Havasupai Tribe. We are allied members of diverse communities
who are directly and adversely affected by ongoing uranium
mining in the Grand Canyon region. We are united in support of
permanently protecting the Grand Canyon from uranium mining.
The Grand Canyon Trust is a regional conservation
organization based in Flagstaff, Arizona. The trust's mission
is to safeguard the wonders of the Grand Canyon and the
Colorado plateau, while supporting the rights of its Native
peoples. We have been working to protect the Grand Canyon from
uranium mining and other threats since the trust was founded in
1985.
The Grand Canyon Trust supports Havasupai's fight to
prevent their sole source of drinking water from being
permanently contaminated by the Canyon Mine. We support
protecting the watershed, ecosystems, and cultural heritage of
the Grand Canyon region for current and future generations.
For seven decades, uranium mining has left a deadly legacy
of air, water, and soil contamination across Utah, Colorado,
New Mexico, and Arizona. In 2005, the Navajo Nation banned
uranium mining on their land, encompassing nearly 18 million
acres located in three of the Four Corners states. The
Havasupai, Hopi, and other Grand Canyon-affiliated tribes have
also banned uranium mining, and are unified in supporting the
administrative 20-year ban on new claims on more than a million
acres of public lands surrounding Grand Canyon National Park.
Despite the temporary ban ordered by the Secretary of the
Interior in 2012, pre-existing mines have already demonstrated
the risks of uranium mining on public lands within the
withdrawal area. Since the spring of 2017, miners have needed
to continually remove contaminated water from the mine shaft at
Canyon uranium mine.
When re-opening the Pinenut Mine in 2009, where the mine
shaft was supposedly capped and safe from water intrusion, the
company discovered that the mine shaft had actually flooded
with nearly 3 million gallons of contaminated water that was
contaminated by being exposed to uranium ore.
And at the nearby Kanab North Mine, located on the Grand
Canyon's north rim, radioactive dust has contaminated soils
well beyond its fenced perimeter.
Uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region is an unnecessary
threat to our tourism-based economies and the people who depend
on the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon Trust supports
communities, businesses, and hundreds of education, science,
and other organizations that are sustained by the Grand
Canyon's enduring assets of clean air and water, and by its
natural human heritage.
The National Park Service recently reported that 6.3
million visitors to Grand Canyon National Park in 2018 spent
$947 million in communities near the park. The spending
supported 12,558 jobs in the local area, and had a cumulative
benefit to the local economy of $1.2 billion.
Breccia pipe uranium mining supports few and temporary
jobs. Permanently contaminating the Grand Canyon threatens the
loss of billions of dollars to the backbone of our regional
economy.
Through the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act we have
an opportunity to prevent new uranium mining on 1 million acres
of critically important public lands that border Grand Canyon
National Park, and in so doing the opportunity to safeguard the
Grand Canyon region and the people, wildlife, and economies
that depend upon it. In this Grand Canyon National Park
Centennial year, we proudly join with citizens of many
political persuasions and personal histories to stand with one
united voice in supporting the Grand Canyon Centennial
Protection Act.
In conclusion, we want to thank the Havasupai people for
being the Grand Canyon's guardians since time immemorial. We
also want to thank Chairman Grijalva for his years of
leadership in defending the Grand Canyon. And last, we thank
the bill's co-sponsors and the majority of Arizona voters who
support permanently protecting the Grand Canyon from uranium
mining.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Reimondo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amber Reimondo, Energy Program Director, Grand
Canyon Trust on H.R. 1373
Thank you, Chairwoman Haaland, Chairman Grijalva, and Committee
members for this opportunity to speak in support of the Grand Canyon
Centennial Protection Act.
I am Amber Reimondo, the energy program director for the Grand
Canyon Trust. I am truly honored to speak today, alongside my hometown
mayor, the Honorable Coral Evans, and the Honorable Carletta Tilousi,
Councilwoman of the Havasupai Tribe. We are allied members of diverse
communities who are directly and adversely affected by ongoing uranium
mining in the Grand Canyon region. We are united in support of
permanently protecting the Grand Canyon from uranium mining.
The Grand Canyon Trust is a regional conservation organization
based in Flagstaff, Arizona. The Trust's mission is: ``To safeguard the
wonders of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado Plateau, while supporting
the rights of its Native peoples.'' We have been working to protect the
Grand Canyon from uranium mining and other threats since the Trust was
founded in 1985.
The Grand Canyon Trust supports Havasupai's fight to prevent their
sole source of drinking water from being permanently contaminated by
the Canyon Mine. We support protecting the watershed, ecosystem, and
cultural heritage of the Grand Canyon region for current and future
generations.
For seven decades, uranium mining has left a deadly legacy of air,
water, and soil contamination across Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and
Arizona. In 2005, the Navajo Nation banned uranium mining on their
land, encompassing nearly 18 million acres located in three of the Four
Corners states. The Havasupai, Hualapai, Hopi, and other Grand Canyon-
affiliated tribes have also banned uranium mining and are unified in
supporting the administrative 20-year ban on new claims on more than a
million acres of public lands surrounding Grand Canyon National Park.
Despite the temporary ban ordered by the Secretary of the Interior
in 2012, pre-existing mines have already demonstrated the risks of
uranium mining on public lands within the withdrawal area. Since the
spring of 2017, miners have needed to continually remove contaminated
water from the mineshaft at Canyon uranium mine. When re-opening
Pinenut Mine in 2009, where the mineshaft was supposedly capped and
safe from water intrusion, the company discovered that the mineshaft
was flooded with nearly 3 million gallons of water contaminated by
exposed uranium ore. And at the nearby Kanab North Mine, located on the
Grand Canyon's north rim, radioactive dust has contaminated soils well
beyond its fenced perimeter.
Uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region is an unnecessary threat
to our tourism-based economies and the people who depend on the Grand
Canyon. The Grand Canyon Trust supports communities, businesses, and
hundreds of education, science, and other organizations that are
sustained by the Grand Canyon's enduring assets of clean air and water
and by its natural and human heritage.
The National Park Service recently reported that ``6.3 million
visitors to Grand Canyon National Park in 2018 spent $947 million in
communities near the park. That spending supported 12,558 jobs in the
local area and had a cumulative benefit to the local economy of $1.2
billion.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/news/grand-canyon-economic-
benefit.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breccia pipe uranium mining supports few, and temporary jobs.
Permanently contaminating the Grand Canyon threatens the loss of
billions of dollars to the backbone of our regional economy.
Through the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, we have an
opportunity to prevent new uranium mining on 1 million acres of
critically important public lands bordering Grand Canyon National Park,
and in so doing, the opportunity to safeguard the Grand Canyon region,
and the people, wildlife, and economies that depend on it.
In this, Grand Canyon National Park's centennial year, we proudly
join with citizens--of many political persuasions and personal
histories--to stand with one united voice in supporting the Grand
Canyon Centennial Protection Act.
In conclusion, we want to thank the Havasupai people for being the
Grand Canyon's guardians since time immemorial. We also want to thank
Chairman Grijalva for his years of leadership in defending the Grand
Canyon. And last, we thank the bill's co-sponsors and the majority of
Arizona voters \2\ who support permanently protecting the Grand Canyon
from uranium mining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/sites/default/files/resources/
Grand_Canyon_Arizona_Poll_ Key_Findings_Aug_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll be happy to answer any of your questions.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you so much, Ms. Reimondo.
The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Buster Johnson,
District 3 Supervisor on the Mohave County Board of
Supervisors.
You have 5 minutes, Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BUSTER D. JOHNSON, SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 3,
MOHAVE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, LAKE HAVASU CITY, ARIZONA
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to
appear before you to represent Mohave County, the county most
impacted by the Chairman's bill.
Public service is a noble calling. After nearly 23 years of
service, the one thing upon which I pride myself more than
anything else is keeping my word, honoring the commitments
which others and I have made to the people of Arizona, which
brings you to the bill before us. Fundamentally, it is a direct
attempt to undo the commitment given in 1984 to the people of
Arizona.
Senator McCain shared that Chairman Udall required of both
industry and environmentalists compromises that led to the
creation of over 1 million acres of BLM and Forest Service
wilderness as buffers to the Grand Canyon National Park in
exchange for release of lands to multiple use. Validation of
the 1984 compromise comes from the statements of numerous
individuals who were privy to, including two witnesses who were
stakeholders upon whom Chairman Udall relied to gain passage of
the 1984 compromise: Mr. Russ Butcher, who served as Southwest
Director of the National Park and Conservation Society; and
Bill Lamb, who served as a BLM area manager of the Arizona
Strip.
But this agreement was real, as evidenced by the fact that
hardrock mining was allowed in every subsequent Federal land
management plan until the withdrawal. This is what District
Manager Bill Lamb said about his role in opening it up--I
quote:
``In 1982, I was assigned to be the District Manager for
the BLM's Arizona Strip. At that time there were serious
negotiations going on with environmental organizations, uranium
mining proponents, and the BLM to work out an arrangement where
lands could be designated for wilderness, and yet provide for
responsible uranium development. I worked closely with
congressional delegations in both Utah and Arizona, the Sierra
Club, National Parks and Recreation Associations, and other
groups, including the local residents, to find a workable
solution to the wilderness-vs.-uranium issue.
With a clear understanding by all stakeholders that any
conflict between wilderness and mining would be resolved, a
wilderness bill was passed creating the Arizona Wilderness Act.
After some 27 years it seems that those negotiations and
agreements have been forgotten, where the long hours, days, and
months of negotiation through field trips, face-to-face
meetings, conference calls, and written communications brought
a compromise that provided a balanced use of the Arizona Strip.
These efforts would be lost with the mineral withdrawal
proposed for the area.
The responsible uranium mining after establishment of the
wilderness in 1984 has not had any negative impacts on the
wilderness areas or the Grand Canyon National Park. A trip to
the mining sites has shown that restoration is complete and
natural where any evidence of mining cannot be found. A
withdrawal from mining entry is in direct conflict with the
good-faith effort put forth by stakeholders, and a mockery of
the stakeholder negotiation process. I believe a withdrawal
would have a negative effect on the local economy, where
uranium mining would create jobs during a time when the economy
is in need of a boost. Uranium mining poses no threat to the
pristine nature of the Arizona Strip or the mining operations,
and breccia pipe formations can be restored to their natural
condition after a short extraction time frame.'' End of quote.
The testimony of Mr. Butcher is also compelling. Quote:
``. . . To sum up the personal opinion regarding breccia
pipe uranium mining on public lands surrounding Grand Canyon
National Park, while such activities must be carried out with
extreme care and due diligence, as was demonstrated by EFN in
the late 20th century, I continue to view such activities as
posing no credible threat of environmental harm to either the
Grand Canyon National Park or the Colorado River that flows
through it. . . . Consequently, on the merits, I can see no
credible justification for a 1.1 million acre withdrawal from
mineral entry of lands to the north and south of the park.
Furthermore, such a withdrawal from mineral entry directly
contradicts the good-faith negotiations of the 1984 agreement.
. . . The wilderness study areas not placed in the National
Preservation System were released back to multiple use status,
including the mining of uranium. As one of the persons who
actively participated in that collaborative process, I can
state unequivocally that we achieved the negotiated compromise
on the basis of allowing such activities as mineral extraction
to go forward under appropriate Federal oversight of released
lands.'' That is the end of the quote.
As we meet today, this Nation's nuclear power plants are
importing 98 percent of the fuel needed to run these plants
from foreign sources. Nuclear power provides 20 percent of this
country's requirement for energy.
What I don't understand is why America's utilities are
importing so much, though we have such vast supplies right here
in our own backyard in northern Arizona. Arizona is part of the
solution to America's nuclear fuel imbalance, and we should
prepare to play a constructive role.
As a supervisor who represents the county where the uranium
and the Grand Canyon are located, I can tell you that if I had
even the slightest indication that mining would affect the
Canyon or the health of the people I represent, I would be
adamantly opposed to it. But the canyon, the people, over $29
million worth of economic benefit, and the security of our
Nation is what is at stake.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Buster D. Johnson, Supervisor District 3, Mohave
County Board of Supervisors on H.R. 1373
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, it is an honor to appear
before you to represent Mohave County, the county most impacted by the
Chairman's bill.
Public service is in my view, a noble thing. After nearly 23 years
of service to the people of my county, the one thing upon which I pride
myself more than anything else is keeping my word; honoring the
commitments which others and I have made to the people of Arizona and
to the United States.
Keeping your word as a public official is more important than
taking a stand or being ''right'' on an issue. There are two
professions where you don't have to be right and you can still keep
your job at least for a season--one is predicting the weather and the
other is politics. I respect two things as a Supervisor: the
commitments and promises made by others, some of whom served before me
and honoring my own commitments and promises.
Which brings me to the bill before us. Fundamentally, it is a
direct attempt to undue the commitment given in 1984 to the people of
Arizona by former House Interior Committee Chairman Morris Udall,
Senator Barry Goldwater, Senator Dennis DeConcini, Congressman Bob
Stump, then-freshmen House Member and later Senator John McCain along
with Utah's former Senators Jake Garn and Orrin Hatch and former
Chairman of this Committee, James V. Hansen, also from Utah.
Before his death, Senator McCain shared that Chairman Udall
required of both industry and environmentalists compromises that lead
to the creation of over 1 million acres of BLM and Forest Service
Wilderness as buffers to the Grand Canyon National Park in exchange for
releasing lands to multiple use those BLM lands north of the Colorado
River outside the Park on the Arizona Strip in Mohave County and
National Forest lands south of the Grand Canyon National Park in
Coconino County.
Validation of the 1984 compromise comes from the statements of
numerous individuals who were privy to it including two witnesses who
were stakeholders upon whom Chairman Udall relied to gain passage of
the 1984. Mr. Russ Butcher, who served as Southwest Director of the
National Park and Conservation Society and Bill Lamb who served as BLM
Area Manager of the Arizona Strip shared testimony, which I
respectfully request be included in the record of this Hearing.
That this agreement was real is evidenced by the fact that hard
rock mining was allowed in every subsequent BLM and Forest Service
Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Forest Plan up until the withdrawal.
Here is what the District Manager, Bill Lamb said about his role in
opening up these lands for mining as part of this 1984 Agreement which
lead to passage of the 1984 Arizona Wilderness Act:
Arizona Strip 1984 Wilderness Designation Negotiation
By Bill Lamb
Former District Manager of the Arizona Strip BLM District from 1982
to 1992
In 1982 I was assigned to be the District Manager for the BLM
Arizona Strip District. At that time there were serious
negotiations going on with the environmental organizations,
uranium mining proponents and the BLM to work out an
arrangement where lands could be designated for wilderness and
yet provide for responsible uranium development. I worked
closely with the Congressional Delegations in both Utah and
Arizona, the Sierra Club, National Parks and Recreation
Associations and other groups, including the local residents to
find a workable solution to the wilderness vs. uranium issue.
With a clear understanding by all stakeholders that any
conflict between wilderness and mining would be resolved, a
wilderness bill was passed creating the Arizona Wilderness Act
of 1984. After some 27 years, it seems that those negotiations
and agreements have been forgotten where the long hours, days
and months of negotiations through field trips, face to face
meetings, conference calls and written communications brought
about a compromise that provided a balanced use of the Arizona
Strip. These efforts would be lost with the mineral withdrawal
proposed for the area.
The responsible uranium mining after establishment of the
wilderness in 1984 has not had any negative impacts on the
wilderness areas or the Grand Canyon National Park. A trip to
the mining sites has shown that restoration is complete and
natural where any evidence of mining cannot be found. A
withdrawal from mining entry is in direct conflict with the
good-faith effort put forth by the stakeholders and a mockery
of the stakeholder negotiation process. I believe a withdrawal
would have a negative effect on the local economy where uranium
mining would create jobs during a time when the economy is in
need of a boost. Uranium mining poses no threat to the pristine
nature of the Arizona Strip where the mining operations in
breccia pipe formations can be restored to their natural
condition after a short extraction time frame.
Bill Lamb
Centerville, Utah
The testimony of National Parks and Conservation Association
Southwest Regional Director Butcher is likewise, so compelling that I
want to share portions of it with the Committee:
Testimony submitted to the House Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands--April 8, 2010
My name is Russell D. Butcher. I reside in San Diego County,
California. For more than 45 years, my career, which has
focused on parkland and wildlife conservation and on
environmental negotiating, has included serving on the staffs
of such nonprofit advocacy organizations as the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA), National Audubon Society, and
Save-the Redwoods League. From 1984-1990, I served as a member
of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District
Advisory Council. And I have authored a number of books, most
recently including guidebooks to the national park system and
the national wildlife refuge system.
In the early 1980s, as the Pacific Southwest regional director
for NPCA, I became concerned about alleged threats to the
integrity of Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River
from uranium mining activities near the park on the ``Arizona
Strip''--a New Jersey-size area that extends northward from the
canyon to the Utah state line.
Following a first-hand examination of mine sites in the Kanab
Creek area being developed by the then active company, Energy
Fuels Nuclear (EFN), I was convinced that these particular
activities were extremely unlikely to pose any credible risk of
environmental harm to either the park or the river. Two reasons
stood out: (1) Contrary to my preconception, development of
these sites did not involve open-pit mining operations, as
typically occurs in copper mining, for example. Instead, only a
small footprint of surface disturbance, encompassing perhaps as
much as 20 acres, was associated with accessing a subsurface,
narrow, vertically aligned uranium ore-bearing geological
structure known as a breccia pipe. (2) EFN officials expressed
an unqualified and emphatic commitment to raising the bar
extremely high in terms of conducting their mineral extraction
and post-mining reclamation activities in the most
environmentally sensitive and exemplary manner possible.
Judging by what I saw--both on the ground and from the air,
their words of reassurance were borne out by their actions. In
short, there was no justification, in my opinion, for becoming
alarmed over these relatively small-scale resource extraction
activities on public lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management (BLM).
Late in 1980, I revisited the most active EFN site--the Pigeon
Mine. What I saw came as a pleasant surprise: Not only was the
entrance to the mine itself completely sealed, but all visual
evidence of the limited mine-related surface disturbances and
the access road had been superbly well restored. In fact, I
felt that if I were to bring someone who knew nothing about the
former mining activities to the site, that person would
logically assume that this was undisturbed wilderness. More
than 20 years have since elapsed. By now I have to assume that
the shrubby high-desert vegetation has continued to grow and
thrive, making the area appear even more as if it had never
been disturbed by man.
Now here we are at the start of the second decade of the 21st
century, with alarm again being raised over the renewed
commercial interest in extracting high-grade uranium on BLM and
U.S. Forest Service lands adjacent to Grand Canyon National
Park. The new sense of alarm, I believe, is in large part based
upon the sheer number of mineral claims--totaling approximately
5,000--that have been filed with the federal government.
It is important, however, to factor in the answer to what I
believe is a relevant question: What percentage of those
mineralized claims would ever likely prove to contain an
economically viable deposit of uranium ore? The answer: Only a
very small percentage--roughly one out of every 35 claims for a
total of perhaps 125 sites containing uranium of sufficient
quality and quantity to merit a company's financial investment
to extract the uranium ore. Add to this small percentage the
fact that the footprint of surface disturbance is both on a
small scale and capable of being easily reclaimed after the
mining activity has ceased.
Regarding a risk of dissolved uranium contamination of
underground waters caused by mining activity, it is worth
noting a statement in a February 18, 2010, news release issued
by the U.S. Geological Survey: ``Analysis of historical water-
quality data for more than 1,000 water samples from 428 sites
in northern Arizona shows that dissolved uranium concentrations
in areas without mining were generally similar to those with
active or reclaimed mines.''
To sum up my personal opinion regarding breccia pipe uranium
mining on public lands surrounding Grand Canyon National Park,
while such activities must be carried out with extreme care and
due diligence, as was demonstrated by EFN in the late 20th
century, I continue to view such activities as posing no
credible threat of environmental harm to either Grand Canyon
National Park or the Colorado River that flows through it. In
the unlikely event that a particular mine proposal appears to
pose a specific risk of degrading the quality of visitor
experience or impairing the quality of waters or other natural
resources within the park, every effort should then be made by
the land-management agency, in close consultation and
cooperation with the National Park Service, to avoid any such
potentially harmful impacts.
Consequently, on the merits I can see no credible justification
for a 1.1 million-acre withdrawal from mineral entry of lands
to the north and south of the park. Furthermore, such a
withdrawal from mineral entry directly contradicts the good-
faith intentions and understandings of all the stakeholders who
in 1984 met and successfully negotiated the designation of BLM
and Forest Service wilderness areas on the Arizona Strip that
were ultimately approved by Congress and signed into law. The
wilderness study areas not placed in the National Wilderness
Preservation System were released back into multiple use
status, including the mining of uranium. As one of the persons
who actively participated in that collaborative process, I can
state unequivocally that we achieved the negotiated compromise
on the basis of allowing such activities as mineral extraction
to go forward under appropriate federal oversight on the
released lands.
Respectfully submitted,
Russell D. Butcher
In summary, As we meet here today, this Nation's nuclear power
plants are inexplicably importing 98 percent of the fuel needed to
power those plants from foreign sources; much of it from Russia and
Kazakhstan Nuclear power provides 20 percent of this country's daily
requirement for energy. As one who is deeply concerned about climate
change, I know the Chairman shares my view that nuclear power is a
clean safe way to provide electricity to our people. What I do not
understand is why America's utilities are importing so much even though
we have vast supplies of it right in our own back yard in northern
Arizona. The U.S. military and our domestic uranium producers have
raised this issue with the Commerce Department and the President is
expected to make a decision shortly to address that imbalance and
restore health to our domestic industry. Such a finding would mean that
this Arizona resource would be needed simply to protect legitimate
American National Security concerns. Arizona is thus part of the
solution to America's nuclear fuel imbalance and we should prepare to
play a constructive role. As the supervisor who represents the county
where the uranium and Grand Canyon are located I can tell you that if I
had even the slightest indication that mining would affect the Canyon
or the health of the people I represent I would be adamantly opposed to
it but the Canyon and people are protected and the economic benefit of
over $29 billion and the security of our Nation are what is at stake.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Buster Johnson,
Supervisor, District 3, Mohave County Board of Supervisors
Questions Submitted by Rep. Gosar
I want to respond to something Mr. Lowenthal said at the hearing
there being little to no uranium in the withdrawal area in H.R. 1373.
If there weren't significant mining deposits in the area, Rep. Grijalva
wouldn't have introduced a form of this bill every year since 2008.
Question 1. There were a lot of lies and misinformation thrown
around at the hearing alleging harm from uranium mining to the Grand
Canyon. The Grand Canyon National Park is already protected by the
Grand Canyon Protection Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, numerous
other state and Federal regulations, the 1.02 million acre Grand
Canyon-Parashant National Monument, two other national monuments, two
national recreation areas and seven wilderness areas. The proposed
withdrawal is miles away from the actual Grand Canyon itself. Any
uranium operation will also have to comply with all state and Federal
environmental laws and go through the normal NEPA process correct?
Answer. Yes, you are correct.
Question 2. No one in this room wants to harm the Grand Canyon or
the Colorado River. And lifting the arbitrary, political ban
unilaterally implemented by the Obama administration won't contaminate
the Colorado River or cause harm to the Grand Canyon. And actual
science supports these facts. The Arizona Geological Survey published a
report finding that uranium mining would not contaminate the Colorado
River, the Grand Canyon or surrounding watersheds. The study concluded
that under an absolute ``worst-case, mining-related uranium spill into
the Colorado River, an increase of 0.02 ppb uranium would be trivial in
comparison to the EPA drinking water Maximum Containment Level of 30
ppb uranium.'' Are you aware of this report and is it legitimate?
Answer. Yes, I am aware of this report and I find it to be
thoroughly researched and legitimate.
Question 3. Republican Leader Bishop asked for the Arizona Land
Trusts previous comment letter on the proposed withdrawal. I would like
to also submit the State Land Trusts comment letter from 2011 (see
other attachment). The comment letter describes losses to the state
land trust in the range of $1.5 million to $18.5 million for each
individual mine in a breccia pipe. Are you concerned about the loss of
those state revenues and the harm this will cause to education in
Arizona?
Answer. Yes, I am concerned about the loss of the state revenues
and the damages this will have on our educational system that relies on
this money not only for today's expenditure but for the future of our
educational system.
Question 4. Industry studies have shown direct adverse impacts from
the current Obama withdrawal to rural portions of six counties in
Arizona (Mohave, Coconino) and Utah (Kane, Garfield, San Juan and
Washington) of between 2,000-4,000 lost jobs and $29 billion in overall
economic activity in the region at peak production. Are you concerned
about these job losses and can you elaborate on what a permanent
withdrawal would do to employment in Mohave County?
Answer. Since the withdrawal, Mohave County and the surrounding
areas affected have seen a number of miners leave the area to seek
employment elsewhere. A permanent ban will only make things worse. We
have already seen the trickle-down effect of what happens when this
occurs. Other supporting businesses in the area have had to scale back
their businesses and some have outright closed down. You see some head
of households able to find employment in neighboring states which
leaves some families broken as the children and wife will stay behind
to try and maintain the home front. This leads to problems in the
schools as well as children seem to act up without a father figure
around. As families move out of some of these once prominent areas, the
enrollment rate in the schools are falling which in turn brings less
revenue to the educational districts. What we are seeing is once
thriving, stable communities are becoming deserted places with vacant
houses and businesses. If a permanent ban is put into place, it will
only get worse and some of the towns and cities near the Arizona Strip
could become ghost towns in under 10 years. When this occurs the
chances of bringing back a viable community is oftentimes nonexistence.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
Thank you all for your valuable testimony. The Chair will
now recognize Members for questions. Under Committee Rule 3(d),
each Member will be recognized for 5 minutes. I would like to
first recognize Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate
your willingness to welcome me here today, and in Committee. As
you know, I am honored to represent Arizona's 1st Congressional
District, including the Grand Canyon.
The Grand Canyon is like any place in the world: home to
some of my constituents, sacred to some of my constituents, and
respected for the wonder it is around the world.
I am proud to be a champion of the Grand Canyon Centennial
Protection Act, because it will ensure the canyon remains safe
and vibrant, protect northern Arizona's economy, and protect
the water supply of the Southwest.
I proudly represent Coconino County on both the north and
south rims of the Grand Canyon. For over a decade, Coconino
County has been supportive of protecting the health of the
Canyon's residents, the downstream water supply, and northern
Arizona's recreation economy, having passed two separate
resolutions in support of the mineral withdrawal bill.
Uranium mining has a toxic legacy in northern Arizona. My
constituents still suffer from the effects of the mining that
occurred during the cold war over 70 years ago, and still an
impact. Cancer rates, which are directly linked to uranium
mining activity in the region, are at a troubling high level.
Today, the Federal Government is still compensating miners,
millers, and haulers for their exposure to uranium. We cannot
allow this to become normal.
Water is essential to communities of all sizes around the
Southwest. This is especially true for communities like
Havasupai, where there is a single water supply, and uranium
contamination would be disastrous. Similarly, communities above
the Canyon's rim and the park itself rely on groundwater pumped
from the local aquifers. Contamination of these aquifers would
mean that cities and towns would have no water.
There is a superfund site at the edge of the Grand Canyon
right now. It has 300 parts per billion at the base of the
stream right there. And in the worst scenario, if uranium found
its way into the Colorado River itself, it would jeopardize the
water supplies of major western cities, including Las Vegas,
Phoenix, and Los Angeles.
Tourism forms the backbone of northern Arizona's economy,
and the Grand Canyon forms the heart of that sector. The
National Park Service recently released a report indicating
that visitors to the Grand Canyon spent $1.2 billion in the
local economy in 2018. Grand Canyon National Park supports over
12,000 jobs. Downstream, Lake Mead supported an additional $336
million a year in economic benefit. If the Canyon or the river
were endangered by contamination, these economic benefits could
disappear overnight. Conversely, prohibiting uranium mining
would strengthen the tourism economy by ensuring that the
Canyon and river remain the center of the state's tourism
economy for generations to come.
The Grand Canyon is simply too special to mine in or near,
and I am proud to support legislation that will preserve the
park, protect citizens of northern Arizona, downstream
communities, and strengthen the economy.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. O'Halleran. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Bishop for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Supervisor Johnson, thank you for coming all
the way from Arizona to do this.
I understand there are basically two congressional
districts that would be impacted by this particular piece of
legislation, that Mr. O'Halleran has a portion of it, but the
majority of the mines would actually be in Mr. Gosar's
district.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. All right. You are the supervisor of this
particular area. I understand there are about 4,000 acres that
are not Federal land, they are owned by the Arizona State Land
Department.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. And that the State of Arizona Land Department--
at least last time this bill was introduced--had actually done
a study as to the effectiveness of the development of these
resources and the impact that they would have.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Have you introduced that as part of your
written statement?
Mr. Johnson. No, I haven't, sir.
Mr. Bishop. It would be nice. There is some time before we
get that. If we could get, once again, a copy of what the state
of Arizona had said, as far as the impact that these potential
mines would have, if we could get a copy of that, that would be
very helpful, I think, could be part of the record.
Mr. Johnson. I will get it for you, sir.
Mr. Bishop. If those 4,000 acres that are not owned by the
Federal Government were indeed locked up by this particular
piece of legislation, what impact will that have on your
county?
Mr. Johnson. It has a tremendous impact not only on my
county, but on Utah, also, just for the fact that the money
that comes from state land goes into the school system. So,
that is a big bonus there, plus the jobs that are created.
A lot of people are talking about tourism being a driving
force. Tourism has always worked side by side, when uranium was
going on there. And actually, the biggest concentration of
visitors was during the uranium boom. But the jobs for mining
are well superior to the jobs from the tourism industry.
Mr. Bishop. So, it is not an either-or situation. It has
worked together in the past, and it could work together in the
future, as well.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. One could complement the other. And, as you
say, the money that comes from these resources actually goes
into funding the education system of the entire state of
Arizona, just as money comes in from Federal lands that helps
the entire state of Utah and their education system. What about
for emergency services in your county?
Mr. Johnson. We get the public land, PILT money comes in
that goes to the county that pays for our sheriffs and response
crews.
Mr. Bishop. So, would you lose some money that would go to
essential services if the state land was locked up within this
area?
Mr. Johnson. I don't believe we would on that one, sir, I
don't.
Mr. Bishop. When we talk about mining we have preconceived
notions, either of what deep-shaft mining would be doing, or
open pit mining would be doing, and a lot of people think it is
open pit. Is the uranium mining process in your area--is that
done differently than the traditional open-pit approach would
be?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. It basically looks like an
hourglass, a big one. It is a small footprint. The footprint of
the whole process may be 10 to 20 acres. They go down beside--
say if this glass of water was the breccia pit, they go down
beside it and take the rock out from below, and then transport
it to the mill, and then bring back the rock that is of no use
for uranium, and put it back in the hole. So, it is a very
small footprint.
Mr. Bishop. So, unlike a copper pit in my state, which is
huge--and it is actually enjoyable to look at right now, you
can see it from outer space--these would be a small footprint.
You go down. Once they have extracted the uranium, then you
will once again fill it up again.
And is it really visible on where that footprint was, once
it has been reclaimed?
Mr. Johnson. No, they have pretty strict laws on the
reclamation, and they have taken miners back out who have
actually worked in some of these mines, and they can't locate
it, where it is at, after a few years, sir.
Mr. Bishop. All right. If I remember right from the years
past, when we have talked about this particular issue, the
state of Arizona did conduct a survey. Did they conclude that
there was a danger to the Grand Canyon if you do any of this
kind of activity?
Mr. Johnson. They concluded there was no danger, sir.
Mr. Bishop. And no danger to the drinking water, despite
what newspapers in Las Vegas said at the time, there is no
danger to the drinking water that would be going down, as well?
Mr. Johnson. No, sir. And there is uranium naturally
occurring in the Grand Canyon and in the Colorado River water.
Mr. Bishop. Well, we should get rid of that, shouldn't we?
Mr. Johnson. We should try.
Mr. Bishop. I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. The Chair recognizes
Chairman Grijalva for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Reimondo, page 39 of the Administration's Critical
Minerals Strategy Report released yesterday very explicitly
includes a goal. This is the goal: ``To complete a thorough
review of withdrawals from applicable mining laws and areas
restricted from mineral exploration and development on the
Federal mineral estate, including reducing the size of or
revoking an existing withdrawal.'' I am concerned that the
Grand Canyon withdrawal moratorium would be targeted under this
policy, which is one of the reasons that I appreciate so much
Madam Chair expediting the hearings on this.
Could you maybe elaborate a bit on why uranium mining near
the Grand Canyon does little to address any real or imagined
supply concerns that we keep hearing about.
Ms. Reimondo. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The uranium
supplies that are available around the Grand Canyon that are
known, recognized as being valid by the Federal Government are
an extremely small portion of the total amount of known uranium
reserves around the entire country. In fact, they are about
0.29 percent of the entire known minable reserves in the entire
country.
Mr. Grijalva. Which begs the question that, with that
limited uranium supply in the area, under any scenario, why
take the risk, and not----
Ms. Reimondo. We would agree.
Mr. Grijalva. Councilwoman Tilousi, I was going to ask you.
Your community, Hopi, Navajo, Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona,
American Indian Congress, and tribes and nations from across
the country have all supported this legislation, the withdrawal
in the past, the monument in the past as a permanent protection
for the Grand Canyon.
The role and the presence of Indian Country in this
discussion--your tribe, in particular--why is that something
that members of this Committee should take into consideration
as we go forward in examining this legislation?
Ms. Reimondo. I believe the support from the Subcommittee
is very important because we are talking about human life. We
are talking about a small population of Native Americans such
as the Havasupai of 776 people still left. And we deserve clean
water. That is why it is important.
Mr. Grijalva. Mayor, the community of Flagstaff, a
beautiful community, and thank you for your hospitality on the
occasion that I had the pleasure of being there.
We talked about the economy, and we talked about the
essential role that mining, according to your colleague, plays
in the whole economy of the region. You mentioned it in your
statement, the tourism, the visitors, and what that means, and
how that drives not only the revenue for the city, but the
employment and other business activities that go on in
Flagstaff.
Ms. Evans. Thank you, Chair Grijalva. Tourism is the No. 1
industry in Flagstaff, and the No. 1 industry in northern
Arizona. There are approximately 13,000 jobs in northern
Arizona that are directly tied to tourism, and that tourism is
directly tied to the Grand Canyon.
Lifting the ban, we think, will affect tourism. We have
several rafting outfits, as well as tour operators that conduct
business in the Grand Canyon that are based out of Flagstaff.
If tourists are reluctant to visit Flagstaff or the Grand
Canyon because of the potential exposure--our opposition to
uranium mining--that will negatively impact some of our
businesses, and definitely our economy.
Mr. Grijalva. Madam Chair, as we go forward with this, I
appreciate the hearing and look forward to moving the
legislation. I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Gallego for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you to our witnesses for being here
today, and thank you to Chairman Haaland for calling this
hearing. I want to recognize Chairman Grijalva's leadership of
introducing the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, which I
am proud to be an original co-sponsor of.
This bill is critical, not only to Arizonans, but those who
travel from around the country and the world to visit the Grand
Canyon, many of whom fly into Sky Harbor International Airport
in my district. Even more importantly, however, this bill
safeguards Arizona's ecosystems, environment, and a critical
watershed used by millions of Arizonans.
Councilwoman Tilousi, indigenous communities in particular
rely on this watershed as the sole source of drinking water for
their people, which is why I am happy to have Councilwoman
Tilousi from the Havasupai Tribe here to testify. Councilwoman
Tilousi, can you describe your tribe's historical relationship
to the Grand Canyon watershed, especially Havasu Creek and its
importance to your tribe's access to clean water?
Ms. Tilousi. Our relationship to the water goes as far as
our name. Havasupai means people of the blue-green water. What
we do is we farm with the water, and we also sustain ourselves
by utilizing the water in ceremonial activities, such as the
sweat lodge, and use it for blessings. And we are also
consuming it directly. And that is our main concern, is keeping
it clean and keeping it protected. And we would like to protect
everybody, not just the Havasupai, but all the people that are
living downstream.
Mr. Gallego. What previous impacts have mining operations--
what have they done, in terms of your watershed or other
negative impacts in your areas?
Ms. Tilousi. Our village is supplied by the largest
groundwater aquifer in the Southwest, which is the Redwall-Muav
Aquifer. When Canyon Mine started operating, they started
piercing into the aquifer, and it started spraying all over the
place, and it is already contaminating animals at the Canyon
Mine site. And it is also spraying into the air, and there is
no control over that, or monitoring by the mining companies or
the Forest Service. And we deeply fear about the further
contamination that is going to happen.
Mr. Gallego. If this Administration were to succeed in
ending the emergency mineral withdrawal around the Canyon, what
impact could increased uranium mining operations have on
Havasupai's tourism economy?
Ms. Tilousi. The impacts to our tourism economy, if
approved, will be beneficial to the tribe. We are not a gaming
tribe. We are solely dependent on tourism. And we open our
canyon homes to visitors to enjoy our waterfalls. And we would
like to continue to be an independent tribe, as far as economic
development. And we would like to protect all our visitors.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you.
Ms. Reimondo, many arguments against a permanent mineral
withdrawal rest on the claim that uranium can be mined safely,
posing no threat to water resources. In your experience with
this sort of mining, can a guarantee that water will not be
contaminated--can they make that guarantee? Can you name any
examples of mines in this region or beyond where this has not
been the case, and water resources were impacted?
Ms. Reimondo. No. The short answer is that they cannot
guarantee that in the Grand Canyon region, namely because there
is not required groundwater monitoring at every mine site. So,
if groundwater contamination were to occur, or perhaps already
has occurred from a mine that operated in the 1980s, it is very
possible that we just wouldn't know about it, because we don't
have adequate monitoring systems in place.
Mr. Gallego. And is there any historic example of some type
of groundwater contamination that occurred from a mining
operation in your memory?
Ms. Reimondo. Yes. An older operation was the Orphan Mine
on the south rim. And there is very likely contamination of
Horn Creek due to that operation.
And then, on the north rim, pretty recently, Pinenut
uranium mine had been on standby for a couple of decades.
During that time, the mine shaft was thought to be safely
capped and no water infiltration was supposed to happen.
Unfortunately, in 2009, the mining company went back to reopen
that mine, lifted the cap, and found 3 million gallons of
radioactive water--surprise--inside of the mine shaft.
Mr. Gallego. And to your memory, at that point, while they
were going through the permitting process, any guarantees that
there would be no way that this could be contaminated?
Ms. Reimondo. I think the mining companies have said that,
but nobody knows. So, they can't say that with truthfulness.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Gallego. And I will recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
Thank you all so much for being here today. We appreciate
you taking this time.
Councilwoman Tilousi, proponents of extraction and mineral
development often highlight the economic benefits that these
activities generate. But experience tells us that dollars and
jobs aren't reflective of the true costs of these activities,
which include lasting impacts to public and individual health,
as well as land, air, and water quality.
For example, my own Laguna Pueblo has experienced
devastating social and economic effects from the Jackpile
uranium mine. As an elected official of a tribe that has lived
in and around the Grand Canyon for hundreds, if not thousands
of years, including the time since this area has been targeted
for uranium mining, can you speak to how the Havasupai have
been impacted by mining in this area?
Ms. Tilousi. One of our most sacred sites called Red Butte,
Wii'i Gdwiisa, is located right next to Canyon Mine. And that
is a religious site to my people, it is the site of our
creation stories, and we feel that it is piercing the lungs of
our Mother Earth.
Red Butte is already being threatened and contaminated, and
that is where we gather our cedar, our sage, and go there for
pilgrimages and prayer. And that has already been impacted, and
our hearts have been broken to watch this uranium mining
company come onto Federal lands and start staking claims, and
start mining uranium. We see that, and it really hurts our
culture, our religion, and our identity, and that is what has
deeply affected my community.
Ms. Haaland. Have you had to delay or postpone or just all
together cancel pilgrimages to this area because of the mining?
Ms. Tilousi. We fear to go to Red Butte. We understand that
there is already radiation exposure because of the disturbance
of the earth. We go there with no choice but risking our lives
to do our ceremonial duties. And we just recently went back
there in November, and we were fully aware that we may be
exposed, but we also had to do our duty as Native Americans,
and continue our ceremonial duties. And, yes, we fear that we
will be contaminated.
Ms. Haaland. And without exposing anything that you don't
want to expose about your culture and traditions, for the
record can you help us to understand how important it is that
you perform these cultural and traditional duties throughout
the year, and what it means to the future of your people?
Ms. Tilousi. It is very important for us to continue our
religious and ceremonial duties, even though we have to risk
our lives. We feel that our next generation has to take the
steps of continuing our ceremonial duties.
We also know that the mountain is not only sacred to the
Havasupai, but it is also sacred to Navajos, Hopis, and other
tribes that come there to gather their medicinal purposes. That
is why many of the traditional practitioners from other tribes
do not go there anymore to get their herbal plants to continue
their ceremonies, because they are aware that there is
radiation already being exposed.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. One last question. In light of the
impacts that we have kind of discussed here today, the impacts
of uranium mining, why is it particularly important that the
Federal Government engage in consultation with tribal
communities that will be impacted by these decisions? And do
you feel that it is enough?
Ms. Tilousi. Canyon Mine was grandfathered in as a claim in
the 1980s. They are currently operating on a 30-year mining
operation plan. During that time, we were not consulted and
were still not consulted, along with the neighboring tribes.
Canyon Mine does exist there because it was already
grandfathered in, and that is why we are very concerned that
tribal sovereignty is not being recognized in that our tribal
governments deserve to know what is happening on our aboriginal
territories. And there needs to be further consultation on
Canyon Mine, specifically.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Councilwoman. I yield my time, and
the Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar for 5 minutes.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the Chair.
Supervisor Johnson, in your testimony you discuss the
landmark passage of the 1984 Arizona Wilderness Act, and the
historic bipartisan cooperation that ushered it through
Congress. What significant stakeholders were also at the table
when this legislation was formulated? Were environmental groups
there?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Can you elaborate which ones?
Mr. Johnson. I would have to look back at my notes, I don't
have all the lists of them--it would take up too much of your
time here.
Dr. Gosar. Let's go on to the next one--within this
withdrawal area there are 4,204 acres of state-owned land. Is
that true?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. How about the 19,000 acres of private land. Is
that true?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Interesting. And most of these mine sites are in
Coconino County or Mohave County?
Mr. Johnson. Mohave County.
Dr. Gosar. Are they close to the edge of the Grand Canyon?
Mr. Johnson. No, not at all.
Dr. Gosar. Can you see them from the Grand Canyon?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Dr. Gosar. What type of method of mining actually happens?
Is this one of those big, open-pit mines like they use with
copper that you see down in southern Arizona?
Mr. Johnson. No, sir. It is a very small footprint, 10 to
20 acres, at the most. That is with reclamation, parking, and
everything else.
Dr. Gosar. Are there tailings associated with this type of
mining technique?
Mr. Johnson. No, sir. All the uranium is removed and taken
to Blanding, Utah, and the rock that is not uranium is brought
back and placed back inside the hole.
Dr. Gosar. Let me get this straight. We have precipitation
in the form of snow, rain. We have exposed breccia pipes, which
allows that to go into solution. Does it not?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. So, the profile of the Grand Canyon has side
vents and then springs that come out. Is that true?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. So, there has been a constant leach of uranium
in the water supply.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. Naturally?
Mr. Johnson. Naturally.
Dr. Gosar. It seems to me like we would want to get this
material out.
Mr. Johnson. That would seem obvious to me, too.
Dr. Gosar. And it would also actually permeate refilling of
aquifers, subsurface aquifers. Is that true?
Mr. Johnson. It could, yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Are you aware that a 2011 study conducted by the
U.S. Geological Survey shows a hypothetical worst-case
scenario, a uranium mining spill, would have virtually no
effect on water quality?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Have you seen a decrease in mining because of
this withdrawal in Mohave County?
Mr. Johnson. It has pretty much stopped the mining up there
in that area. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Besides mining, are other things forbidden in
this withdrawal? Like, say, for impugning the economic impact
of Mohave County?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. I believe it will affect us greatly.
Dr. Gosar. What percentage of the Nation's uranium deposits
are located in this area?
Mr. Johnson. I don't know the percentage, but I know that
we have the richest uranium in the United States, and the sixth
or fifth richest in the world. The quantity we can bring out is
over 300 million pounds of uranium, and some say as high as 500
million pounds.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, there is enough even in this area to supply
over 22 years for the whole state of California. That is how
compact it is.
In this mining process, do they use the leaching
techniques, where they actually use water?
Mr. Johnson. No, sir.
Dr. Gosar. No water?
Mr. Johnson. No, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Interesting, interesting. So, I would like to
have entered in the record a study on water quality from the
Arizona Geological Survey.
Ms. Haaland. Without objection.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Johnson, you were at the hearing that we had
out in Mohave County.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Did you see a vocal minority against the mining?
Mr. Johnson. I saw a very small percentage of people
against it.
Dr. Gosar. That were against it?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. So, everybody was for it. Right?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. OK.
Mr. Johnson. Overwhelmingly.
Dr. Gosar. And how long have you been a supervisor in
Mohave County?
Mr. Johnson. Going on 23 years, sir.
Dr. Gosar. So, you have seen the good times and the bad.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Supervisor Johnson, thank you for coming all
this way. We are blessed. Thank you. I hope you are not in too
much pain. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. Before we move on to the
next panel, I would like to submit for the record the USGS
report, ``Informing Future Decision-Making on Uranium Mining: A
Coordinated Approach to Monitor and Assess Potential
Environmental Impacts from Uranium Exploration and Mining on
Federal Lands in the Grand Canyon Region, Arizona.''
There is a general lack of understanding regarding the
local and regional groundwater flow systems, so I would like,
without objection, to enter this into the record.
Dr. Gosar. Chairwoman?
Ms. Haaland. Yes?
Dr. Gosar. Could I also have ``Northern Arizona Uranium is
Key to US National Security'' put in the record, as well?
Ms. Haaland. Without objection.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Gosar.
I thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony. Thank
you so very much, and the Members for your questions.
I now invite the third panel to take their places at the
witness table.
[Pause.]
Ms. Haaland. As with the first two panels, oral statements
are limited to 5 minutes, but your entire statement will be
part of the hearing record.
The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is 1
minute left, and they will turn red when time has expired.
Thank you all for being here today. I am truly
appreciative, and welcome you wholeheartedly into this hearing
room.
The Chair now recognizes the Honorable E. Paul Torres,
Chairman of the All Pueblo Council of Governors, an
organization that is comprised of the 20 governors of the
sovereign Pueblo Nations of New Mexico, and one in Texas.
Chairman Torres has also served as the Governor of Isleta
Pueblo for two terms, and has been a champion for the welfare
and socio-economic prosperity of his people.
Chairman Torres has also been a strong advocate for the
protection of tribal sovereignty and the preservation of
traditional practices and ceremonial places.
Thank you for being here today to share your perspectives
on the importance of the Greater Chaco Region. Chairman, you
have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. E. PAUL TORRES, CHAIRMAN, ALL PUEBLO
COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Speaking Native language.] Good afternoon.
My name is Paul Torres, and I am the Chairman of the All
Pueblo Council of Governors, or APCG. I thank the Committee for
addressing the important matter of irreplaceable Pueblo
cultural resources in the Greater Chaco Region currently at
risk from oil and gas development.
For over 2,000 years, Pueblo people lived in Chaco Canyon.
Eventually they moved outward, into the land they now occupy,
like spokes moving away from the eye of a wheel. Their time in
Chaco Canyon and their movement between Chaco and their
eventual Pueblo land left behind many cultural resources. By
cultural resources, I am referring to vast Pueblo structures,
shrines, or other sacred sites and natural formations with
culturally relevant modifications. This landscape is called the
Greater Chaco Region, and you can feel the heartbeat of our
people when you are in it.
Many Pueblos maintain a significant connection to the
Greater Chaco Region. Our people still remember it as a vital
part of our present identity through song, prayer, and
pilgrimage. It is hard to put into words how important Chaco is
to us, as Pueblo people. Even those outside Indian Country,
including within the field of archeology, recognize Chaco
Canyon's importance in telling the story of the people of this
continent.
But the Greater Chaco Region sits atop an oil field that is
under tremendous pressure for development from the oil and gas
industry, and this is where the problem lies.
Today, the major center point of Chaco Canyon is protected
by the boundaries of the Chaco Culture National Historical
Park, which is recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage site. But
many important cultural resources in the Greater Chaco Region
are located outside these boundaries, and much of the Greater
Chaco Region has not been studied for cultural resources.
APCG's position regarding oil and gas development in the
Greater Chaco Region is two-part. First, APCG takes the
position that no oil and gas development should take place
within a designated withdrawal area, consisting of
approximately 10 miles surrounding the park. Second, APCG takes
the position that, even for development outside the withdrawal
area but within the Greater Chaco Region, rigorous
identification and analysis of cultural resources, in
accordance with Federal statutes, must take place before any
steps toward oil and gas development occur.
Until recently, the Department of the Interior deemed the
withdrawal area around the park unavailable for oil and gas
development. This Administration reversed the policy. Since
reversal, the BLM has held quarterly oil and gas lease sales
that include parcels in the withdrawal area and throughout the
Greater Chaco Region. Despite our concerns and offers of
assistance, the BLM has not conducted anything close to the
type of studies required by law, or to effectively protect our
cultural resources.
APCG has a number of requests for you.
First, this Committee has before it the Chaco Cultural
Heritage Area Protection Act, which would legislatively remove
Federal land in the withdrawal area from future oil and gas
development. We ask that you vote in favor of this important
bill. After a recent trip to see Chaco, DOI Secretary Bernhardt
has said DOI will defer leasing within the withdrawal area
during the coming year. Passage of this legislation would make
this permanent.
Second, we ask that you, as a Committee, encourage DOI to
conduct sufficient cultural resource studies for development
outside the withdrawal area, but within the Greater Chaco
Region.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Torres follows:]
Prepared Statement of E. Paul Torres, Chairman, All Pueblo Council of
Governors on H.R. 2181
The All Pueblo Council of Governors (``APCG'') \1\ thanks the
Committee for the opportunity to testify on the Chaco Cultural Heritage
Area Protection Act of 2019, H.R. 2181. The bill was introduced by
Representative Lujan, and its companion bill was introduced by Senator
Udall--true champions for Indian Country. We thank them for their
steadfast support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ APCG is comprised of the New Mexico Pueblos of Acoma, Cochiti,
Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, Nambe, Ohkay Owingeh, Picuris, Pojoaque, San
Felipe, San Ildefonso, Sandia, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santo Domingo,
Taos, Tesuque, Zia, and Zuni, and one Pueblo in Texas, Ysleta Del Sur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Cultural Resources
For over 2,000 years, Pueblo people lived in Chaco Canyon,
eventually moving outward into the land the Pueblos currently occupy--
like spokes moving away from the eye of a wheel. Their time in Chaco
Canyon, movement outward across the landscape, and continued
interaction with Chaco Canyon after departure left behind many cultural
resources. These include vast pueblo structures, shrines and other
sacred sites, and natural formations with culturally relevant
modifications and meanings. This landscape is now called the Greater
Chaco Region and includes all of the San Juan Basin.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In some instances, the term ``Greater Chaco Landscape'' has
been used, but it refers to the same area of land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many Pueblos maintain a significant and ongoing connection to the
Greater Chaco Region. Our people still remember it as a vital part of
our present identity through song, prayer, and pilgrimage. It is hard
to put into words how important the Greater Chaco Region is to us as
Pueblo people. Even those outside Indian Country, including within the
field of archaeology, recognize Chaco Canyon's importance in telling
the story of the people of this continent.
Today, the major center point of Chaco Canyon is protected from oil
and gas development by the boundaries of the Chaco Culture National
Historic Park (``Park''), which is recognized as a UNESCO World
Heritage Site.
However, many important cultural resources in the Greater Chaco
Region are located outside the boundaries of the Park. And, as much of
this area has not been studied, many cultural resources' locations
remain unknown. Even the cultural resources that fall within the
boundaries of the Park suffer the effects of activity taking place
outside.
Oil and Gas Development
On top of being a place of great cultural importance, the Greater
Chaco Region sits atop an oil field that is under tremendous pressure
for development from the oil and gas industry, and this is where the
problem lies. Upwards of 90 percent of the land in the Greater Chaco
Region is already leased for oil and gas development, and the remaining
land comes dangerously close to Chaco Canyon itself.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The BLM--Farmington District Office is the primary agency
regulating the San Juan Basin, and portions of the San Juan Basin also
extend into the BLM--Rio Puerco Field Office's district boundary. The
majority of available land in the Farmington District Office has been
leased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until recently, the Department of the Interior (``DOI'') deemed the
area surrounding the Park--now called the withdrawal area--unavailable
for oil and gas development. This Administration reversed the policy,
including allowing fracking. Since reversal, DOI has held quarterly oil
and gas lease sales that include parcels within the withdrawal area and
throughout the Greater Chaco Region. DOI has not conducted the type of
cultural resource identification and analysis that would be required to
protect cultural resources from the effects of oil and gas development
or to comply with its Federal statutory obligations.
However, DOI seems to be coming to the understanding that oil and
gas development in the withdrawal area is not appropriate. Despite
including parcels located within the withdrawal area in lease sales,
after significant pressure from the Pueblos and others, DOI has
withdrawn them before the lease sales take place.\4\ And Secretary
Bernhardt's recent announcement after a visit to the Greater Chaco
Region that DOI will take appropriate action to defer leasing within
the withdrawal area during the coming year was welcome news. The New
Mexico State Land Office also recently issued a moratorium on future
mineral development within the withdrawal area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This has meant protesting parcels under the BLM Farmington and
Rio Puerco Field Offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But DOI has permitted parcels that are just outside the withdrawal
area to be sold during lease sales despite Pueblo protests, signaling
that DOI may not slow down development outside the withdrawal area
despite lacking necessary cultural resource studies.
APCG's Position
No Development in Withdrawal Area
APCG takes the position that no oil and gas development should take
place within a designated withdrawal area--defined in the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act \5\ and consisting of
approximately 10 miles surrounding the Park. This is because any parcel
located within this area is likely to contain or impact important
cultural resources and because development in this area is likely to
affect cultural resources in the Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ APCG and DOI have until recently discussed a general area of
approximately 10 miles surrounding the Park as making up the withdrawal
area. In recent years, as part of work on the Chaco Cultural Heritage
Area Protection Act, congressional members, with input from DOI and the
Pueblos, have created more clarity on the boundaries of the withdrawal
area by specifying its parameters and producing an associated map. The
Act's boundaries are now the best description of the withdrawal area--
which has shifted slightly over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigorous Cultural Resource Studies for Development Outside Withdrawal
Area and Within Greater Chaco Region
For development outside the withdrawal area but within the Greater
Chaco Region--and specifically within the jurisdictions of the Bureau
of Land Management's (``BLM'') Farmington and Rio Puerco Field
Offices--DOI must conduct rigorous and Pueblo-led identification and
analysis of cultural resources before any steps toward oil and gas
development occur, including lease sales. This is because the Greater
Chaco Region undeniably contains significant cultural resources, which
Pueblo experts are best situated to identify.
In a big-picture sense, we ask that DOI work with the Pueblos to
study where cultural resources are likely to be located across the
landscape so that DOI can make more informed decisions about
development early on, as required by the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act and other laws. In a parcel-by-parcel sense, we ask that
DOI identify and analyze the cultural resources that would be affected
by oil and gas development on a particular parcel before listing it in
a lease sale, as required the National Historic Preservation Act
(``NHPA''), the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA''), and other
laws.
Such studies would benefit everyone. First, they would help protect
irreplaceable cultural resources and carry out DOI's statutory
obligations. Second, if done properly and early in the oil and gas
development process, these studies would also save DOI, developers, and
the Pueblos time and money.
Legal Deficiencies
DOI in its sale of leases on parcels in the Greater Chaco Region is
violating the NHPA and NEPA, which require sufficient study of cultural
resources before DOI takes any steps toward oil and gas development.
Because of the cultural significance and concentration of cultural
resources in the Greater Chaco Region, these studies must be especially
rigorous and must incorporate qualified experts, such as Pueblo
representatives, able to identify our cultural resources. Thus far, DOI
has not conducted any studies sufficient to identify our cultural
resources before holding lease sales in the Greater Chaco Region and is
therefore in breach of the NHPA and NEPA.
DOI has argued that a literature review is sufficient to meet its
requirements. This involves reviewing existing records and studies
available to the BLM. But there is a significant gap in existing
literature about the Greater Chaco Region because much of the land has
not been surveyed and the surveys that have taken place are often
outdated and absent contribution from Pueblo people. While
archaeologists are trained to identify archaeological features, they
often lack the cultural expertise of Pueblo representatives. Because
Pueblo representatives are able to identify their cultural resources,
which can include natural features, that archaeologists overlook, they
must be included in cultural resource studies. In fact, when the BLM
took Pueblo representatives on a sample field investigation leading up
to the March 2018 lease sale, Pueblo representatives identified
important cultural resources of which the BLM had not been aware. This
lead to the deferral of the BLM Farmington Field Office's oil and gas
lease sale citing cultural resource study adequacy concerns.
DOI has also argued that, for purposes of the Section 106 process
of the NHPA (and similarly NEPA), the primary time for conducting
cultural resource studies is at a later step in the oil and gas
development process. But, as a lessee gains a property interest in a
purchased lease, this commitment of Federal resources to a lessee is
out of step with the legal processes mandated in the NHPA and NEPA.
Additionally, DOI has acted arbitrarily and capriciously by its ad
hoc removal of some parcels but not others from particular lease sales.
In the March and December 2018 lease sales, DOI withdrew all of the
protested parcels, both in and out of the withdrawal area, due to
concerns that sufficient study of cultural resources under the NHPA and
NEPA had not taken place.\6\ Then, in the March 2019 lease sale, DOI
for no discernable reason withdrew only parcels located within the
withdrawal area and permitted the sale of leases on protested parcels
outside. These parcels were located very near or adjacent to parcels
that had been previously withdrawn. As no cultural resource studies
were conducted in the interim, the decision to move forward leasing
those parcels was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative
Procedure Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See for example, the BLM's Press Release and statement on its
March 2018 deferral: https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-defers-oil-
and-gas-lease-sale-parcels-new-mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond these legal deficiencies are likely many others, including
DOI's failure to live up to its trust responsibility to tribes.
Requests
APCG has a number of requests for you that we believe together will
help protect the cultural resources in the Greater Chaco Region.
First, we ask that you support the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area
Protection Act, which will legislatively remove minerals owned by the
U.S. Government in the withdrawal area from future leasing and
development. This will make permanent DOI's past and now current
position that land in this area is unavailable for development due to
the cultural resources that would be harmed. And it will respond to
Secretary Bernhardt's recent statement regarding the Greater Chaco
Region that DOI will respect Congress's role in determining how Federal
lands should be managed.
Second, we ask that you put pressure on DOI to prospectively
identify and analyze the cultural resources that would be affected by
oil and gas development outside the withdrawal area but within the
Greater Chaco Region, as required by Federal law. Related to this
request, we ask that you urge DOI, as part of fulfilling its statutory
obligations, to increase cultural resource inventories by partnering
with Pueblos on a cultural resource study outside of the withdrawal
area in the Greater Chaco Region. APCG asks this Committee to encourage
DOI to move forward with a study and to request that it necessarily
include the area of reasonable foreseeable development outside the
withdrawal area.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This is a discrete area where development is likely to occur,
and the BLM has released a map for reasonable foreseeable development
in the jurisdiction of its Farming Field Office.
*****
Attachment 1
Location of Chaco Canyon, Pueblos, and the Hopi Tribe
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.Map Credit--Archaeology Southwest
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Chairman Torres. The
Chair now recognizes Vice President Myron Lizer of the Navajo
Nation.
Welcome, Mr. Vice President. You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MYRON LIZER, VICE PRESIDENT, NAVAJO
NATION, WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA
Mr. Lizer. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Haaland and
members of the Subcommittee. My name is Myron Lizer, and I am
the Vice President of the Navajo Nation. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2181, the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019, to permanently
protect the sacred Chaco landscape for our children and future
generations whose culture and history is intimately connected
to this special place.
As Native people, we are connected to the land, and it is
important to preserve sacred landscapes. Chaco Canyon is a very
special place. It is truly impressive, with stone walls
standing at least 30 feet into the sky, large round kivas in
every great house, and thousands of artifacts dating back
thousands of years.
It is also widely understood that the Chaco Canyon region
was a special gathering place where many indigenous peoples and
clans converged to trade and share goods, stories, ceremonies,
traditions, and knowledge.
Aside from Chaco's contributions to the field of
archaeology and history, this place is sacred and deserves
permanent protection. It is important that we continue to
protect sacred sites in places like Chaco so indigenous people
can continue to teach and share their history. Oftentimes our
culture and stories are told through landscapes such as Chaco.
The knowledge held by the land, structures, and artifacts need
to live on for future generations.
For many tribes in the Greater Chaco Region, this place
holds great cultural significance. The sun dagger, ball courts,
petroglyphs, great houses, and over 430,000 other artifacts
have greatly informed our past and existence.
With any type of development, especially oil and gas, the
risk for disturbances of any structures and artifacts that
surround the development is always increased. Oil and gas
development activities will also increase the amount of
emissions, such as particulate matter, methane, and volatile
organic compounds.
Furthermore, with more than 90 percent of the public lands
in northwest New Mexico already leased for energy development,
there should not be a need to lease more Federal lands in the
areas near the park.
Recently, on May 28, 2019, now Navajo Nation President,
Jonathan Nez, along with other local tribes, accompanied
Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt, who visited the
Chaco Culture National Historical Park to discuss protection of
the park from natural resource development. Based on that
visit, we understand that Secretary Bernhardt has agreed to
hold off on issuing any new leases for natural resource
extraction in the area for 1 year for the purpose of updating
its resource management plan. We applaud the Secretary's
decision.
However, we also need to have a more permanent solution
provided by H.R. 2181 and Senate Bill 1079.
H.R. 2181 would provide long-term protection for this
critically important landscape, but it should not also act in
lieu of the Bureau of Land Management's responsibility to
listen to our community and protect these lands through the
administrative process.
President Nez and I also want to make clear that we oppose
any talk of potential uranium mining in the area, and we want
to make sure that it cannot be developed.
Uranium mining has been detrimental to the Navajo people,
and we want to make sure that it does not harm anyone again.
Navajo law also supports a moratorium on uranium mining,
processing, and transportation activity on the Navajo Nation.
For the protection of the cultural, historic knowledge, public
health, and our environment, the Navajo Nation supports the
Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act, sponsored by
Congressman Ben Ray Lujan, as well as Senator Udall's companion
Senate bill.
The Greater Chaco Region is a living landscape meant to be
accessible for tribal communities to support the continuance of
cultural practices vital to our present identity. The bill also
protects the land, structures, and environment from any
unanticipated adverse effects associated with unchecked oil and
gas development in the region.
I appreciate the invitation and the opportunity to testify
before the Committee.
[Speaking Native language.] Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lizer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Myron Lizer, Vice President, The Navajo Nation on
H.R. 2181
Good Morning Chairwoman Haaland, Ranking Member Young and members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Myron Lizer and I am the Vice President
of the Navajo Nation. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in
support of H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act
of 2019, to permanently protect the sacred Chaco landscape for our
children and future generations whose culture and history is intimately
connected to this special place.
As native people, we are connected to the land and it is important
to preserve sacred landscapes. Chaco Canyon is a very special place--it
is truly impressive with stone walls standing at least 30 feet into the
sky, large round kivas in every great house, and thousands of artifacts
dating back thousands of years--it is a splendor to see. It is also
widely understood that the Chaco Canyon region was a special gathering
place where many indigenous peoples and clans converged to trade and
share goods, stories, ceremonies, traditions, and knowledge. Our people
have long settled in the area and many of our traditional stories are
connected to Chaco and the surrounding region. Aside from Chaco's
contributions to the field of archeology and history, this place is
sacred and deserves permanent protection.
It is important that we continue to protect sacred sites and places
like Chaco so indigenous people can continue to teach and share their
history. Often times, our culture and stories are told through
landscapes such as Chaco. The knowledge held by the land, structures,
and artifacts need to live on for future generations. For many tribes
in the greater Chaco region, this place holds great cultural
significance. The Sun Dagger, ball courts, petroglyphs, great houses,
and over 430,000 other artifacts have greatly informed our past and
existence. We should all appreciate and honor the contributions of
great societies, one of which is Chaco.
With any type of development, especially oil and gas, the risk for
disturbances of any structures and artifacts that surround the
development is always increased. Whether confirmed or not, our people
living in this region talk about slight tremors that are increasing in
frequency and they are concerned. Oil and gas development activities
will also increase the amount of emissions such as particulate matter,
methane, and volatile organic compounds which can also affect the
surrounding environment but more important, affect our people living in
the area along with their livestock. The Navajo Nation has an ugly
history with uranium mining and its long-lasting effect on human life,
our animals, and our environment. We cannot go through another
environmental disaster if we can prevent it now.
Furthermore, with more than 90 percent of the public lands in
Northwest New Mexico already leased for energy development, there
should not be a need to lease more Federal lands in the areas near the
park.
Recently, on May 28, 2019, Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez
along with Pueblo tribal leaders and Senator Martin Heinrich, met with
Secretary of Interior David Bernhardt at the Chaco Culture National
Historic Park to discuss protection of the park from natural resource
development. This was the first visit by Secretary Bernhardt to the
park. Based on that visit, we understand that Secretary Bernhardt has
agreed to hold off on issuing any new leases for natural resource
extraction in the area for 1 year for the purpose of providing the
Bureau of Land Management time to complete its updated resource
management plan. We support the development of sustainable management
so long as it prevents Federal oil and gas extraction within the area
designated in H.R. 2181 located in and around the Chaco Cultural
National Historic Park. We applaud the Secretary's decision, however we
also need a more permanent solution provided by H.R. 2181 and S. 1079.
H.R. 2181 would provide long-term protection for this critically
important landscape filled with cultural objects and sacred sites, but
it should not also act in lieu of BLM's responsibility to listen to our
communities and protect these lands through the administrative process.
Furthering the partnership between agencies and Indian tribes will help
ensure that tribes will be consulted and that a scientific and
archaeological analysis would be conducted to guarantee cultural
sensitivity, even on leases that may have already been executed within
the Chaco region.
President Nez and I also want to make clear that we oppose any talk
of potential uranium mining in the area and we want to make sure that
it cannot be developed. Uranium mining has been detrimental to the
Navajo people and we want to make sure that it does not harm any
families again. Navajo law also supports a moratorium on uranium
mining, processing, and transportation activity on the Navajo Nation.
For the protection of the cultural and historic knowledge, public
health and our environment, the Navajo Nation supports the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act sponsored by Congressman Ben Ray
Lujan as well as Senator Udall's companion Senate bill. The Greater
Chaco Region is a living landscape, utilized by our ancestors and meant
to be accessible for tribal communities to support the continuance of
cultural practices vital to our present identity. The bill also
protects the land, structures and environment from any unanticipated
adverse effects associated with unchecked oil and gas development in
the region.
I appreciate the invitation and the opportunity to testify before
the Committee. Ahehee'.
Thank you.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Timothy Menchego,
Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Ana.
Welcome, Governor.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TIMOTHY MENCHEGO, GOVERNOR, PUEBLO OF
SANTA ANA, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Menchego. [Speaking Native language.] Thank you, Madam
Chair, members of the Committee. I appreciate the time and the
opportunity to be able to speak my comments in my language.
That is the total importance of our identity.
Language is an identifier, a total identifier for Native
people, and not only Native people, but indigenous people, the
minority people around the world.
I talked about emergence, how we were led, our stories of
migration, the patterns, the pathways of how we made it to
Chaco Canyon. From that point, tribes split, separated, but we
still were led by leadership, spiritual, traditional
leadership. Regardless of how far our settlements have taken
us, we still have a tie, we still have our heart with Chaco
Canyon.
It is important, as some of my previous brothers have
mentioned, for the future the longevity, our identity. Granted,
time has happened and occurred; granted, we have had
encroachment and settlement. There is a foundation. It is our
people. It is our Pueblo people that are the basis, that are
the foundation. We are still living descendants. We are still
actual remnants of what Chaco Canyon was. Visit any Pueblo in
New Mexico. Speaking for Santa Ana Pueblo, you can see the
patterns of the buildings, the structures, the way they are
built, the way they are designed, the representation of the
kivas that are also found in Chaco, as well as Mesa and other
outliers.
Today, we are here to talk about H.R. 2181 and the definite
need for this bill to be implemented for permanent protection.
As with APCG and their comments--and being part of APCG, we do
support what APCG has proposed and presented.
The 10-mile buffer needs to be protected almost
immediately, if not yesterday. We don't know the facts. We
don't know the aftermath. For example, sometimes there are
concerns of seismic activity for proposed and potential
fracking. We don't want to open that little bit of Pandora's
box to see what the aftermath and after-effects are. Curiosity,
as they say, is what killed the cat. We don't want to be
curious. We want to know and we want to do what we know is
right immediately for the future generation of our people, so
they can continue to have their identity, to understand, and to
know where they came from, where they settled, and what
direction they need to continue forward in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Menchego follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy Menchego, Governor of the Pueblo of Santa
Ana on H.R. 2181
The Pueblo of Santa Ana thanks the Committee for the opportunity to
testify on the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019,
H.R. 2181. The bill was introduced by Representative Lujan, and its
companion bill was introduced by Senator Udall--true champions for
Indian Country. We thank them for their steadfast support.
Background
Cultural Resources
The Pueblo of Santa Ana, hereinafter referred to by our traditional
name of ``Tamaya,'' is located in north-central New Mexico along the
Rio Grande River. Our reservation encompasses approximately 150,000
acres in Sandoval County. Our Pueblo nation currently has over 800
enrolled members.
Although the Tamayame have occupied their current site in central
New Mexico since at least the late 1400s, our ancestry can be traced
back to Chaco Canyon (850 A.D.), a major trading and cultural center of
the ancestral Pueblo world.
The Greater Chaco Region, which includes all of the San Juan Basin,
describes the vast archaeological, cultural, and natural landscape(s)
emanating from Chaco Canyon through the Four Corners Regions to the
existing Pueblo nations of today. The existence of Chaco Canyon and the
Greater Chaco Region is important to who we are as Pueblo people even
today, helping us connect with our ancestors, reminding us where we
came from, and teaching us about why we do the things we do. As
Tamayame, Chaco Canyon and the Greater Chaco Region are intimately tied
to the experiences of our ancestors and intimately connected to our
collective memory. The Greater Chaco Region is where our ancestors
lived for generations developing the foundations of our current
cultural practices, traditions, and beliefs that continue to define our
identity as Tamayame today. To lose these sacred places would be to
erase our identity as Pueblo people.
Therefore, the Greater Chaco Region is a living landscape, depended
on by all generations of many of our Pueblo nations and communities.
When our people left Chaco, we moved outward across the landscape to
our current lands. These migration paths left many cultural resources
behind, and they are themselves part of the story of who we are. As
Tamaya, we have an inherent responsibility to protect these life-
affirming resources for the continuity of our identity. Many of these
cultural resources remain unidentified in the Greater Chaco Region.
While archaeologists are adept at recognizing many types of
archaeological resources, including potsherds, room blocks, and
pithouses, many of our vital cultural resources important to the
Pueblos are outside the domain of archaeology. For example, many of
these cultural resources which are not archaeological include natural
formations with culturally relevant uses, modifications, and/or
meanings. For Tamaya, and for other Pueblos, all ancestral Pueblo
archaeological resources are cultural resources, but not all cultural
resources are archaeological in nature. Therein lies the major issue.
Although our tribal representatives at Tamaya have the expertise in
identification and analysis and the inherent responsibility to protect
the integrity of our cultural resources, we are forced to rely on
Federal agencies, as our trustees, to safeguard these resources in a
period of unchecked oil and gas development. Unfortunately, these
agencies are often unable or unwilling to take the necessary first step
needed to engage with our tribal experts to identify these significant
cultural resources. This necessary first step includes providing us
with the opportunity to survey nominated lease parcels and potential
drilling sites before Federal action is taken.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Uncited Preliminary Brief (Deferred Appendix Appeal) of
Amici Curiae All Pueblo Council of Governors and National Trust for
Historic Preservation, in Support of Appellants,'' Dine Citizens
Against Ruining Our Environment, et al v. Ryan Zinke, et al, Civ. No.
18-2089 (Sept. 7) (10th Cir. 2018) (describing violations of the
National Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations in
failing to consult with Pueblo tribal governments when considering
applications for permits to drill (``APDs''), in order to gather
required information about potentially affected historic properties,
including traditional cultural properties (``TCPs''), and how approving
the APDs would adversely affect Pueblo TCPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Gas Development
Today, the major center point of the Greater Chaco Region, Chaco
Canyon, is protected by the boundaries of the Chaco Culture National
Historic Park, which is recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Unfortunately, the location of Chaco Canyon and the Greater Chaco
Region is also its greatest peril. The Greater Chaco Region sits atop
an oil field that is under tremendous pressure for development from the
oil and gas industry. Upwards of 90 percent of the land in the region,
primarily managed by the BLM Farmington District and Rio Puerco Field
Offices, is already leased for oil and gas development, and the
remaining land comes dangerously close to Chaco Canyon itself.
Currently, oil and gas development is overwhelming this fragile and
sacred landscape. The BLM Farmington Field Office, whose boundaries
include the primary bulk of the New Mexico portions of the Greater
Chaco Region, has exhausted nearly all available lands for leasing. Due
to developments in oil and gas technology, previously inaccessible
reaches of oil are now open, dangerously encroaching upon Chaco Canyon.
This renewed interest by industry has spilled east into a portion of
the neighboring BLM Rio Puerco Field Office that juts into the Greater
Chaco Region. Under the guise of ``streamlining,'' \2\ the BLM issued
Instruction Memorandum 2018-034, ``Updating Oil and Gas Leasing
Reform--Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,'' which has made an
already fraught situation worse by strictly adhering to a mandatory
quarterly leasing schedule, dismantling many land management processes,
and all but ensuring oil and gas leases are sold within a minimum 6-
month time frame. This rush to sell leads to incomplete and inadequate
analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and the
National Historic Preservation Act (``NHPA'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See BLM Instruction Memorandum 2018-034, ``Updating Oil and Gas
Leasing Reform--Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews.''
\3\ Under the NHPA and its implementing regulations, Pueblo
cultural resources may be considered historic properties or traditional
cultural properties under proper analysis and may be eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Under the NHPA,
when a Federal undertaking takes place, a process, often referred to as
the Section 106 process, begins. Section 106 is a critical, step-driven
process, meant to determine: (1) the area of potential effects; (2) the
identification of historic properties; (3) the assessment of adverse
effects; and (4) the resolution of adverse effects. The Section 106
process is where meaningful tribal consultation is required to advise
the agency on the identification and evaluation of historic properties,
including those of traditional religious and cultural importance. NEPA
incorporates the NHPA analysis into its environmental assessments and
environmental impacts statements, requiring simultaneous analyses in
order to assess the full impact of an undertaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until recently, the Department of the Interior (``DOI'') deemed the
area surrounding the Park--now called the withdrawal area--unavailable
for oil and gas development. This Administration reversed the policy,
including allowing fracking. Since reversal, DOI has held quarterly oil
and gas lease sales that include parcels within the withdrawal area and
throughout the Greater Chaco Region. DOI has not conducted the type of
cultural resource identification and analysis that would be required to
protect cultural resources from the effects of oil and gas development
or to comply with its Federal statutory obligations.
However, DOI seems to be coming to the understanding that oil and
gas development in the withdrawal area is not appropriate. Despite
including parcels located within the withdrawal area in lease sales,
after significant pressure from the Pueblos and others, DOI has
withdrawn them before the lease sales take place. Secretary Bernhardt's
recent announcement after a visit to the Greater Chaco Region that DOI
will take appropriate action to defer leasing within the withdrawal
area during the coming year was welcome news. The New Mexico State Land
Office also recently issued a moratorium on future mineral development
within the withdrawal area.
The Pueblo of Santa Ana's Position
Like APCG, the Pueblo of Santa Ana firmly believes no oil and gas
development should take place within the withdrawal area. For this
reason, we support the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of
2019, which would legislatively remove United States land in the
withdrawal area from oil and gas development. And we ask that you as a
Committee support this legislation.
In addition to protecting the withdrawal area from oil and gas
development, and despite the future of H.R. 2181 and the
Administration's temporary moratorium in the region, we must complete
cultural resource studies outside the withdrawal area. Like APCG, the
Pueblo of Santa Ana takes the position that, for development outside
the withdrawal area but within the Greater Chaco Region, rigorous
identification and analysis of cultural resources must take place
before any steps toward oil and gas development occur. Because the
Greater Chaco Region undeniably contains significant cultural
resources, which Pueblo experts are best situated to identify, the
Pueblo of Santa Ana maintains that the identification and analysis of
cultural resources must incorporate Pueblo representatives.
Requests
First and foremost, we ask that this Committee support the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019, which will help protect
the withdrawal area from oil and gas development.
Additionally, we ask that this Committee help amplify the Pueblos'
requests for cultural resource studies outside the withdrawal area but
within the Greater Chaco Region. As previously outlined, the migration
paths of our Pueblo people are deeply important to who we are today and
contain cultural resources, many of which only Pueblo people will be
able to identify. For this reason, cultural resource studies must be
Pueblo-led.
More holistically, we ask that DOI work with the Pueblos to study
where cultural resources are likely to be located across the landscape
so that DOI can make more informed decisions about development early
on, as required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and other
laws.
In a parcel-by-parcel lens, we ask that DOI work with Pueblos to
identify and analyze the cultural resources that would be affected by
oil and gas development on a particular parcel before listing it in a
lease sale, as required the NHPA, NEPA, and other laws. To reiterate,
we are most concerned about land within the jurisdictions of the BLM
Farmington and Rio Puerco Field Offices at this time.
To facilitate cultural resource studies, and at the invitation of
DOI, the Pueblos submitted to DOI a proposal to conduct a Pueblo-led
study of the cultural resources in the Greater Chaco Region. Pueblo
leadership has since met with officials from the BLM and the Assistant
Secretary-Indian Affairs' Office, who have stated they will offer a
counter proposal for a pilot project that would cover less land. I ask
that this Committee encourage DOI to move forward with this study and
urge DOI to include the area of reasonable foreseeable development
outside the withdrawal area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Attachment 1 ``Map--Oil and Gas Development Potential
within the Farmington Field Office Administrative Boundary, 2018-2037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such studies would benefit everyone. They would help protect
irreplaceable cultural resources and carry out DOI's statutory
obligations. If done properly and early in the oil and gas development
process, these studies would also save DOI, developers, and the Pueblos
time and money.
*****
Attachment 1
Map--Oil and Gas Development Potential within the Farmington Field
Office Administrative Boundary, 2018-2037
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Map Credit--U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management--New Mexico State Office, ``Reasonably Foreseeable
Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Activities--Mancos Gallup RMPA
Planning Area, Farmington Field Office, Northwestern New Mexico''
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Governor.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Samuel Sage, Community
Services Coordinator of the Counselor Chapter House.
Mr. Sage.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL SAGE, COMMUNITY SERVICES COORDINATOR,
COUNSELOR CHAPTER HOUSE, FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Sage. Thank you. Chair Haaland and also Chair Grijalva,
thank you for this opportunity to share with you why I support
H.R. 2181, Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019.
I also appreciate the collaboration with the All Pueblo
Council of Governors and the Navajo Nation, ensuring that
tribal trusts and allotment lands within the 10-mile buffer are
not impacted.
[Speaking Native language.] My name is Samuel Sage. I am a
U.S. Army military police veteran, and I am also an allotment
landowner with my siblings. We receive royalty payments from
time to time, but they are decreasing.
In 2003, when I was a chapter president of a counselor
chapter, I found out that BLM, Bureau of Land Management, was
not consulting with our local chapter government. BLM was ready
to approve their resources management plan, which they had
revised without tribal consultation.
In 2004, the counselor chapter which I was the president of
at that time, joined a lawsuit with San Juan Citizens Alliance
versus DOI Gale Norton for BLM failing to consult with Native
American government and communities. The outcome of the lawsuit
did not go in our favor, but at the time, under the leadership
of Farmington field office manager Steve Henke, an agreement to
consult with Navajo Nation communities was drawn up and agreed
upon. To this date, the agreement has not been honored. BLM is
still failing to engage in meaningful tribal consultation, and
continuing to ignore the impacts of drilling on our landscape,
and the concern of the Navajo Nation and local residents.
In 2013, full-scale horizontal drilling and hydraulic
fracking over-ran our community under the title ``Exploratory
Drilling.'' Soon there were more than 100 wells. This
devastated our community with increasing traffic, truck drivers
who had no regard for the safety of the local communities,
school buses, and emergency vehicles. The dirt roads used to be
wagon trails. They were never built for heavy truck traffic.
The roads became worse during inclement weather, and were
unpassable. After the drilling, the pump jacks that went up,
the air quality changed. A majority of the wells leaked, and
the smell of rotten eggs because of the hydrogen sulfide.
Certain valleys became worse.
And, in 2019, the allotment landowners and their heirs were
approached by BLM-contracted land agents to sign to consent for
oil and gas development. The land agents would say, ``I need
your signature for oil and gas development. If you sign, this
is how much money you will get.'' Anywhere from 10K to 100-
400K+. No explanations were given at the time, and also that
this was a one-time thing.
The BLM turned families and community members against each
other. Some people regret that they agreed to lease their
lands, and to the new type of hydraulic fracking. And also
every day we see oil and gas pump trucks from the ground pump,
and then there is water spill contamination, cattle walking in
the wastewater pits, and elderlies and children getting sick.
I thank you at this time that I can offer you this really
short oral testimony. I believe that the Chaco Protection Act
is a good step that will help to protect ancient lands, as well
as our lives of the community. Although there are various
opinions on oil and gas development among allotment landowners,
many also strongly support this bill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sage follows:]
Prepared Statement of Samuel Sage, Community Services Coordinator,
Counselor Chapter House on H.R. 2181
Chair Haaland and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for this opportunity to share with you why I support H.R. 2181--
Chaco Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019. Thank you as well for
taking the time to visit Chaco Cultural National Historical Park and
the surrounding Greater Chaco Region on April 14, 2019. I applaud your
commitment to learning firsthand about the issues facing this leaguered
cultural landscape and dedicating to exploring solutions to ensure
meaningful protections for this area.
To'di'ch'ii'nii (Bitter Water clan), Bit'ahnii (Within-his-cover).
My name is Samuel Sage. I am a U.S. Army Military Police Veteran. I am
from Counselor Chapter community. Counselor Chapter is where I work.
Growing up on my homeland was wonderful, clean and noise free.
Early mornings sun raise, cool breeze from the east would bring the
smell of rain, wet dirt. It was quiet. You could hear a vehicle off in
the distance, along roosters crowing from your neighbors, who were 5
miles away. Nights were beautiful, stars were bright and sparkling. It
seems like you could actually reach up and touch the stars. Navajo
traditional medicine people and herbalists had no problems gathering
plants for medicinal purpose. The plants grew every year and wildlife
were abundant.
In 2003, I found out the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were not
consulting with our local chapter government. BLM were ready to approve
their Resources Management Plan, which they had revised without tribal
consultation.
In 2004, Counselor Chapter, which I was the President at the time,
joined a Lawsuit with San Juan Citizen Alliance v. U.S. DOI Gale Norton
for BLM failing to consult with Native American Government and
communities.
In 2006, the outcome of the lawsuit did not go our way. The judge
stated BLM did everything correctly. Later, BLM-Farmington Field Office
under the leadership of Steve Henke made a 10-point agreement to
consult with Navajo Nation and communities. To this day the agreement
was not honored and has gone nowhere.
In 2013, full scale hydraulic fracturing over ran our community
under the title ``Exploratory Drilling.'' This event devastated our
community. The sudden increase in truck traffic; truck drivers had no
regard for the safety of the local community members, school buses,
emergency vehicles. The local dirt roads were never built for heavy
truck traffic. They were wagon trails turned into bladed gravel roads.
Increase in dust was being stirred up by the traffic. The conditions
became worst during inclement weather and impassable. After the
drillings and pump jacks were set up the quality of the air changed.
Because the majority of the wells were leaking, the air smelled like
rotten eggs. Certain valleys became worst. Bright lights from the
flaring were so bright and the noise of the drilling rigs was constant.
None of these impacts were explained to the community members by BLM.
Industry just quietly moved into the community and started their
destructions.
In 2014, Indian Allotment Landowners and their heirs were
approached by BLM Contracted Land Agents to obtain signatures for
consent for Oil & Gas Development. The Land Agents' conversation with
the Allotment Landowner and Heirs would go like, ``I need your
signature for Oil & Gas Development. If you sign this is how much money
you are going to get.'' (10K-400+K)
Of course, when money is mentioned people jump to sign. No
explanation was ever given that this was a one-time thing. This type of
event by BLM & Industry turned families against each other, along with
community members.
Some of the community elders were abused, threatened--with bodily
harm over the money they received by their own family members. One
elderly lady had a hard time cashing a large amount on her check. Bank
wouldn't help her. She ended up at car dealership. She was thinking if
she purchased a vehicle she would get some cash back. Instead the
dealership took the check and she ended up with six (6) vehicles. Some
adult children and grandchildren got power of attorney to handle their
finances, which turned out the money being all spent. Little or none
went to benefit the parents. There are approximately four killings
unresolved as a result of money. The saddest thing was the people that
received a large amount of money went back to the Farmington Field
Office-Indian Individuals Minerals Office asking when they will receive
another check, after all their money was spent.
In March 2018, BLM deferred the sale of 25 lease parcels covering
more than 4,000 acres in Rio Arriba, San Juan, and Sandoval Counties.
Citing Cultural resources concerns, BLM stated in a press release:
Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke announced Thursday that he
directed the BLM to defer its scheduled Farmington Field Office
lease sale so the agency could complete an ongoing analysis of
more than 5,000 cultural sites in the proposed leasing area.
To date, BLM has yet to complete its analysis of cultural sites in
the Greater Chaco region. What's more, BLM has proceeded to lease in
the region despite its acknowledged need for more rigorous cultural
surveys.
In December 2018, BLM proposed to lease additional lands for oil
and gas development in the Greater Chaco region. After public uproar,
BLM withdrew selling lands in the Farmington Field Office. They kept
selling lands in Sandoval County, which is part of the Rio Puerco Field
Office, many of which are within 20 miles of Chaco Cultural National
Historical Park. BLM did this after previously deferring the sale of
lands in Sandoval County. BLM sold leases even though it had yet to
complete the analysis of cultural sites BLM indicated it needed to
complete in to justify leasing in the Greater Chaco area.
In March 2019, BLM proposed to lease more than 11,000 acres in the
Greater Chaco region, including Farmington and Rio Puerco Field Offices
for oil and gas development. The public responded with another
opposition, including the filing of more than 30,000 protest letters.
BLM deferred only nine parcels totaling 1,500 acres that happened to be
within 10 miles of Chaco Cultural National Historical Park. Again, BLM
proceeded to sell lands that it previously deferred in the Farmington
and Rio Puerco Field offices. BLM sold these leases even though it had
yet to complete the analysis of cultural sites that BLM indicated it
needed to complete in order to justify leasing in the Greater Chaco
area. BLM continues to push to open up more lands for oil and gas
development in Greater Chaco.
Today, BLM is moving forward with this lease sale despite
acknowledging a need to pause in order to fully account for the impacts
to cultural sites in the region.
BLM has failed to properly follow their own process in obtaining
informed consent for oil development, they failed to consult with
families and the community in the leasing process, and there were no
ethnographic studies or cultural resources inventories of the area
before leasing.
Above all, BLM and Industry tells us how safe fracking is. There
have been television commercials stating how safe fracking is. We had a
large 36-storage tank facility holding oil and produced water explode
and catch fire. The fire burned for five (5) days, spewing toxic smoke.
Industry conducted their own investigation. Their findings were never
made public or to the community members living in the area.
In April 2019, it was discovered of 2 WPX pipeline failures in
Southwestern area of Counselor community in the Greater Chaco area. 300
barrels of oil and 100 barrels of produced water were spilled. The
neighboring Navajo Chapter and Counselor were not notified. Industry,
again investigated the cause and reports not made the local Navajo
governments.
The life of our community has been changed and is now unbalanced.
People now regret they agreed to lease their land for this new type of
fracking and drilling. Everyday, we see the oil and gas being pumped
from the ground, the water spilling out and contaminating the land, our
cattle walking in the waste-water pits and the elders and children
getting sick more. There are much the oil companies should do to
mitigate this damage:
--To restore our roads
--To save and protect our water
--To fence off wastewater
--To stop leaks and reduce toxic air emissions
--To be honest with every allotment owner and explain the dangers
and risks they are taking.
Today, our traditional medicine people and herbalist are having a
hard time locating and gathering plants for medicinal purposes. The
plants are no there, in the area. They have to travel to the mountains
to gather the plants. Early mornings are no longer quiet, you can hear
truck traffic, pump jacks, drilling rigs and clinking of metal pipes.
Bright lights, dust in the air, along with the smell of rotten eggs.
Wildlife have left the area. In some areas the vegetations are drying
up. Community members are complaining about the ground rumbling and
shaking after midnight to early in the morning. While the cities are
enjoying the benefits of the extraction and we are left with the
negative impacts.
I believe the Chaco Protection Act will help our ancient land as
well as our living communities.
Thank you.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Mr. Sage. And thank you
for your service to our country.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Delora Hesuse, a Navajo Nation
Indian allottee.
You have 5 minutes, Ms. Hesuse.
STATEMENT OF DELORA HESUSE, NAVAJO INDIAN ALLOTTEE, NAGEEZI,
NEW MEXICO
Ms. Hesuse. I would like to thank Chairwoman Haaland and
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to bring voice to those Navajo tribal members who
are being forgotten with this bill: Indian allottees.
I am Delora Hesuse, a citizen of the Navajo Nation Nageezi
Chapter of the people born for the Mexican clan. My chapter is
in the Greater Chaco Region, and near the Chaco Culture
National Historical Park. My grandmother was a councilwoman for
the Nageezi Chapter for 8 years, and my father was a Navajo
Nation Council Delegate for the Nageezi chapter for 20 years.
Many people don't understand our Native American heritage,
and the fact that many individuals, Navajo Nation members such
as I, own private land and minerals underneath them. This is a
steadfast personal property right that sustains our livelihoods
and way of life. H.R. 2181 would put many of our mineral rights
off limits, and stop much-needed source of income to feed,
shelter, clothe, and protect our families. This income is
important to us.
In 2015, the Federal Indian Mineral office distributed $96
million to 20,835 allottees. That is a huge source of income to
us. My ancestors were allotted the land and mineral rights by
the U.S. government many generations ago. It pains me to see
that my own leaders, both tribal and in Congress, are
supporting a bill that would put my oil and natural gas rights
off limits and prevent my family from receiving income from a
valuable energy resource that we own.
I am not alone. Many other Indian allottees in the Greater
Chaco Region agree with me. In fact, I have a petition signed
by 131 of us allottees opposing this buffer bill.
I also have my other petition signed by many allottees that
state that the environmentalist voice is not our voice. Our
voices as allotted landowners are being silenced by the
environmentalists claiming to speak for all of us.
These lands were given to our great-great-grandparents to
exchange for citizenship, and we have rights as citizens and
landowners to develop our lands for oil and gas as we see fit.
I have two resolutions for the Heurfano and Nageezi
chapters signed by our chapter president supporting us Navajo
allotment owners, and recognizing our opposition to this bill.
These chapter resolutions call for a meeting with Senator Udall
and Heinrich so that we can express our concerns with the bill
and how it would limit our rights.
I am disappointed that the Interior Department, which is
supposed to manage our mineral rights entrusted to benefit of
allottees, has stopped leasing for a year. This action delays
income to us allottees in the short term. But, more
importantly, sends a strong signal to oil and gas companies
that investment in the area is risky and uncertain in the long
term.
I am participating actively in the Resource Management
Planning process, which is under pressure from the
environmentalist groups and others opposed to responsible oil
and natural gas development in the area. I continue to feel
that the Department of the Interior and Members of Congress are
ignoring the voice of Indian allottees and listening only to
the environmental groups like Dine Care and other outside
groups that will keep oil and gas from being developed.
Besides not being realistic, it would deprive my family of
income to sustain our way of life. Our voices should and must
be heard equally, along with environmental specialist interest
groups. In fact, with the Interior Department's trust
responsibility, our voices should carry more weight than the
outside special interests, but that is not the case.
The bill would put off my mineral rights and the mineral
rights of thousands of allottees. While the bill claims to not
affect my mineral rights, in fact, many allottee lands are
surrounded by Federal lands that would be withdrawn by this
bill. If BLM lands are withdrawn around our allotments, oil and
gas companies cannot access our land. They will be destroyed
from developing the minerals on my behalf, because it just
doesn't make sense to pinpoint my small amount of minerals
stranded amongst Federal minerals. What will be small to them,
however, is not small to me.
I, too, care deeply about the Chaco culture heritage. After
all, I am a Navajo who lives right in the Greater Chaco Region.
But the Chaco Culture National Historical Park already protects
the great houses. Artifacts that might be outside the park are
protected through the National Historic Preservation Act. Any
developments of my minerals and minerals of other allottees----
Ms. Haaland. Ms. Hesuse, I am so sorry, your time has
expired.
Ms. Hesuse. OK. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hesuse follows:]
Prepared Statement of Delora Hesuse, Navajo Indian Allottee, Nageezi
Chapter on H.R. 2181
Chairwoman Haaland, Ranking Member Young and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to bring voice to those
Navajo tribal members who are being forgotten with this bill--Indian
allottees.
I am Delora Hesuse, a citizen of the Navajo Nation, Nageezi
Chapter. My chapter is in the Greater Chaco Region and near the Chaco
Culture National Historic Park. My grandmother was a Councilwoman for
the Nageezi Chapter for 8 years, and my father was a Navajo Nation
Council Delegate for the Nageezi Chapter for 20 years.
Many people don't understand our Native American heritage and the
fact that many individual Navajo Nation members such as I own private
lands and the minerals underneath them. This is a steadfast personal
property right that sustains our livelihoods and way of life. H.R. 2181
would put many of our mineral rights off limits and stop a much-needed
source of income to feed, shelter, clothe and protect our families. I'm
not exaggerating the importance of this income. In 2015, the Federal
Indian Minerals Office distributed $96 million to 20,835 allottees.\1\
That's a significant source of income in an area that continues to
struggle with unemployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final Audit Report: Bureau of Indian Affairs' Federal Mineral
Office, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of the
Interior, February 3, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My ancestors were allotted the land and mineral rights by the U.S.
Government many generations ago, and it pains me to see that my own
leaders, both tribal and in the U.S. House of Representatives and
Senate, are supporting a bill that would put my oil and natural gas
rights off limits and/or seriously prevent my family from receiving
income from the valuable energy resources that we own.
I am not alone. Many other Indian allottees in the Greater Chaco
Region agree with me. In fact, I have here a petition signed by 131 of
us allottees opposing this buffer zone bill.
I also have with me another petition signed by many allottees that
states that the environmentalists' voice is not our voice. Our voices
as Allotted landowners are being silenced by environmentalists claiming
to speak for all of us. These lands were given to our great, great
grandparents in exchange for citizenship, and we have rights as
citizens and landowners to develop our lands for oil and gas as we see
fit.
I also have two resolutions from the Huerfano and Nageezi chapters
signed by our chapter presidents supporting us Navajo Allotment
landowners and recognizing our opposition to this bill. These chapter
resolutions call for a meeting with Senators Udall and Heinrich so that
we can express our concerns with the bill and how it will limit our
rights.
I am disappointed that the Department of the Interior, which is
supposed to manage our mineral rights in trust to the benefit of my
family and all other allottees, has stopped leasing for a full year.
This action delays income to us allottees in the short term, but more
importantly, sends a strong signal to oil and gas companies that
generate the income on our behalf that investment in the area is risky
and uncertain in the long term.
I have been participating actively in the Resource Management
Planning (RMP) process which is under pressure from environmental
groups and others opposed to responsible oil and natural gas
development in the area. I continue to feel that the Interior
Department and Members of Congress are ignoring the voice of Indian
allottees and listening only to environmental groups like Dine Care and
other outside groups that want to keep oil and natural gas from being
developed at all.
Besides not being realistic, it would deprive my family of income
to sustain our way of life. Our voices should and must be heard equally
along with the environmental special interest groups. In fact, with the
Interior Department's trust responsibility, our voices should carry
much more weight than that of outside special interests, but that is
not the case with this bill.
The bill would put off limits my mineral rights and the mineral
rights of thousands of allottees. While the bill claims not to affect
my mineral rights, in fact, many allottee lands are surrounded by
Federal lands that would be withdrawn by this bill. If BLM lands are
withdrawn around our allotments, that means oil and gas companies
cannot access our lands, because they won't be able to access the
Federal lands.
Furthermore, since the oil and gas is accessed using horizontal
drilling, putting the Federal lands and minerals off limits will mean
my minerals are also off limits. Because of the checkerboard pattern of
lands, where allottee lands are often surrounded by BLM lands,
particularly in the northeast segment of the buffer, if companies
cannot access all minerals along the lateral of a horizontal well, they
will not access any.
Companies will simply be discouraged from developing the minerals
on my behalf because it just doesn't make sense economically or
technologically to pinpoint my small amount of minerals stranded
amongst Federal minerals. What may be small to them, however, is not
small to me. Companies will be discouraged from developing in all areas
of the buffer at all, even on allottee lands.
I too care deeply about the Chaco cultural heritage. After all, I'm
a Navajo who lives right in the Greater Chaco Region. But the Chaco
Culture National Historic Park already protects the Great Houses.
Artifacts that may be outside the park are protected through the
National Historic Preservation Act. Any development of my minerals and
the minerals of other allottees is done in strict accordance with the
Act, to make sure they are protected. Not only do we insist upon it,
but that is the law of the land.
I urge the Committee not to pass this bill. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Delora Hesuse, Navajo Indian
Allottee
Question Submitted by Rep. Curtis
Question 1. Chairwoman Haaland read a statement from Representative
Lujan to you during the hearing: ``The BLM has testified that this
legislation would not affect tribal interests or allottees, while the
bill itself includes language that recognizes the rights of Navajo
allottees such as yourself, Ms. Hesuse, to continue to develop their
lands.'' Representatives Haaland and Lujan are referring to testimony
from BLM's Mike Nedd on May 16 before the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forest and Mining
regarding S. 1079. However, what they're referring to is an answer to a
specific question from Senator Mike Lee: ``Do you know how tribal
allottees and horizontal dlilling on allotted lands might be affected
by the protection zone and by this legislation?'' Mr. Nedd answered
``It is my understanding that Tribal and allottees would not be
affected by this withdrawal. However, there will be challenges given
the intermixing of public, tribal and private land and of course the
geography of the lands.'' Taken in context, it appears that Mr. Nedd
was not saying that BLM had studied the impacts of the bill, but was
just referring to the plain language of the bill. He appears to be
agreeing with your testimony about how it will be difficult to develop
allottee minerals if Federal lands are closed off. Could you elaborate
on why it will be difficult to develop allottee minerals if an
exclusionary zone is enacted by this bill?
Answer. The ``bill'' would put off limits to mineral rights of
thousand allottees. While the ``bill'' claims not to affect mineral
rights, in fact, many allottee lands are surrounded with Federal lands
and other lands.
If BLM lands are withdrawn around our allotments, that means oil
and gas companies cannot access our lands, because they won't be able
to access the Federal lands. No need for a Buffer Zone--companies are
in compliance.
Currently, numerous Navajo Allotment Lands in Nageezi, NM are
leased for new oil and gas development, but no development has taken
place on these allotment lands due to leases not being approved for new
oil and gas development on BLM lands in Nageezi, NM. Majority of BLM
lands are adjacent to Navajo allotment lands. Navajo allotment owners
are being told that proposed leases on BLM lands are not being approved
due to proposed amendments to Range Management Plan have not been
approved. Proposed amendments to the Range Management Plan not being
approved has dramatically impacted new oil and gas development on
Navajo allotment lands that have been leased out for new oil and gas
development. Creating the 10 miles buffer zone will have the same
impact as the proposed amendments not being approved to the Range
Management Plan. New oil and gas development on just Navajo allotment
lands in Nageezi, NM will not be economical for oil and gas companies.
Basically it means, if the buffer zone is created there will be no new
oil and gas development in Nageezi, NM.
Question Submitted by Rep. Gosar
Question 1. Chair Haaland read a statement from Representative
Lujan to you during the hearing: ``The BLM has testified that this
legislation would not affect tribal interests or allottees, while the
bill itself includes language that recognizes the rights of Navajo
allottees such as yourself, Ms. Hesuse, to continue to develop their
lands.'' Representatives Haaland and Lujan are referring to testimony
from BLM's Mike Nedd on May 16 before the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forest and Mining
regarding S. 1079. However, what they're referring to is an answer to a
specific question from Senator Mike Lee: ``Do you know how tribal
allottees and horizontal drilling on allotted lands might be affected
by the protection zone and by this legislation?'' Mr. Nedd answered
``It is my understanding that Tribal and allottees would not be
affected by this withdrawal. However, there will be challenges given
the intermixing of public, tribal and private land and of course the
geography of the lands.'' Taken in context, it appears that Mr. Nedd
was not saying that BLM had studied the impacts of the bill, but was
just referring to the plain language of the bill. He appears to be
agreeing with your testimony about how it will be difficult to develop
allottee minerals if Federal lands are closed off. Could you elaborate
on why it will be difficult to develop allottee minerals if an
exclusionary zone is enacted by this bill?
Answer. The ``bill'' would put off limits to mineral rights of
thousand allottees. While the ``bill'' claims not to affect mineral
rights, in fact, many allottee lands are surrounded with Federal lands
and other lands.
If BLM lands are withdrawn around our allotments, that means oil
and gas companies cannot access our lands, because they won't be able
to access the Federal lands. No need for a Buffer Zone--companies are
in compliance.
Currently, numerous Navajo Allotment Lands in Nageezi, NM are
leased for new oil and gas development, but no development has taken
place on these allotment lands due to leases not being approved for new
oil and gas development on BLM lands in Nageezi, NM. Majority of BLM
lands are adjacent to Navajo allotment lands. Navajo allotment owners
are being told that proposed leases on BLM lands are not being approved
due to proposed amendments to Range Management Plan have not been
approved. Proposed amendments to the Range Management Plan not being
approved has dramatically impacted new oil and gas development on
Navajo allotment lands that have been leased out for new oil and gas
development. Creating the 10 miles buffer zone will have the same
impact as the proposed amendments not being approved to the Range
Management Plan. New oil and gas development on just Navajo allotment
lands in Nageezi, NM will not be economical for oil and gas companies.
Basically it means, if the buffer zone is created there will be no new
oil and gas development in Nageezi, NM.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. They will ask questions as we go
along. I appreciate all of you being here. I am very grateful.
Before I start Member questions, I would like to, on behalf
of Assistant Speaker Ben Ray Lujan, read this statement because
he couldn't be here with us today.
Ben Ray Lujan Statement
``The BLM has testified that this legislation would ``not
affect'' tribal interests or allottees, while the bill itself
includes language that recognizes the rights of Navajo
allottees to continue to develop their lands.
Let me read Section 6 of the bill here, which states:
Nothing in this Act----
(1) affects the mineral rights of an Indian Tribe or
member of an Indian Tribe to trust land or allotment
land; or,
(2) precludes improvements to, or rights-of-way for
water, power, or road development on, the Federal land
to assist communities adjacent to or in the vicinity of
Federal land.
These are protections of sacred lands that would benefit
the health and safety of many and the BLM has said it would not
impact the rights of allottees.
This legislation would only withdraw over 900,000 acres,
but would only withdraw 316,076 acres of oil, natural gas,
coal, and other minerals. The remainder of these minerals in
this area are owned by private, state, and tribal entities and
are not changed by this legislation.''
We will enter this statement into the record, without
objection.
Thank you, all of you, for that valuable testimony. The
Chair will now recognize Members for questions. Under Committee
Rule 3(d), each Member will be recognized for 5 minutes. I will
recognize Chairman Grijalva for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, all of
you, for coming. And again, thank you for your hospitality when
we visited Chaco, a very moving and very important visit for
those of us who went. Thank you for the time all of you took to
educate some of us, and reinforce the importance all through
it.
Chairman Torres, Governor Menchego, or Mr. Vice President
Lizer, I don't know if you were part of the meeting with
Secretary Bernhardt, but I was at that meeting. Could you
relay, either one of you or all three of you, the sense that
you had from that meeting, and the fact that there is a pause
for a year on any further development around Chaco?
Mr. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I was at the
meeting with Secretary Bernhardt and Senator Heinrich, along
with four other tribal leaders. And I thought that the meeting
went well, and I was happy that Secretary Bernhardt did that
moratorium for a year, because it is a start.
We have been addressing this Chaco issue for years and
years, and at least we have made a dent in it, in one way. So,
we are happy for that.
Mr. Grijalva. I think it should be noted, too, that in the
big lands package that was passed at the beginning of this
year, the Yellowstone Gateway was withdrawn for protection from
mineral extraction. The Mato Valley in Washington State,
withdrawn from mineral extraction. And those were public lands.
My point being that this is not something that we are creating
a precedent here. This has been done, and that is why the
application to this case, the case at the Grand Canyon, is so
important. It is something that has been done in the past.
All of you mentioned identity, both the significance as a
sacred site for Chaco, and also the significance of identity
for members. If any one of you would care to just elaborate a
little more on that, because I think people think we are just
talking about an abstract piece of old building. We are not. We
are talking about something much more profound and deep. And I
think that needs to be stated.
Mr. Menchego. Thank you for the question, Chairman Grijalva
and members of the Committee.
Identity is understanding who we are as indigenous people,
particularly for the Pueblos. We teach our children at an early
age customs, practices, traditions. The identity spans to a
place of emergence in our stories, emergence pathways,
migrations. We understand where we came to places of
settlement, why we settled there, and why we migrated and moved
forward.
We come to a new era, a new age where we have permanent
settlements now. They are no longer temporary. But the
identity, the correlation with Mesa Verde, Bears Ears, Chaco
Canyon, smaller outliers and current settlements, such as the
village at Santa Ana Pueblo, the identity and the relation is
our pattern of building, our use of structure.
At one point in time it has been said and identified to
have had a mother language. The Keres-speaking people are a
unique language that have no linguistic ties to outer regions
or outer areas. We all talked, we all shared, we all equally
lived on a daily basis. And we still have that consideration,
that need, that desire and practice for community to be one, to
know each other, to wake and sleep with each other, to make
sure we understand that our actions from the previous day or
the day of carries on to the next day.
We all dwell with one another. We are all brothers and
sisters. That is the type of cultural and humanitarian identity
that we strive to provide to our younger generation for the
future.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Madam Chair, before I yield back, I just want to say that
these two pieces of legislation address something that I am
sure we will continue to debate to some extent in this
Committee. But the fact of the matter remains that, with Chaco
Canyon, this is about preserving a sacred site, yes, primarily.
But it is also about preserving for this Nation and all of us
an understanding of what our identity is in relationship to our
Nation and to our countries. It is vital and it is profound,
and it needs to be preserved. I am glad we have a 1-year pause.
I think this gives us the opportunity to make it permanent.
And with regard to the Grand Canyon, sometimes I want to
rip my hair out and yell, ``It is the Grand Canyon, stupid.'' I
mean you can't jeopardize this resource that has all these
cross-overs, from indigenous people to the reliance on that
source of water to bring life to 40 million people in this
country. And to jeopardize it because of, primarily, an agenda
that is driven more by greed than by need. I think it is a
mistake.
So, I appreciate it very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for
the hearing, and I look forward to working with you and moving
these items. I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva. The Chair
recognizes Ranking Member Curtis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all of our
witnesses for being here. I am going to direct my questions
primarily to Ms. Hesuse.
Am I correct in assuming that you and your peers are
opposed to this bill, not because you don't care about Chaco
culture or the land that your family has been on for decades,
but because of your rights as a private landowner?
Ms. Hesuse. Correct.
Mr. Curtis. What options, if any, does this bill leave for
you to access the minerals that are rightfully yours?
Ms. Hesuse. We cannot access our minerals because of the
surrounding lands that are near our allotment lands.
Mr. Curtis. The bill specifically says that the prohibition
of leasing and development applies only to Federal lands, not
tribal lands. Won't your land and the lands of the other
allottees still be available for leasing and development?
Ms. Hesuse. No, we won't, because we need this BLM land--
tribal and private lands. And you cannot access drilling and
mineral rights with just allotted land. We need other lands to
get our resources.
Mr. Curtis. Proponents of this bill claim that tribal lands
will not be affected, only Federal lands. But if what they say
is true, that development on Federal lands will harm cultural
resources and air quality near the park, then why is
development fine on Indian lands, not on Federal lands? Is
development done any differently on your lands, compared to
Federal lands?
Ms. Hesuse. No.
Mr. Curtis. That is very good. Thank you, and thanks to all
of you.
Madam Chair, I yield my time.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Ranking Member Curtis. Thank you so
much, all of you, again for being here and taking the time.
I will start with you, Chairman Torres. My understanding is
that you and other tribal leaders met with Secretary Bernhardt
last week. Is that correct?
Mr. Torres. Yes, that is.
Ms. Haaland. After visiting Chaco Canyon, Secretary
Bernhardt stated that he, ``walked away with a greater sense of
appreciation of the magnificent site managed by the National
Park Service, and better understanding of the tribal leaders'
views of its cultural significance.''
Do you believe that Secretary Bernhardt's 1-year moratorium
on oil and gas leases is adequate to protect the significant
cultural and natural resources in the Greater Chaco Region?
Mr. Torres. Well, as I stated earlier, it is a step
forward. It is not adequate for 1 year. We all know that. We
need something permanent there, and that is what we have been
working on for years. One year is not adequate, Madam Chair.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. And I guess, for those of us who
feel that we have a cultural and traditional tie to Chaco
Canyon, I guess I--you know, somebody mentioned that it is not
just a pile of rocks. No, it is a carefully thought-out
community that our ancestors planned and executed over
centuries.
When I think about the time and effort it took to build one
of those walls, it is astounding to think that they could have
sustained that effort in building that grand scheme over that
many years. And I guess I am interested and I will just ask
each of you. When you have someone like Secretary Bernhardt at
this sacred place, how do you talk about the importance of
protecting this? What do you say, exactly, to him if you only
had one thing to say about Chaco Canyon, essentially, what
would it be?
Mr. Torres. And you are asking me?
Ms. Haaland. Yes, and I will ask each of you, and we will
just go down.
Mr. Torres. I think that the most important part is to
leave it for the generations that are coming behind us, and
that we also need it to remember where we come from, who we
are, and where we are going. Thank you.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman.
Vice President Lizer?
Mr. Lizer. Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you for that
question and the opportunity to respond. I wasn't present
there, our honorable President Nez was there. Maybe to some,
Secretary Bernhardt's response was surprising, but I think he
saw the need. And those that are not innate to this culture,
they use the words ``magical,'' ``uplifting,'' ``positive,''
and ``energy.'' But, I think, for our people that are innate to
this site, the need to protect it is well documented in our
laws, our preservation.
I would like to offer preservation of the voices of the
past to teach us of our future. To further echo the Honorable
Torres' words here.
It has been said that our Native cultures, or our Native
traditions of the past will tell us of our future. But being an
oral society, being an oral culture, much of our Native people
here, the stories must continue to go on as we tell to our next
generation and our next generation. It tells us of where we
came from, who we are, and those tribes that are very adept at
holding on to their culture, more power to them. Those that are
willing to progress more, pass maybe, say, economic
development, you know, to each their own.
I would like to also recognize the fact that this is all
affecting Federal land, and we would balance the rights of the
allottees on their portions. So, we are respectful of that, as
well.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
Governor Menchego?
Mr. Menchego. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the inquiry. If
there was a way we could tell Secretary Bernhardt, or one
statement that we could make to help him understand what Chaco
is, I would offer him the comment to be able to close his eyes
for a moment, stand in a location within one of the ruins, and
try to feel that place being alive at one point in time. The
smell of smoke. The sound of commotion, people talking amongst
each other, and knowing that the ruins weren't in rubble as
they are now, and with some of the walls and the room blocks
still standing, but they were fully erected structures that
served a purpose.
So, as Native people, it is hard to relay to an individual
that is not born or integrated into the culture.
As young kids--using myself as an example--at the village I
grew up going into our kivas, I grew up being integrated into
the cultural homes, seeing how our homes and our rooms are
built side by side. The first time that I went to Chaco, it
amazed me to see the multitude of kivas, to see the multitude
of room blocks, and further extend my knowledge, because I
learned song and dance and practice and action, how to go into
a kiva, how to come out of a kiva, what it represented.
It is kind of hard to help an individual that is not born
of our culture and our tradition, but the only thing I could
offer, and the only comment I feel that I would be able to
offer to Secretary Bernhardt and anybody else that visited
Chaco for the first time, or without knowledge or
understanding, is to close their eyes and try to imagine what
that place felt like when it was active. And it is still alive.
All our places of religion and places of power remain alive,
but for the fact that it was inhabited and once a bustling city
that moved, it was a livelihood for our ancestors. Thank you.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Governor.
Mr. Sage?
Mr. Sage. Thank you, Chair. I am grateful that the
Secretary made a trip out there with Senator Heinrich. Many
times that is what it takes for somebody from this side of the
river to understand exactly what we are talking about, and to
understand what the individuals up here are expressing. We know
it is alive, and he felt it. So, we were very grateful for
that.
But as far as for the 1-year moratorium, we were cautiously
still trying to accept that. Is it really going to happen, or
not? But a lot of times that is what it takes, is a face-to-
face, in-person, on-site visit for them to really understand
what is being discussed and what the challenges and struggles
are that the people living there are experiencing.
And I think many times in the past, many things were
written and passed without even making any contact with the
surroundings as it was being described. Thank you.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Sage.
Ms. Hesuse, what would you tell someone about how you feel
about Chaco Canyon?
Ms. Hesuse. Hello again. Thanks for hearing us out. I
respect Chaco Canyon. I am a Native, and that is the way we are
brought up. And I think we should all respect our monuments. I
see what everyone is saying, and I do have respect. Then I also
want to say that I come from a family of healers. My
grandmother was a medicine woman. My uncle was a hand trembler.
I don't know where--just through media and everything,
somehow we became the bad person. But I am just speaking for an
allottee, that I had the opportunity to lease my allotment.
But I do respect all the monuments, and I am glad he went
out to see the monument because I do. And who wouldn't?
But I really appreciate you hearing me out. Thank you.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Ms. Hesuse.
Thank you all very much. Thank you, Governor, all of you,
for speaking your Native language here in my Subcommittee room.
It is a blessing to all of us, and I am very grateful.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
Members for their questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
submit witness questions within 3 business days following the
hearing, and the hearing record will be held open for 10
business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, this
Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
ACHP--Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
Washington, DC
April 30, 2019
Hon. Deb Haaland, Chairman
Hon. Don Young, Ranking Member
House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Haaland and Ranking Member Young:
I am writing to the Subcommittee to convey the support of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) for H.R. 2181, the
Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019. The ACHP has a
long history of concern for the protection of the unique resources of
the Greater Chaco region and is pleased to see the Congress take steps
to promote their long-term preservation.
Charged by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) to
advise the President and the Congress on historic preservation matters,
the ACHP's perspective on the challenges facing Chaco is twofold.
First, a primary mission of the ACHP is to oversee and frequently
engage in the federal historic preservation review process, established
by Section 106 of the NHPA. In that capacity, the ACHP has been
involved in Section 106 reviews for oil and gas development in the
Chaco region for over two decades. We are fully aware of the threats
that such development can pose to the fragile historic properties that
comprise the Chacoan cultural heritage. Recently, I wrote to the acting
Secretary of the Interior, stressing the need for a comprehensive
approach to protection and sound management that has long been unmet,
as evidenced by the continued recurrence of proposed lease sales that
threaten to damage these sites and encroachment from approved
development.
Similarly, the NHPA directs the Secretary of the Interior to
coordinate participation by the United States in the World Heritage
Convention in cooperation with the Secretary of State, the Smithsonian
Institution, and the ACHP. To meet this statutory responsibility, the
ACHP brings its expertise in the protection of historic properties,
taking particular note of the treaty obligations of the United States
government to protect and preserve the nation's World Heritage Sites
for future generations. Chaco Culture National Historical Park and
associated properties managed by the National Park Service and the
Bureau of Land Management were inscribed in the World Heritage List in
1987 as the Chaco Culture World Heritage Site in recognition of their
``Outstanding Universal Value.'' It is one of only 23 such sites in the
United States.
The official ``Statement of Outstanding Universal Value'' for the
Chaco Culture World Heritage Site, updated by the United States in
2014, states:
. . . threats to its integrity from adjacent development
(including associated utilities and roads), energy exploration,
extraction, as well as transportation projects and proposals
have increased.
. . . A long-term goal for the property is to ensure that
interventions that may occur within or adjacent to the
property--including development, energy exploration,
extraction, and transportation projects--do not have a negative
impact on the property's Outstanding Universal Value,
authenticity and integrity.
Chaco also is a place of transcendent spiritual and traditional
cultural importance to Indian tribes of the region. Many Pueblos and
Indian Tribes in the Four Corners region recognize that the Chaco
Culture area is rich with sacred sites of utmost importance to them.
The threats posed by continued development are not merely physical
impacts on historic properties; they can impair the traditions and
tribal way of life that has endured for centuries.
H.R. 2181 would take great strides in addressing these concerns and
ensuring the long-term protection of this unique resource. By creating
the ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Withdrawal Area,'' the legislation would
remove development threats on federal lands within and adjacent to the
Chaco National Historical Park and other portions of the World Heritage
Site. It should be noted that by doing so the Congress would be
fulfilling the obligations of the World Heritage Convention for states
party to protect their World Heritage Sites and, where necessary, to
create buffer zones for that purpose. The Operational Guidelines for
the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention state:
103. Wherever necessary for the proper protection of the
property, an adequate buffer zone should be provided.
104. For the purposes of effective protection of the nominated
property, a buffer zone is an area surrounding the nominated
property which has complementary legal and/or customary
restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added
layer of protection to the property. This should include the
immediate setting of the nominated property, important views
and other areas or attributes that are functionally important
as a support to the property and its protection . . .
The provisions of H.R. 2181 would in large part meet the threats
identified in the Chaco Culture World Heritage Site Statement of
Outstanding Universal Value.
The ACHP urges the Subcommittee to support this important step. At
the same time, we would note that other actions, such as a
comprehensive management plan for lands under the control of both the
National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, the protection
from development for non-federal lands within the Chaco landscape, and
the engagement of local Indian tribes in the management of the greater
Chaco Culture area, are desirable to further protect and preserve these
important resources. The ACHP would welcome the opportunity to work
with the Congress and the Administration in the future to advance these
goals.
Sincerely yours,
Milford Wayne Donaldson,
Chairman.
______
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF
SUPPORTING CONGRESSMAN RAUL GRIJALVA'S PROPOSED HOUSE BILL TITLED
``GRAND CANYON CENTENNIAL PROTECTION ACT'' WHICH WILL ENACT A PERMANENT
BAN ON URANIUM MINING ON MORE THAN ONE MILLION ACRES OF LAND AROUND THE
GRAND CANYON
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, advocating for and supporting actions that lead to the
advancement of social and environmental justice for the Indigenous
community is a City Council goal; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of Flagstaff have historically
opposed actions furthering radioactive pollution in the region,
including the adoption of Resolution No. 2010-74, which expressed
support for Secretary of Interior Salazar's proposal to withdraw
approximately one million acres of federal lands surrounding Grand
Canyon National Park from uranium mining for 20 years; Resolution No.
2245, which urged President Clinton and Congress to not transport
radioactive waste from contained storage until scientific decisions are
made concerning permanent nuclear waste storage and declaring Flagstaff
a Nuclear Free Zone; and Resolution No. 2018-06 reaffirming Council's
support of the Secretary of the Interior's 2012 order to withdraw
1,006,545 acres of federal land surrounding the Grand Canyon National
Park from new uranium mining for 20 years; and
WHEREAS, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2008-
09 opposes ``Uranium development on lands in the proximity of the Grand
Canyon National Park and its watersheds;'' and
WHEREAS, the Tusayan Town Council Resolution No. 2011-03-2302 supports
the 2012 Grand Canyon Mineral Withdrawal; and
WHEREAS, the Hualapi Tribal Council Resolution No. 67-2009 opposes
uranium exploration and mining; and
WHEREAS, the Flagstaff City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-38,
which expresses the Council's opposition to uranium mining and the
transportation of uranium ore through the city of Flagstaff and
Indigenous lands in the region, and reaffirms Flagstaff as a nuclear
free zone; and
WHEREAS, during the Cold War, 30 million tons of uranium ore were mined
on or adjacent to the Navajo Nation leaving more than 500 abandoned
mines; and
WHEREAS, many Indigenous community members already affected by living
in close proximity to abandoned uranium mines are still seeking relief
from radioactive waste in these areas that have remained for decades at
many of the mines creating elevated levels of radiation;
WHEREAS, potential health effects of uranium mining include lung cancer
from the inhalation of radioactive particles, as well as bone cancer
and impaired kidney function from exposure to radionuclides in drinking
water; and
WHEREAS, Congress acknowledged that radiation exposure from the mining,
transport and processing of uranium has affected and continues to
affect thousands of individuals and in 1990 passed the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) to provide compensation to individuals
who have developed and are developing cancers and other serious
diseases caused by uranium mining; and
WHEREAS, uranium mining threatens the Havasupai Tribe, which relies
heavily upon clean and safe water of surrounding springs and the
integrity of the land to sustain the physical, cultural, religious an
economic needs of its people.
WHEREAS, the exploration and mining of uranium is known to cause
serious, detrimental and irreversible human health and environment
impacts that directly conflict with the federal government's duty to
manage the public lands for the protection and preservation of the
places that possess cultural, religious and historic importance to the
Native people; and
WHEREAS, uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region has left a toxic
legacy of polluted water, air, and soil at more than 500 highly
containment mine and mill sites that remain un-reclaimed within the
Navajo Nation and these sites increase the risk of disease and death of
people living in communities throughout Northern Arizona; and
WHEREAS, to protect, for current and future generations, the watershed,
ecosystem, and cultural heritage of the Grand Canyon region in the
State of Arizona, and for other purposes is vital for the health and
well-being of all; and
WHEREAS, the Grand Canyon National Park, a world heritage site located
85 miles north of the city of Flagstaff, Arizona, is an integral part
of the Northern Arizona landscape and plays an integral role in the
tourism economy of the city of Flagstaff; and
WHEREAS, the Grand Canyon National Park attracts nearly six million
visitors per year who contribute significantly to the Flagstaff tourism
economy; and
ENACTMENTS:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
FLAGSTAFF, AS FOLLOWS:
That the Flagstaff City Council affirms its support of for Congressman
Raul Grijalva's proposed house bill titled ``Grand Canyon Centennial
Protection Act,'' which will enact a permanent ban on uranium mining on
more than one million acres of land around the Grand Canyon.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the city of Flagstaff this
19th day of March, 2019.
----------------
MAYOR
ATTEST:
----------------
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
----------------
CITY ATTORNEY
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION 2019-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF COCONINO
COUNTY, ARIZONA, IN SUPPORT OF THE PERMANENT WITHDRAWAL
OF THE GRAND CANYON AND SURROUNDING WATERSHED ACREAGE
FROM MINING AND OTHER FORMS OF WITHDRAWAL AND
APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC LANDS
WHEREAS, Coconino County previously adopted a resolution (No. 2008-09)
which stated clearly that the County ``opposes uranium development on
lands in the proximity of the Grand Canyon National Park and its
watersheds''; and
WHEREAS, U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, along with 27 cosponsors including
Rep. Tom O'Halleran, introduced H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon Centennial
Protection Act, on February 26th, 2019 which will prohibit all mining
and other extractions within the Grand Canyon National Park and its
watershed, protecting over one-million acres from mining contamination;
and
WHEREAS, the negative health impacts of uranium mining are evident
throughout the County and within the Grand Canyon National Park and its
watershed with radioactive waste from uranium mining;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Coconino County Board of
Supervisors reaffirms Resolution 2008-09 and opposes uranium mining in
the Grand Canyon National Park and its watershed;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Coconino County supports and urges
passage of legislation that will permanently prohibit future mining and
other forms of withdrawal and appropriation of public lands in the
Grand Canyon National Park and its watershed.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 2019.
AYES: 4
NO'S: 1
ABSENT: 0
COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
____________________________
Art Babbott, Chairman
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _________________________
Lindsay Daley Rose Winkeler
Clerk of the Board Deputy County Attorney
______
HAVASUPAI TRIBE
HAVASUPAI TRIBAL COUNCIL
SUPAI, ARIZONA
Resolution No. 12-19
Resolution to Support H.R. 1373 to Permanently
Ban Mining near Grand Canyon
WHEREAS, The Havasupai Tribe is a federally recognized sovereign Indian
Tribe organized on June 8, 1880 by Presidential Executive Order and
subsequently by Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act (the
``Tribe''); and
WHEREAS, The Amended Constitution of the Havasupai Tribe of the
Havasupai Reservation (the ``Constitution'') provides, at Article V,
Section 2 ``The Havasupai Tribal Council may take any and all actions
necessary and proper for the exercise of the foregoing powers and
duties, including those powers and duties not enumerated above, and all
other powers and duties now or hereafter delegated to the Tribal
Council, or vested in the Tribal Council through its inherent
sovereignty''; and
WHEREAS, The Constitution further provides at Article XI, ``Mining,
exploration, or surveying for uranium on the reservation shall be
prohibited'';
WHEREAS, the Havasupai, the Havasu 'Baaja, are the People of the blue-
green water that emits from the Redwall-Muav aquifer at the springs on
our reservation and that flows through Havasu Creek cascading over the
magnificent waterfalls on its way to the Colorado River;
WHEREAS, the Redwall-Muav aquifer underlies the Coconino Plateau
including the underneath the Canyon uranium mine and other proposed
mines and discharges 96% of its water directly to springs and into
Havasu Creek on the Havasupai Reservation;
WHEREAS, there is contaminated groundwater at the Canyon uranium mine
site and it may contaminate the Redwall aquifer resulting in direct
contamination to the sole source of our water which will harm our being
as Havasu 'Baaja;
WHEREAS, the water from the Redwall-Muav aquifer is the sole source for
all water in the Village of Supai for drinking, domestic use, tourism,
livestock, and wildlife;
WHEREAS, the Tribal Council finds that the Secretarial Withdrawal of
the federal lands around Grand Canyon was intended to provide
scientific information about the effects of uranium mining on the land,
the water, the wildlife and the people but the studies have not been
adequately funded and there is much to still be studied about the harms
from uranium mining;
WHEREAS, we, the Havasu 'Baaja, will be the ones who suffer the
consequences of not knowing the science and not knowing the effects of
uranium mining around the Grand Canyon;
WHEREAS, our aboriginal lands include the sacred site on which Canyon
Mine is located, we are the Indians who lived and grew crops with water
from the springs at Indian Gardens in Grand Canyon National Park, we
have always lived in our canyon home and will always remain here, we
cannot be relocated and remain Havasu 'Baaja;
WHEREAS, we have opposed uranium mining in this area for over 40 years
and will continue to do so for all time;
WHEREAS, the United States has a trust obligation to protect us and an
obligation to protect and preserve the Grand Canyon region that cannot
be met if mining is permitted to continue and to increase on the
Coconino Plateau.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Havasupai Tribal Council that we
support H.R. 1373 and any similar federal legislation that will
permanently ban uranium mining and the establishment of new mining
claims near the Grand Canyon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Tribal Chairwoman, or in her absence
the Vice Chairman or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to
take actions necessary to carry out the purposes of this Resolution.
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing Resolution is adopted pursuant to the authority of
Article V, Section 1 of the Amended Constitution of the Havasupai
Tribe, a federally recognized sovereign Indian Tribe and Article II of
the Bylaws of the Havasupai Tribe at the Special Council meeting of the
Tribal Council on the 15th day of March, 2019 by a vote of 4 for; 0
opposed and 3 abstained.
HAVASUPAI TRIBAL COUNCIL:
By: ________________________________
Muriel Coochwytewa, Chairwoman
ATTEST:
--------------------------------
Hope Manakaja, Tribal Secretary
______
THE HOPI TRIBE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Program Manager
Hopi Cultural Preservation Office
FROM: Theresa A. Lomakema, Tribal Secretary
Hopi Tribal Council
DATE: April 12, 2019
SUBJECT: THE HOPI TRIBE TO SUPPORT THE GRAND CANYON CENTENNIAL
PROTECTION ACT OF 2019--A.I. #023-2019/H-025-2019
On April 9, 2019, the Hopi Tribal Council by motion and majority vote
approved the Action Item and Resolution mentioned above.
By passage of this Resolution, the Hopi Tribal Council hereby supports
other governmental and non-governmental institutions and organizations
that join Hopi in opposing continuing efforts to undermine the Northern
Arizona Mineral Withdrawal.
Furthermore, the Hopi Tribe supports the Grand Canyon Centennial
Protection Act of 2019 to permanently withdraw approximately one
million acres surrounding the Grand Canyon from mineral entry under the
General Mining Law of 1872.
*****
HOPI TRIBAL COUNCIL
RESOLUTION H-025-2019
WHEREAS, the Constitution and By-Laws of the Hopi Tribe, ARTICLE VI--
POWERS OF THE TRIBAL COUNCIL, SECTION 1(a), (k) and (l) authorizes the
Hopi Tribal Council ``To represent and speak for the Hopi Tribe in all
matters for the welfare of the Tribe, . . .''; ``To protect the arts,
crafts, traditions, and ceremonies of the Hopi Indians.''; and ``To
delegate any of the powers of the Council to committee's or officers,
keeping the right to review any action taken.''; and
WHEREAS, the Hopi Tribe has repeatedly stated that past contamination
from uranium mining should be cleaned up before any additional uranium
mining is approved, and we oppose the continued use of the archaic 1872
Mining Law to justify uranium mining; and
WHEREAS, the Hopi Tribe has stated that we believe the Federal, State
and local governments should focus on and address the existing threat
to human life and that Congress replace the 1872 Mining Law with a
Sacred Sites Act and mining law fit for life in the 21st Century and
into the future; and
WHEREAS, Hopi people emerged into this World at the Grand Canyon,
known to us as Ongtupqa or Salt Canyon. Ongtupqa is our birthplace as a
People and these lands contain the testimony of our ancestors'
occupation and use for thousands of years, manifest in the prehistoric
ruins, the rock ``art'' and artifacts, and the human remains of our
ancestors, Hisatsinom, People of Long ago, who continue to inhabit
them; and
WHEREAS, the Grand Canyon is a Traditional Cultural Property of the
Hopi Tribe and these ``public lands'' are part of our ancestral lands,
and Hopisinom have returned to Ongtupqa on salt gathering pilgrimages
since time immemorial and continue to do so today; and
WHEREAS, for over a thousand years, the springs and waters of the Hopi
Mesas have provided life to Hopisinom and the legacy of past uranium
mining has left wounds on our land, our water, and our people. These
wounds are not scars, for they have not healed. Two of our Villages,
Upper and Lower Munqapi (Moenkopi) are now threatened by a uranium
contaminated plume of ground water from the former Rare Metals uranium
mill near Tuba City; and
WHEREAS, Hopisinom and many other Native American people suffer an
ongoing legacy of death by cancer, chronic health problems, and
radioactive contamination including water contamination on tribal
lands. We know firsthand from our experience at Munqapi, that the
contamination will travel, that it does not stay in one place, and that
it spreads contamination as it moves; and
WHEREAS, the 1872 mining law is a 19th Century tool of archaic law
used to ``discover,'' ``claim,'' and ``take'' Native Americans' lands
and continues today as a policy of disregard and disrespect toward the
beliefs and sacred ties that Hopi and Native American people have with
the Earth. The legacy of uranium mining has devastated the people and
the land, and the 1872 mining law continues to destroy the land and
lives of Hopisinom, Native Americans and Americans alike; and
WHEREAS, over two thousand mining claims have been filed around the
Grand Canyon on United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management lands. Therefore, we support the Proposed Action that would
protect one million acres around the Grand Canyon from uranium mining
and exploration by withdrawing the Tusayan Ranger District and Federal
land managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the vicinity of Kanab
Creek and in Rock House Valley from location, entry, and patent under
the mining laws; and
WHEREAS, Koyanisqatsi, told in Hopi history and prophecy, is life out
of balance, or a state of life that calls for another way of living.
This state of life characterizes the risks we face together in modern
times. If Americans are to live together in America in the 21st
Century, we must call together for another way of living. The laws of
the past that are now being used against all American people must be
consigned to the past and replaced with laws that support life and not
destruction and death.
NOW THER EFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Hopi Tribe supports other
governmental and non-governmental institutions and organizations that
join us in opposing continuing legislative efforts to undermine the
Northern Arizona Mineral Withdrawal.
BE IT FUR THER RESOLVED that the Hopi Tribe agrees that a qualifying
threat to the Grand Canyon continues to exist and we continue to offer
our complete support for the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act of
2019 to withdraw these lands pursuant to the Federal Land Policy
Management Act.
BE IT FIN ALLY RESOLVED that the Hopi Tribe enthusiastically supports
the Grand Canyon Centennial Act of2019 to permanently withdraw
approximately one million acres surrounding the Grand Canyon from
mineral entry under the General Mining Law of 1872.
CERTIFICATION
The Hopi Tribal Council duly adopted the foregoing Resolution on April
9, 2019 at a meeting at which a quorum was present with a vote of 18 in
favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining (Chairman presiding and not voting)
pursuant to the authority vested in the Hopi Tribal Council by ARTICLE
VI--POWERS OF THE TRIBAL COUNCIL, SECTION 1(a), (k), and (l) of the
Hopi Tribal Constitution and By-Laws of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona, as
ratified by the Tribe on October 24, 1936, and approved by the
Secretary of Interior on December 19, 1936, pursuant to Section 16 of
the Act of June 18, 1934. Said Resolution is effective as of the date
of adoption and does not require Secretarial approval.
___________________________________
Timothy L. Nuvangyaoma, Chairman
Hopi Tribal Council
ATTEST:
--------------------------------------
Theresa A. Lomakema, Tribal Secretary
Hopi Tribal Council
______
HUALAPAI TRIBAL COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 67-2009
OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE
HUALAPAI TRIBE OF THE HUALAPAI RESERVATION
(Position of the Hualapai Tribe's Opposition to Uranium
Exploration and Mining)
WHEREAS, the Hualapai Reservation encompasses approximately one-
seventh of the aboriginal territory of the Hualapai Tribe, and many
places outside our Reservation boundary hold religious, cultural, and
historic significance for the Hualapai people; and
WHEREAS, many places that hold religious, cultural, and historic
significance for the Hualapai people are located on lands that are
currently managed by various federal agencies of the federal
government, including but not limited to the areas within the Kaibab
National Forest, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service;
and
WHEREAS, the Hualapai Tribe considers the entire Grand Canyon from rim
to rim to be a culturally significant landscape which includes hundreds
of particular places that hold religious and cultural significance; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Government has responsibilities, both legal and
moral, to manage public lands in a way that shows proper respect for
places that hold religious and cultural and historical importance to
Indian tribes; and
WHEREAS, uranium exploration and mining cause many adverse
humanitarian and environmental impacts that are inconsistent with the
management of public lands for the preservation of the integrity of
places that hold tribal religious, historical and cultural
significance; and
WHEREAS, the federal law known as the 1872 Mining Law is an
anachronism; under this law the federal government gives away valuable
natural resources to private companies, with the mining claims of those
private companies taking precedence over other public interests,
including the public interest in preserving places that hold religious
and cultural importance for Indian tribes; and
WHEREAS, the 1872 Mining Law was enacted during the ``robber baron''
era of American history; in the historical context of the relations
between the Hualapai Tribe and the United States, the 1872 law was
enacted at about the same time as two traumatic events in Hualapai
history: the war that the U.S. Army fought against the Hualapai people
from 1866 to 1868 and the forced removal of many of the Hualapai people
to La Paz in 1874; and
WHEREAS, during the Administration of President Clinton, the Solicitor
for the Department of the Interior issued a legal opinion that federal
land managing agencies do have discretion to deny permission to develop
mining claims, in effect, if the costs associated with mitigating
damage to the environment, cultural resources and ethereal belief of a
tribe would render the extraction of the minerals not economically
viable (Solicitor, ``Regulation of Hardrock Mining,'' M-36999 (Dec. 27,
1999)), the Bush Administration issued a Solicitor's opinion that
reached a contrary conclusion (Solicitor, ``Surface Management
Provisions for Hardrock Mining,'' M-37007 (Oct. 23, 2001)); and
WHEREAS, the Department of the Interior has proposed the withdrawal of
nearly one million acres of federal lands in the Grand Canyon watershed
from new mining claims under the 1872 Mining Law, an action that would
put these lands off limits for mineral exploration and extraction for
20 years, and which has the immediate effect of putting these lands off
limits for two years while the Secretary of the Interior considers
whether to make the proposed withdrawal final; and
WHEREAS, various federal agencies have invited public comment on
proposed uranium explorations and uranium mining within areas
apparently not covered by the Secretary's proposed withdrawal;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Hualapai Tribe formally declares
strong opposition on proposed exploratory drilling and uranium mining;
1. Commends the Secretary of the Interior for the proposed
withdrawal of federal lands from claims under the 1872
Mining Law and calls for the Secretary to make a final
decision to proceed with the withdrawal;
2. Opposes proposals by uranium mining companies to conduct
exploratory drilling for uranium within the jurisdiction of
various federal land managing agencies;
3. Calls upon the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a review of
Solicitor's opinions on the regulation of hardrock mining;
4. Supports efforts in Congress to repeal or substantially amend the
1872 Mining Law;
5. Opposes exploration for uranium and uranium mining without tribal
approval on all Hualapai ancestral lands including lands
under the sovereign authority of the Hualapai Tribe.
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned as Chairman of the Hualapai Tribal Council hereby
certify that the Hualapai Tribal Council of the Hualapai Tribe is
composed of nine (9) members of whom 9 constituting a quorum were
present at a Regular Council Meeting thereof held on this 3rd day of
September 2009; and that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by a
vote of 9-for, 0-oppose, pursuant to authority of Article V, Section
(a) of the Constitution of the Hualapai Tribe approved March 13, 1991.
__________________________________
Wilfred Whatoname, Sr., Chairman
Hualapai Tribal Council
ATTEST:
--------------------------------
Adeline Crozier, Assist. Secretary
Hualapai Tribal Council
______
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
The National Congress of American Indians
Resolution #MKE-17-058
TITLE: Opposing the Reversal of Mineral Withdrawals that Would
Adversely Impact Tribal Lands, Waters, Resources, or Native People
WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians
of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon
our efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our
descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights
secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States,
and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the
laws and Constitution of the United States and the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to enlighten the
public toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve
Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, safety and
welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and submit the
following resolution; and
WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was
established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization
of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and
WHEREAS, because the link of Native peoples to their lands is
fundamental to their identities, cultures, and populations, the NCAI
has historically prioritized lands and resources issues; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, largely at the request of Tribes and other
stakeholders, the prior Administration withdrew 1,006,545 acres of
public lands near the Grand Canyon from new uranium and other hard rock
mining claims, to protect the region and the Colorado River from
environmental degradation; and
WHEREAS, Congressional members have urged the Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture to review mineral withdrawals made during the
previous Administration and lift those that they feel are without
merit; and
WHEREAS, the mining industry has been advocating for the Administration
to lift mining moratoriums and allow mineral exploration on federal
lands; and
WHEREAS, expanded uranium mining near the Grand Canyon poses a threat
to the health, safety and environmental integrity of the Grand Canyon
region and all 40 million people who depend on Colorado River water;
and
WHEREAS, uranium mining at the Grand Canyon and in other areas would
pose significant risks to the waters on which nearby tribes rely, and
threaten their very existence as a people.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI) hereby opposes any efforts by the Administration or
Congress to reverse mineral withdrawals that would negatively impact
tribal lands, natural resources, cultural resources, tribal water
rights, or Native people; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of
NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the
2017 Annual Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held
at the Wisconsin Center in Milwaukee, WI, Oct 15, 2017-Oct 20, 2017,
with a quorum present.
________________________
Jefferson Keel, President
ATTEST:
--------------------------------------
Juana Majel Dixon, Recording Secretary
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
-- Letter from the Wilderness Society in support of H.R.
1373 and H.R. 2181, dated June 4, 2019.
-- Testimony on H.R. 2181 by Paul F. Reed, Preservation
Archaeologist, Archaeology Southwest, dated May 29,
2019.
-- Letter from the National Wildlife Federation in support
of H.R. 1373, dated June 5, 2019.
-- Letter from the National Wildlife Federation in support
of H.R. 2181, dated June 5, 2019.
-- Letter from the National Parks Conservation Association
in support of H.R. 1373 and H.R. 2181 from Ani
Kame'enui, Director of Legislation and Policy,
dated June 4, 2019.
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Haaland
-- EIA paper titled, ``Nuclear Explained: Where Our Uranium
Comes From--Basics.''
-- USGS report titled, ``Informing Future Decision-Making on
Uranium Mining: A Coordinated Approach to Monitor
and Assess Potential Environmental Impacts from
Uranium Exploration and Mining on Federal Lands in
the Grand Canyon Region, Arizona. Updated March
2014.
-- Statement from Rep. Lujan on H.R. 2181.
-- Letter from multiple organizations addressed to Senators
Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, and Representatives
Ben Ray Lujan, Debra Haaland, and Xochitl Torres
Small in support of H.R. 2181, dated June 4, 2019.
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
-- Resolution No. 0316 from the Inter Tribal Association of
Arizona and Resolution 0609 from the Inter Tribal
Council of Arizona.
-- Grand Canyon Trust report titled, ``Uranium Mining in the
Grand Canyon Region,'' dated January 2019.
-- Boatman's Quarterly Review article by Dr. David Kreamer
titled, ``Uranium Mining in the Grand Canyon--
Biting My Tongue In Front of Congress.''
-- Washington Post article by Cindy McCain and Mark Udall
titled, ``Congress must reach across the aisle and
protect the Grand Canyon,'' dated February 17,
2019.
-- Joint report by the Nuclear Energy Agency and the
International Atomic Energy Agency titled,
``Uranium 2016: Resources, Production and Demand.''
-- Report by the Minerals Council of Australia titled,
``Submission to the United States Department of
Commerce Section 232 National Security
Investigation of Imports of Uranium,'' dated
September 10, 2018.
-- Comments by the Government of Canada to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, submitted September 25,
2018.
-- E&E article by Dylan Brown titled, ``Uranium--Import
quota battle heats up,'' dated February 11, 2019.
-- Bloomberg article by Ari Natter titled, ``Uranium Imports
Aren't a Threat, Obama's Energy Chief Says,'' dated
April 16, 2019.
-- Heritage Foundation Backgrounder by Katie Tubb titled,
``National Security Imperative Lacking,
Protectionism Abounding in Section 232 Uranium
Case,'' dated November 2, 2018.
-- FiveThirtyEight article by Maggie Koerth-Baker titled,
``It's One Thing for Trump to Like Uranium. It's
Another For Him To Save It,'' dated February 21,
2018.
-- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article by Steve Fetter
and Erich Schneider titled, ``The New York Times
was wrong; Russian uranium deals don't threaten
world supply security,'' dated May 19, 2015.
Submission for the Record by Rep. Bishop
-- Letter addressed to Secretary of the Interior Salazar
from Arizona State Land Commissioner Maria Baier,
dated November 30, 2011.
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar
-- Testimony submitted by the Arizona Department of Mines
and Mineral Resources from Dr. Madan Singh, dated
July 21, 2009.
-- Press Release from the Office of Rep. Gosar titled,
``Government Land Grabs: Exposing the Truth.''
-- Report from the Arizona Geological Survey titled,
``Breccia-Pipe Uranium Mining in the Grand Canyon
Region and Implications for Uranium Levels in
Colorado River Water,'' dated April 2011.
-- PowerPoint presentation titled, ``Northern Arizona
Uranium is Key to US National Security,'' dated
October 2, 2018.