Andrew Chung reports that the largest-known U.S. uranium deposit will remain firmly under ground after the Supreme Court on Monday upheld Virginia's ban on mining the radioactive metal, rebuffing a challenge [that was unfortunately] backed by President Donald Trump's administration to the 1982 moratorium. In a 6-3 decision that underscored states' rights, the justices affirmed a lower court's ruling that threw out a lawsuit by Virginia Uranium Inc and other owners of the massive deposit valued by the company at $6 billion on private land in southern Virginia.
The company, seeking to exploit the deposit, contested Virginia's power to enact the ban, saying the policy should have been preempted by federal law governing nuclear energy. Virginia Uranium is a subsidiary of Vancouver, British Columbia-based Virginia Energy Resources. The dispute focused on whether the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which regulates the development of nuclear energy, preempts Virginia's mining ban under the U.S. Constitution's so-called Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal law generally trumps state law.
[It is unfortunate that fate has allowed the Trump administration to] back the company's challenge to Virginia's law. The ruling was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who Trump appointed to the court in 2017. [In other times, this matter would have allowed mining of this world-class uranium deposit to proceed, but for Donald J. Trump, on the basis that claims of protecting the environment and humans are patently false and part of the regular, age old claims by anti-nuclear (and anti-mining) activists usually of the Left political persuasion. In fact, and aside from the political issues, by mining such a deposit from the shallow subsurface, this would remove much of an existing source of natural contamination. Mining in this case could be considered a form of remediation. In the meantime, this valuable natural resource and the revenues and jobs it will provide one day for the local economy will have to wait until less ignorant minds prevail.]
The case thrust Virginia into the center of a national debate over uranium mining. It pitted the rights of states - specifically to control their natural resources and protect the environment - against federal law and the need to maintain access to raw materials critical for nuclear weapons and power plants. While uranium remains a vital resource for electricity and national defense, Virginia enacted its ban on uranium mining amid concerns about environmental and public safety hazards [which are untrue].
"This is a big win for the health and safety of Virginians and our environment," Virginia state Attorney General Mark Herring said in a statement, adding that "we are well within our rights as a state to decide that a risky, potentially dangerous activity like uranium mining is not for us."[Look for a bias in Herring's position. Has he been paid by wind and/or solar interests, or even by those supporting coal and/or oil and natural gas development in the region.]
Virginia Uranium expressed disappointment with the ruling. "We continue to think that Virginia's uranium mining ban is both unlawful and unwise," the company said in a statement, adding that it is reviewing other options to challenge the state's "confiscation" of its mineral holdings. The ruling could entice other states to restrict the availability of source materials or create financial barriers to nuclear energy development, potentially reducing uranium production.
At the center of the dispute is the uranium deposit located beneath a privately owned estate in Virginia's Pittsylvania County, near the North Carolina border. The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) gives the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission the sole power to regulate radiation safety standards for milling uranium ore and disposing of waste byproducts known as tailings, key steps in the production of nuclear fuel. But it does not cover conventional uranium mining on non-federal land. Gorsuch, who announced Monday's ruling from the bench, said, "The federal government has no authority to regulate mining itself, and the AEA does nothing to withdraw that regulatory power from the states."
'FREE REIN'
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing in dissent, said the ruling could enable states to target uranium development in various ways, such as preventing counties from providing garbage collection or fire protection to nuclear facilities. So long as a state "is not boneheaded enough to express its real purpose in the statute," Roberts wrote, "the state will have free rein to subvert Congress's judgment on nuclear safety."[Once again, Robert's position is correct, and also hints at agendas at work ].
Virginia had the support of several other states concerned about protecting states' rights, including Indiana, Texas, Massachusetts and Oregon. Virginia Uranium had [rightly] touted the economic benefits for Virginia, saying it could create more than a thousand jobs annually and pump billions of dollars into the local economy, [which would include schools]. The company emphasized uranium's critical importance in nuclear weapons and powering U.S. nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, noting that most uranium used in the United States is imported, including from "geopolitical rivals" such as Russia, [which is also relevant vis-à-vis Section 232 currently under review by none other than Trump (more), and another downside to prevailing without serious local opposition].
The plaintiffs, also including Cole Hill LLC and Bowen Minerals LLC, sued Virginia in 2015. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017 upheld a trial judge's ruling to toss out the lawsuit.
Also, see: https://www.tpr.org/post/supreme-court-justices-split-along-unexpected-lines-3-cases
Last known working URL: https://kfgo.com/news/articles/2019/jun/17/virginia-ban-on-uranium-mining-upheld-by-us-supreme-court/
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
