Loveland, Colorado lawmaker is playing dirty at the statehouse

Link to original article

URANIUM SUPPORT MOVES ABOVE GROUND
By JOSHUA ZAFFOS
Rocky Mountain Chronicle
Thursday, 03 April 2008

Mine opponents say one Loveland lawmaker is playing dirty at the statehouse.



Don Marostica was alone among Northern Colorado representatives opposed to uranium-mining controls.


Before Don Marostica was a state lawmaker or a successful commercial real-estate broker, he was a high school science teacher, schooling teenagers in geology. Class was back in session for Mr. Marostica on March 28, when he tried teaching the state House of Representatives about uranium mining.

But Marostica is receiving failing grades from landowners fighting the uranium operation after he defended in-situ mining — the process that Powertech Uranium Corp. would like to use to get at over nine million tons of uranium oxide near Nunn, less than ten miles from Fort Collins — and hurled a few gaffes during a debate over proposed state legislation.

The in-situ method injects water underground to carry uranium to the surface, and then returns the water and, possibly, contaminated materials and heavy metals, back underground. House Bill 1161 would require companies to demonstrate they can restore groundwater resources to pre-mining quality, or meet state standards.

After Fort Collins Democrat and bill sponsor John Kefalas spoke on the House floor and mentioned a petition with eight thousand signatures supporting strong regulations on uranium mining, Marostica referred to “those eight thousand fake signatures.” The Loveland Republican also remarked that he didn’t “see the credibility” in a letter from Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave that expressed her opposition to Powertech’s plans.

“It showed me how dirty politics can be,” says Robin Davis, a member of Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction (CARD) whose land overlies mineral rights owned by Powertech. Davis says Marostica’s implication is insulting to landowners who signed the petition and that slides he presented to his House colleagues are among the same ones that Powertech has shown at meetings. The bill passed the House by a vote of 49 to 16, with Marostica as the only Northern Colorado lawmaker in the minority. He insists that mining opponents are misconstruing his stance.

“What I said is that a lot of those signatures are not from this area,” Marostica says, although that distinction wasn’t actually made. Regarding Musgrave’s credibility, the legislator says he was questioning Democrats’ use of the letter, not the congresswoman.

“Everyone else is tiptoeing, because they want to get elected. I’m the only one in Northern Colorado who is taking this view,” Marostica continues.

He is also up for election this November, but in terms of mine opposition in his district, Marostica claims he has received only seven emails from constituents, and a whole lot more from people in Longmont and Fort Collins.

“I’ve studied the in-situ science, and I’m very comfortable with how they set up the monitoring wells. I think that the method that Powertech is using is as good as anything out there. All I’m trying to do is present the other side of the story. Do I want to protect our water? Absolutely.”

Marostica thinks the legislation could set an unrealistic standard for restoration, considering uranium already causes radioactivity in parts of the groundwater aquifer.

“This is such a simple bill to hold mining companies to their word that they can restore the groundwater,” Davis replies.

James Warner, a Colorado State University engineering professor and former industry consultant, says water quality near uranium deposits contain radioactivity, but companies should be able to restore the aquifer, although it’s not cheap.

“They could clean it up if they really wanted to,” Warner says of the pre-mining restoration standards. He adds that no other in-situ mine has proceeded with such close proximity to people.

The bill now moves to the Senate, and the House will consider bill 1165, legislation that could extend the authority of the state Mined Land Reclamation Board to include more environmental and health matters.

Fremont County Planning Commission recommends denial for uranium mine exploration in Tallahassee area

Link to original article

Publish Date: 4/2/2008

Uranium drilling fails first test

Commission recommends denial for Tallahassee area

Debbie Bell
The Daily Record

Critics of exploratory uranium drilling in the Tallahassee area broke into resounding applause Tuesday night, when the Fremont County Planning Commission recommended denial of the required Conditional Use Permit by a split 4-3 vote.

Black Range Minerals, the Australian company seeking to drill about 800 test holes on the Taylor and Boyer ranches, next will seek the blessing of the Fremont County Commissioners despite Tuesday’s outcome, which was a non-binding recommendation.

Citing potential adverse impact on property values, noise, unsightly views, water contamination, increased traffic, and even county liability in the unlikely event of a catastrophic incident, panel members Tom Doxey, Tom Piltingsrud, Mike Schnobrich and Dean Sandoval voted to deny the permit.

Commissioners Bill Jackson, Keith McNew and Herm Lateer cast votes in favor of the exploratory drilling.

“I feel we don’t have a legal way to turn the permit down,” McNew said.

However, Doxey took issue with BRM neglecting to apply for the CUP in a timely manner. The company began exploration last year, drilling about 70 test holes, before the county stepped in to stop the operations.

“I’m disappointed this company… forgot to check with little Fremont County if there were any licenses or permits” required, Doxey said.

BRM Managing Director Mike Haynes apologized for the oversight during the meeting.

“We did obtain what we believed were the only necessary permits” from the state, Haynes said. Although BRM is an international company, he said it never has been required to obtain a local permit when the state had issued appropriate licensing.

In compliance with new county regulations, BRM was charged double the typical amount for the local application process because of the oversight.

Although the 3 1/2-hour marathon meeting was not a formal public hearing, the Planning Commissioners allowed input from the capacity crowd. They got an earful, both for and against the BRM permit request.

Tom Pool, a mining engineer from Golden, presented petitions signed by the owners of some 80 parcels of land, who were in favor of the exploration drilling.

“Our general view is that uranium exploration contributes to the energy independence of the United States of America,” Pool said, “and uranium exploration, developing and mining contribute to the mitigation of global warming.”

However, for every positive opinion, property owners presented additional negative views.

“This is where we came to spend the rest of our lives,” said Nancy Seger. “We can hear the noise 24 hours a day. We can see it. Our quality of life is going to be changed.”

Michael Meyrick submitted a five-page memo outlining legal concerns, including potential liability to the county.

“If you approve it and they contaminate it, the jury determines the amount of damages you and they – if they’re even still around – are responsible for,” Meyrick said. “I urge you not to approve this.”

BRM’s submitted plan asks for 10 years to drill an estimated 800 holes across 8,169 acres generally south of CR 2 and west of the intersection of CR2 and CR 21, while actually using only about half that land. The property is zoned Agricultural-Forestry, which is the county’s lowest-density zone and permits activity such as uranium mining.

If the appropriate permits are eventually received, and the exploratory drilling proves to be economically viable, BRM hopes to create a state-of-the-art facility, including a new mill to process the uranium.

Residents again will have the opportunity to voice their opinions when the Fremont County Commissioners host the required, formal public hearing on the permit. That forum could take place during the May 13 regularly-scheduled meeting.

Piltingsrud acknowledged the Planning Commission acts merely as an advisory panel to the County Commissioners.

“They sometimes follow our lead,” Piltingsrud said, “and they sometimes don’t follow our lead.”

Debbie Bell may be reached at dbell (at) ccdailyrecord.com.

“The public has a right to know what is happening in their communities.”

Link to original article

Second Uranium Bill Dies in Committee

Kefalas, Fischer effort to increase oversight fails by one vote

By Rebecca Boyle, rboyle (at) fortcollinsnow.com
Fort Collins Now
4:50 p.m. MT Apr 2, 2008

A second bill focused on Colorado standards for uranium mining failed in the House agriculture and natural resources committee Wednesday, after detractors said the bill was too focused on hard-rock mining.

House Bill 1165 would have increased transparency about mining operations and strengthened the state's watchdog status over mining operations and prospecting. But some committee members were concerned the measure was too broad because it covered all forms of mineral mining.

The bill's sponsors, state Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas, both Fort Collins Democrats, said they would continue fighting for stricter oversight of mining operations.

"These mines, particularly those that use in-situ leach methods, can be extremely detrimental if they’re not vigorously watched,” Kefalas said in a statement. “The public has a right to know what is happening in their communities.”

The measure is in response to efforts by Powertech Uranium Corp. to use an in-situ extraction method to mine for uranium in northwest Weld County, about 13 miles northeast of Fort Collins. The uranium is found in a sandstone formation spreading under roughly 270 acres. Many Northern Colorado landowners are fighting the proposed in-situ mine, citing concerns about their health and the area’s groundwater.

The measure would have allowed more public disclosure about mining operations.

House Bill 1161, which passed the House earlier this week with a bipartisan vote of 49 to 16, is also a response to the effort, and would prevent irresponsible uranium mining practices. That bill is now awaiting Senate consideration.

Gov. Bill Ritter said in a recent interview that he supports the measure because it provides a regulatory framework that does not currently exist.

It would require mining companies to show that they can restore groundwater to pre-mining conditions, or to the statewide standard for radioactive materials in water. Companies could not get a state permit unless they meet that standard.

Very sad day for Coloradoans - Families' safety, health, well-being remains in risk of the effects of 'top-secret' mining exploration

PRESS STATEMENT from Environment Colorado

April 2, 2008

Mining exploration kept “top secret” at expense of Colorado’s people, water, and environment

Petty politics trumped reason and the environment today as House Bill 1165 was voted down in the Colorado House Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources Committee.

“Today, our legislature failed to lift the veil of secrecy that surrounds mining,” said Matt Garrington, Field Director of Environment Colorado. “We are disappointed in those representatives who sided with the mining industry over Coloradans and our environment.”

The scope of the bill was amended to include just the sunshine provisions affecting exploratory mining operations as part of a good faith compromise effort on behalf of the bill’s house sponsors. Those voting in opposition of the amended bill included: Rep. Mary Hodge (D-Brighton), Rep. Marsha Looper (R-Colorado Springs), Rep. Wes McKinley (D-Walsh), Rep. Frank McNulty (R-Highlands Ranch), Rep. Ray Rose (R-Montrose), and Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling).

Compared to other states, Colorado stands alone in the West by keeping all prospecting information confidential, even when local landowners and the environment could be directly impacted. Coloradans deserve the right-to-know about mine drilling and exploration that could threaten their property, groundwater and environment, while protecting truly proprietary mining information such as drill and well log data.

“Mining exploration activities can come at a huge expense to local landowners, water quality, and our unspoiled mountains and prairie landscapes,” said Garrington. “Mining companies have a responsibility to inform the public of activities that could directly impact local communities and the environment.”

Environment Colorado focuses on protecting air and water quality, promoting a sustainable energy policy, implementing transit oriented solutions toColorado's transportation problems and curbing sprawl by promoting responsible land use planning. Environment Colorado utilizes the time-tested tools of research, public education, advocacy and organizing. For more information, visit: www.EnvironmentColorado.org.