Breaking: Arizona District Court concluding that Mohave Co. could challenge the efforts of the Obama Administration
by Dee Dee Garcia Blase on Jan. 10, 2013, under Arizona NewsIt’s still the wild, wild west out here in Arizona.
Meanwhile in Mohave County …
PRESS RELEASE
January 10th, 2013
Decision on Uranium Mining
Lake Havasu City, AZ. – Supervisor Buster Johnson expressed his delight with the decision of the Arizona District Court concluding that Mohave County could challenge the efforts of the Obama Administration denying the County the opportunity to defend its environmental and economic interests in Court. “All I have ever wanted was for the Federal Courts to recognize that by law, local governments have legitimate stewardship roles to play in managing the lands which surround us; that we have a right to defend those interests in Court; that it is not the sole prerogative of unelected federal bureaucrats and their bosses who act as our absentee landlords on 18th & C Street in Washington, D.C. some 2500 miles east of Mohave County.”
In a ruling by Judge Campbell of the Arizona U.S. District Court denying the Department of Interior’s efforts to dismiss the case brought by Mohave County together with a coalition of neighboring counties and the town of Fredonia, Arizona, Judge Campbell wrote:
“The Coalition has alleged facts showing that projected state revenues that flow to Mohave County from the mining industry will be significantly reduced as a result of the withdrawal. The Coalition alleges that but for the withdrawal “there would be over a 40-year period: 1,078 new jobs in the project area; $40 million annually from payroll; $29.4billion in output; $2 billion in federal and state corporate income taxes; $168 million in state severance taxes; and $9.5 million in mining claims payments and fees to local governments.” The complaint plausibly alleges, and the Court must take as true, that loss of Mohave County’s share of this revenue will impair the county’s ability to carry out county functions, including paving its 1,277 miles of unpaved roads and managing its desert tortoise habitat, both stated goals of its Land Use Plan.”
“The Coalition alleges that Defendants (the Secretary of the Interior) failed to coordinate with its members to avoid conflicts with local plans, Defendants failed to follow proper FLPMA [Federal Land Policy Management Act] and NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] procedures, the withdrawal decision ignored scientific data, and the decision will cost Mohave County and other members “tens of millions of dollars in revenue and jobs,” inhibiting their current efforts at economic recovery.”
“The Coalition’s allegations in this case – that the withdrawal will have economic consequences for Mohave County that will directly impair its ability to carry out its governmental functions, including implementation of its Land Use Plan – shows injury to the County’s concrete proprietary interests. Mohave County also satisfies the additional requirements for procedural injury. First, it has alleged that Defendants violated procedural rules under the FLPMA and NEPA. This includes allegations that the Secretary did not consult with local governments in selecting the preferred alternative despite stating that their comments would influence his decision; the Secretary tainted the NEPA process by announcing a decision before the BLM had reviewed all comments and completed the final EIS; and neither the Secretary nor his designees made an effort to resolve inconsistencies between the withdrawal and local plans.”
Supervisor Johnson finished by saying, “We’ve had unanimous support from our Board of Supervisors in moving ahead to protect Mohave County. We’ve worked together with industry to promote a team effort with the counties to safeguard the environment and provide for the economic well-being of our county and all of the coalition counties. Without this partnership we would not have been able to go it alone. The support from our partner counties in Utah [Arizona/Utah Economic Coalition] in holding hearings and doing research added to the reasons for this ruling.”
