Judge rejects challenge to national monument near Grand Canyon. Will Trump step in?

Yahoo

29-01-2025

A federal judge has rejected a lawsuit by Arizona lawmakers challenging former President Joe Biden's designation of a national monument near the Grand Canyon.
The dismissal of a case brought by legislative Republicans and backed by Mohave County shifts attention to Washington, where many on both sides of the issue expect that President Donald Trump may shrink or rescind the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. At issue is the prospect of renewed uranium prospecting in the region northwest of Flagstaff and south of Kanab, Utah.
'We are reviewing this ruling and will likely file an appeal,' Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen said in a written response to questions. 'We are confident this unconstitutional land grab will be reversed, either by the courts or by the Trump Administration.'
Trump has a history of downsizing national monuments created by Democratic predecessors, having done so in his first term to the Clinton-designated Grand Staircase-Escalante and the Obama-designated Bears Ears national monuments, both in southern Utah. Biden restored protections in both cases after defeating Trump in 2020.
Environmental and tribal groups lauded the decision and said they'll guard against further efforts to undo the land protections. Polling recently released by the Grand Canyon Trust indicated that a substantial majority of Arizonans, including Republicans, favor the monument.
'The public supports this iconic monument and the wisdom of the Tribes who proposed and fought for it,' Center for Biological Diversity Southwest Director Taylor McKinnon said in an email. 'Any further attacks from uranium industry surrogates or opponents of public lands will be wildlife unpopular and meet fierce resistance.'
The Native American Rights Fund released a statement saying that tribes including its clients, the Havasupai and Hopi, 'celebrated the court's decision, which maintains protections for a culturally significant region that was taken away from Tribal Nations.'
Petersen and then-House Speaker Ben Toma filed the suit against the Biden administration to undo the roughly 1 million-acre monument designation on federal lands north and south of Grand Canyon. They, along with Treasurer Kimberly Yee, Mohave County and the towns of Colorado City and Fredonia, argued that the monument harmed the state and local governments by restricting potential uranium mining revenues and complicating state efforts to develop State Trust Lands in the area.
A rancher also joined the case, arguing that the new land protections could jeopardize normal ranch operations such as pond maintenance or tree removals on leased lands.
Senior Judge Stephen McNamee of the U.S. District Court of Arizona on Monday ruled that none of the plaintiffs have standing to sue, as only the state's executive branch can sue on behalf of the State Land Department. In ruling against the rancher's claim, he added that the monument designation specifically authorized the continued leasing of grazing rights on the land.
The governor and attorney general, both Democrats, had declined to join the lawsuit and said the lawmakers overstepped their authority.
Biden traveled to Red Butte, some 10 miles from the south entrance to Grand Canyon National Park, to announce the new monument in the summer of 2023. The protections he imposed through his powers under the Antiquities Act were meant to honor numerous tribes' links to the area and to make permanent a 20-year moratorium against uranium mining that the Obama administration had imposed on roughly the same lands in 2012.
At that ceremony, 6 miles from a uranium mine approved previously and not subject to the new protections, Havasupai officials rejoiced. Their reservation, at the edge of Grand Canyon, includes springs they fear may become contaminated by groundwater flowing from mined areas.
Energy Fuels Resources, the company that operates the Pinyon Plain Mine, has said that isn't a risk, while U.S. Geological Survey researchers have said they need more information about groundwater flows.
When the Grand Canyon Trust released its poll findings this month, Havasupai Chairwoman Bernadine Jones said she had heard rumblings of the incoming Trump administration's plans and feared they would include a monument reversal and renewed uranium prospecting. The protected lands are where her ancestors lived in winter before returning to the canyon for summer, she said, and remain sacred.
Coconino County contains the largest share of the new monument, and Patrice Horstman, vice-chair of the Board of Supervisors, said it strongly supports the monument. The county and its population base in Flagstaff rely on tourism and outdoor recreation, she said. 'This monument is an asset to our economy and it protects our lands and waters.'
Energy Fuels, the uranium miner, was not a party to the lawsuit but did criticize Biden's action in 2023 as counter to another of its stated goals: producing carbon-free energy.
On Wednesday, company spokesman Curtis Moore said Energy Fuels 'supports protecting public lands where appropriate' but that monument designations with seemingly arbitrary boundaries that 'expand and shrink and expand once again' depending on who is president, make it difficult for companies to plan investments or for agencies to manage the land.
'The uranium mining we perform is the first step in the nuclear fuel cycle for zero-emission baseload energy that appears to be the resource of choice to support growing energy needs, including the staggering amount of energy expected to be needed for data centers, AI, and other technologies,' Moore said. 'Resource development takes investment and long-term planning, so we are directly impacted by constant changes.'
Mohave County contains about 350,000 acres of the monument and had argued that Biden overreached in designating the monument, possibly costing the county jobs and tax revenues from mine development. County Supervisor Travis Lingenfelter said a judge's ruling that plaintiffs lack standing 'is the most political way for a judge to avoid taking on an issue.'
The plaintiffs are reviewing their options, Lingenfelter said.
'The goal has always been to get this issue concerning abuse of the Antiquities Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for their review,' he said, 'so I would not rule out seeing this appealed by the Arizona Legislature, Mohave County, and affected northern Arizona communities.'
Brandon Loomis covers environmental and climate issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com. Reach him at [e-mail].
Environmental coverage on azcentral.com and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust.
Sign up for AZ Climate, our weekly environment newsletter, and follow The Republic environmental reporting team at environment.azcentral.com and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Judge rejects challenge to national monument near Grand Canyon