by Greg Walcher, E&E Legal Senior Policy Fellow
As appearing in the Daily Sentinel
The Sentinel’s Dennis Webb wrote an excellent and thorough article a few weeks ago about the effort to protect Dolores Canyons, including proposals for a national monument, a national conservation area and several other options. As he chronicled, opinions are almost as varied as the communities potentially affected.
One Nucla resident who opposes the monument worries about the increased tourism such a designation would bring, saying “it would threaten the very solitude that makes the river corridor region special.” And although on the other side of the political issue, Grand Junction’s mayor talked similarly about the peaceful isolation of the area and its value for recreation. Both sides seem to share that love of one of Colorado’s most picturesque places.
So why the controversy? Why do some people think the area is so threatened that additional federal protection is urgent? After all the area is already, by definition, “protected” — almost all of it is public land, and there is no urban sprawl in Slick Rock, Bedrock or Gateway. So, for people who value isolation, peacefulness and a calming escape from a noisy world, what exactly is the threat from which Dolores Canyons must be protected?
Whatever monument proponents may say, the perceived threat is from one thing, and one thing only — mining. That’s because the region contains America’s foremost potential supply of uranium, vanadium and several related minerals. That matters because public support for nuclear energy is growing as governments commit to decarbonizing their economies. According to the Pew Research Center, public support for nuclear energy rose to 49% by 2019, then declined to 43% when oil production spiked and made the U.S. energy-independent in 2020. But since the current administration reversed that trend, a clear majority of Americans again want nuclear energy to be part of the solution — now 56%.
