Federal judge dismisses Goliad uranium lawsuit
Print- •
- •
-
11 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
TO VIEW THE JUDGE'S ORDER
Visit VictoriaAdvocate.com and click this story.
A federal judge dismissed Goliad County's lawsuit against Uranium Energy Corp., but the legal fight might continue.
In his order, U.S. District Judge John Rainey said he has no jurisdiction to hear the case. A Texas Railroad Commission inspector deemed no groundwater was contaminated and the county's claims were premature, the judge said.
Goliad County sued Uranium Energy Corp. in March 2008. Among dozens of claims, the county contends the company contaminated well water by not properly plugging some of its 1,100 exploratory wells.
In his 23-page order released on Friday, Rainey said:
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction in these types of cases, and the evidence presented didn't compel him to make an exception.
Because the company's permit application to mine is still pending, and the permit may or may not be granted, Goliad County's claims are not yet ripe for review.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has the power to grant or deny a permit.
"I think we've been somewhat vindicated with all the allegations that have swirled in the Goliad area," Harry Anthony, the company's chief operating officer, said Monday. "I hope we can put this all behind us and move forward together."
Early signs, though, point to a lengthy fight.
"I fully intend to re-file," said Goliad County Commissioner Jim Kreneck.
Jim Blackburn, the county's environmental lawyer, said he will recommend the group file its case in state court.
"We filed a federal lawsuit because we hoped it would be a knockout blow to Uranium Energy Corp.," Blackburn said. "All Judge Rainey ruled was we didn't belong in federal court."
A contested case hearing, governed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, is under way. The county, other contestants and the company will next provide evidence to the state, for and against a mining permit, in January.
If the company receives a state permit to mine, it will begin on-site work next year.
Print- •
- •
-
11 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •



Comments
Am I the only one who notices that the Victoria Advocate gives the polluters free advertising with these articles?
Why not a STOP URANIUM MINING IN GOLIAD COUNTY sign also?
Oh wait maybe TRUST ME Harry has bought the Advocate off also.
Advocate PLEASE stop this obvious BIAS
June 15, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.Ken, it seems you're angry. I would be more inclined to respond to your comments if they were actual attempts to provoke discussion, rather than a litany of insults and nearly incoherent misinterpretations of what you believe are the facts. It sounds to me like you just want to abuse someone to make yourself feel better.
Also, didn't UEC test all the wells of complaintants? I heard they found it was fecal coliform contamination -- likely from the land owner's own septic systems -- that contaminated wells in 2007, during the 50-100/year rain event that summer. So don't put your septic next to your well, genius. And if you do, don't blame innocuous mineral exploration miles away for the resulting dookey in your well water.
June 10, 2009 at 10:13 a.m.Uranium exploration is not even remotely similar to drilling an oil well. Oil and gas are deep, very far below the water table. Uranium exploration turns our sensitive aquifer into a pin cushion as hundreds of holes are punched in a small area.
Regarding lawsuits, if I had a producing oil well that suddenly pumped crude oil onto my neighbors' property, I would fully expect to be held accountable. The whole idea is to keep your garbage on your own property and not allow it to encroach on somebody else's property.
"Most all wells in an area can be connected as they are producing from the same water formation and it is possible that drilling activities on one property can influence what happens to a water well on the next property." - David Gunn, Compliance Manager, TDLR
June 9, 2009 at 8:13 a.m.I hope the Goliad County Commissioners and County Judge keep fighting for ALL of Goliad county and surrounding counties protection from uranium mining.
June 9, 2009 at 8:12 a.m.Goliad County residents will not recover the $300,000+ of their taxes that the commissioners spent to hire Blackburn and pursue this spurious lawsuit.
People in Texas have a right to mine minerals from land where they own the rights, as long as they abide standards outlined and monitored by the RRC and TCEQ. Would you want a county to sue you for producing oil on your own land, where you hold the minerals? Sure, oil is not uranium, but exploration via boreholes is similar. The legal pretexts to sue are similar. For goodness sake, this is Texas! That county was ill-advised to sue in the first place, and Blackburn has pulled a fast one on the commission in Goliad. It must have been the convincing weight of his fantastic mustache.
June 8, 2009 at 10:07 p.m.No wonder it's taken three days to hit the Advocate.
Kenneth, if the mining commences and an excursion occurs, Goliad County has enough baseline to compare its water quality to minute movements in space of the Hubble Telescope.
Since excursions have occurred in every single instance of In-Situ mining, the results are somewhat and apparently predictable.
It is truly a shame that the taxpayers' money has to be spent fighting something that common sense will tell you is not right. Injecting fluids into a drinking water aquifer that liberate radioactive and heavy metals needs to be done far away from people's drinking water. It doesn't take a judge or a genius' opinion to figure that out.
The EPA ruled that uranium will NOT be mined on Navajo land, regardless of how the courts ruled on a federal or state level. I wish we had such sovereignty.
The NRC General Environmental Impact Statement says that four (4) samples will be taken from each well over a period of time to establish baseline. Why does TCEQ allow only one single water sample per well? Why is Texas allowed to make up rules when Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a federal level requires stricter guidlines?
The answer is $$$. "Water? Ah, heck...we can buy water! Right? I think it's around $5 a liter in Tahiti right now but oh well. We can afford it!"
June 8, 2009 at 9:18 p.m.I hope calmer minds prevail within the county heirarchy and that the county stops this nonsense of wasting tax dollars that benefit only a few environmental activitists that don't represent the majority of those of us who live and pay taxes in Goliad. Judge Gleinsner we ask that you consider job creation, tax base and work with UEC during these difficult economic times and show your independence in making the right choice. We'll be watching..
June 8, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.