State board delays uranium exploration hearing after interveners say they were not properly notified

The Board of Minerals and Environment delayed a contested hearing over a uranium exploration permit after multiple interveners and tribal representatives told the board they had not received formal notice of the proceedings or of site‑visit dates.

Steve Blair, general counsel for the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, told the board that "it's clear from the record that a formal notice of hearing wasn't issued in this matter" and that whether a February 6 agenda post on the board's website constituted adequate notice was for the board to decide. Several interveners said online posting was insufficient under prior orders that required service by U.S. mail, fax or in‑person delivery.

Kimberly Craven, Attorney General for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, said the tribe "objects to not being officially noticed" and asked the board to preserve the tribe’s ability to participate with counsel present. Craven said tribal counsel Steve Gunn had organized a site visit but had not been able to appear at the hearing and the tribe therefore wanted the record to reflect they had not waived their right to formal notice.

Interveners emphasized logistical and cultural obstacles to the scheduled site visits, including limited access to maps and timing that conflicted with tribal ceremonies. Dr. Ben Sharp, an intervener, said the process so far had given an impression that the board had "outright contempt for the voters" and urged the board to "slow down and start following some rules." Other interveners described delayed or missing postal service and asked that official service requirements be honored rather than relying on web postings.

After discussion, board members moved to enter executive session to consult with counsel about pending contested‑case litigation. The board returned to open session and a motion to continue the matter to March 18 was made and seconded; the board then voted to approve that continuance. A separate motion to reschedule the longer merits hearing on the DXNI 453 permit was discussed, with the applicant arguing statutory time limits give it a right to a timely decision and interveners warning that three days could be insufficient for the witnesses and testimony planned.

The chair said venue and several pending procedural motions — including a request to transfer venue to Hot Springs and questions about the effect of a local Fall River ordinance — would be considered on March 18. The board adjourned after setting the next meeting date and closing public comment.

What happened next: The board set the next hearing event for March 18 and left open other procedural motions (venue, ordinance effect, and wording disputes) for future ruling or appeal.