U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Deb Haaland’s recent cancellation of two federal mining leases in the headwaters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota was a clear affirmation of the rule of law – the prior administration had illegally renewed the leases in favor of a Chilean mining conglomerate – and of the imperative to protect America’s most popular wilderness area. The cancellation also signaled that the pieces could very soon be in place to provide this national treasure the permanent protection that it deserves.
Every year since 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed, more people have visited the Boundary Waters than any other national Wilderness. Covering 1.1 million acres along the Canadian border, it has more than a thousand pristine lakes spread out through vast stretches of forests and wetlands. The Boundary Waters is home to hundreds of species of mammals, birds, fish and other creatures. People of all ages and abilities come from all over the U.S. and around the world to travel by canoe and experience the incomparable beauty of this watery landscape.
All of this – plus the flourishing wilderness-based economy in northeastern Minnesota – would be at serious risk if sulfide-ore copper mining were permitted in the watershed of the Boundary Waters. Sulfide-ore mining, which the EPA has called the most toxic industry in America, generates sulfuric acid when the ore comes in contact with air and water, resulting in the release of acid and dissolved heavy metals into groundwater and surface water.
The Obama administration took steps to protect the Boundary Waters in 2016, but as was reported, the Trump administration, after a heavy lobbying barrage by Chilean mining giant Antofagasta, twisted the lease language and the law and improperly reversed the Obama administration action. The recent decision by the Biden administration meticulously details the sweetheart deal and favorable treatment received by the South American conglomerate.
Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith, who is showing growing interest in the issue, found the recent Department of Interior decision “persuasive” and added that it “represents a clear commitment on the part of the Biden administration to make sure we follow the law.”
Even prior to the cancellation of the mineral leases, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management had begun the “mineral withdrawal” process under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act for 225,378 acres of federal land and mineral rights in the watershed of the Boundary Waters. The major component of this process is a scientific, cultural and economic study of the likely impacts if mining is permitted on the lands proposed to be withdrawn. If the study concludes that sulfide-ore copper mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters will likely result in serious harm, the Secretary of the Interior can impose a 20-year moratorium on mining in the withdrawal area.
A 20-year moratorium, or “withdrawal,” seems likely. That action, based on the study currently underway, would be a clarion call for permanent protection for this unique and precious place. Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota has introduced a bill, HR 2794, providing for a permanent ban on sulfide-ore mining in the Boundary Waters watershed. Minnesota’s Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Smith are both firmly committed to a science-based approach – the kind of approach that is the essence of the mineral withdrawal study – for determining the fate of the Boundary Waters watershed.
[image_caption]Richard Moe[/image_caption]
My friend and former boss, the late Walter Mondale, canoed and fished the Boundary Waters for most of his life. He worked tirelessly in his final years for its permanent protection. If he were still with us, he would be cheering on the Biden administration, Rep. McCollum, and Sen. Klobuchar and Smith.
The star most appropriately aligned with this effort is L’Etoile du Nord, the Star of the North. It is the motto of the State of Minnesota, chosen in part because the North Star guided the voyageurs through the waters of northern Minnesota. May it guide us now to permanent protection of those waters.
A native of Minnesota, Richard Moe was president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and a board member of the Conservation Lands Foundation. He served as chief of staff to Vice President Walter Mondale and as an assistant to President Jimmy Carter.
I can assure anyone reading my comment that everyone wants clean water. Even miners do – miners also love BWCA, as do us Iron Range citizens. Where are all the minerals that are required for “green” technologies that the Biden Administration is pushing going to come from? By denying the Twin Metals mineral lease, that they’ve been waiting 10 years for, it puts the United States back to seeking resources from other countries, when we should be looking to ourselves to sustain and reshore manufacturing. Some of those other countries use child labor and have unsafe mining practices. The proposed Twin Metals mine would use dry stacking, the mine is underground – far below the water in the lakes. This is a safe project. But people who don’t live in the area, who don’t see the beautiful forest day in and day out, drink the clear water – will try and persuade everyone to deny the leases. The spring/summer BWCA trips greatly fall off in the late fall/winter – and tourism is not plentiful during the cold months. These communities deserve to have year round jobs that mining can provide. If it can be done safely, and I believe it can, there is no reason why mining shouldn’t proceed in my opinion.
“If it can be done safely, and I believe it can, there is no reason why mining shouldn’t proceed in my opinion.”
Apparently your beliefs are not shared by Twin Metals offshore parent company, Antofagasta PLC, that refuses to offer assurances to be responsible for environmental damage if things do go bad.
“Some of those other countries use child labor and have unsafe mining practices.”
Like Antofagasta PLC ? Who has enormous reserves in the high desert of Chile. Let’s use all theirs up first and then we can really get the best price for ours.
Your point about the depth of the proposed mines is good–in terms of the mines themselves. But what happens to the waste?
Mr. Moe cites the role of the Department of the Interior in this matter. I’m also curious about any role the USDA might have, since this wilderness appears to be in a national forest.
The answer is quite simple, we don’t believe, nor do we have any reason believe, the assurances of mining companies. They have literally NEVER done this sort of mining without major environmental damage. As to your assurances that miners, (and their supporters), enjoy a clean environment, I’m sure you do, but you are compromised by desperation. I’d venture to guess that most substance abuse addicts aren’t particularly fond of the harm they cause to those around themselves, but they still persist in their destructive behavior. It would seem that some in NE MN find themselves addicted to extractive industry, why shouldn’t the rest of us protect ourselves, and our shared property from the destructive impulses that addiction brings on?
I think the solution for Ms. Teek should be really quite apparent, and the residents of the Range should be openly in support of this: put Antofagasta’s name on the permits and not the name of their shell corporation. Perhaps Ms. Teek could explain the Range’s hesitancy to advocate for such a move.
Half a million acres in 1902. One million acres in 1978. How many more acres, now, to encompass the drainage area of all the water within BWCA? Perhaps we should expand this to include all the sources of rain and snow that falls onto the BWCA, but of course, we would need to negotiate with Alberta, Canada, about the Clippers that pass through. The people who live in the northern half Minnesota will certainly be satisfied with all the tourism jobs for the three months of true summer, from the suburban Twin City folks, including Representative Betty McCollum, who will drive in their EVs using copper, nickel and rare earths mined in underdeveloped countries. (I wonder if the author has ever winter camped in the BWCA?)
Back in the day, there used to be, in Minnesota, something called the DFL, to which Walter Mondale, farmers, union miners, and I, belonged. Today’s Democrats apparently want to turn this into the RFL.
See, the rest of us moved on, progressed beyond the mid 20th century mindset that accepted environmental degradation for the sake of economic prosperity. Many of those folks you claim to represent did so as well. What made you think you had, or deserved, veto power over objective reality, that you could hold the world around you in stasis, catered to yours, and yours only, wishes and desires? To the “third world” talking point, YES, I would prefer the damage occur there, I live here. While the unfortunate circumstances of the workers in those areas are certainly tragic, it’s possible to advocate for their better treatment AND not allow our own backyard to be annihilated. To suggest it’s an either/or decision is a fallacy.
The people who live in the northern half Minnesota will certainly be satisfied with all the tourism jobs for the three months of true summer, from the suburban Twin City folks
Perhaps you’re confused, were you under the impression that people are somehow “owed” a certain standard of living, in a certain place of their choosing? Tens of millions of us come from places other than where we now live, most having left to find better opportunity elsewhere, with more people and job opportunities. Is there some reason folks on the “Range” are special, or exempt from the need to migrate away from areas of little opportunity?
I must agree that nobody is guaranteed to get what they want wherever they live. That is why there is no need for “affordable” housing in Mpls. or anywhere else for that matter. People are free to move and should be encouraged to move to areas with better opportunity.