The only thing more valuable than the cathartic camping experience the Boundary Waters Wilderness offers is the copper that rests beneath the million acres of pristine lakes and forests.
Well, I should clarify: it depends on whether you consider permanent wilderness preservation or a temporary mining operation more valuable.
The Boundary Waters Wilderness has always been the pride of northern Minnesota, hosting 165,000 annual visitors and stimulating a thriving ecotourism economy. Despite this heavy use, strict regulations and responsible travelers have ensured that the land retains its original form – a form Twin Metals Minnesota aims to tarnish with a sulfide-ore copper mine. This type of mining – never done before in Minnesota – would pollute the water that circulates through the Boundary Waters, before flowing into Voyageurs National Park and winding across Canada, emptying finally into the Hudson Bay.
The proposed mine would undeniably cause irreversible damage to the environment and economy. But preventative legislation is possible, and the next two weeks offer the best opportunity yet for permanent protection.
Environmental activists, led by the Save the Boundary Waters Campaign, have been advocating for preventive legislation since 2013, and their persistence may finally be rewarded by this “lame-duck” Congress. The moment is right: as an intern for the Save the Boundary Waters Campaign this past summer, I witnessed instances of bipartisan support for environmental legislation in my meetings with congressional members. That type of bipartisan support was reflected in 2020 when Congress passed a massive omnibus bill related to environmental conservation, management, and recreation. This opportunity has an expiration date, though. Mining remains a predominantly partisan issue, and environmental bills are unlikely to pass once Republicans take control of the House in January.
Fortunately, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-4th Dist.) and 55 co-sponsors have introduced H.R. 2794, a bill that would permanently protect approximately 234,328 acres of federal land in the Boundary Waters. The bill passed subcommittee in July and is prepared to go to the House floor for a vote. The next step is for a companion bill to be introduced in the Senate. Although both Minnesota senators have been hesitant to introduce a bill, the pressure they currently face is palpable. These are five reasons why now is a critical moment for the Boundary Waters, and why you should voice your support for legislative action.
First, a poll conducted immediately after the midterm election found that nearly 70% of respondents support legislation that permanently protects the Boundary Waters, including 87% of Democrats, 61% of independents, and 51% of Republicans. Public support has grown significantly, due likely to widespread education about the dangers of sulfide-ore mining, and it justifies passing legislation. Additionally, compiled across numerous Forest Service open-comment periods, citizens have submitted more than 500,000 comments in support of a mining ban.
Second, a 2019 Harvard study indicates that a mine would ultimately negatively impact the regional economy. For an economy that generates roughly a billion dollars annually and employs 17,000 people, a mine would decrease jobs, economic activity, real estate prices, and health outcomes. This study effectively refutes the primary argument in favor of mining, as supporters typically claim that mining will stimulate the economy and produce more jobs – a claim fundamentally inaccurate in the long-run.
Third, the Forest Service has recommended a mining ban to Department of the Interior Secretary Deb Haaland through an environmental assessment it released in June. The document was the culmination of years of scientific study and economic modeling and advises a twenty-year moratorium for 225,504 acres of federal land in the Boundary Waters. While these steps taken by the Biden administration are positive, they could be reversed easily by forthcoming administrations and should be viewed as secondary to permanent protection efforts progressing through Congress. However, the environmental assessment findings are striking, clear, and further exemplify the gravity of this exact moment for the protection movement.
Fourth, the formal support from Chippewa (Ojibwe) tribes is a vital consideration for the movement. The Boundary Waters has a 9,000-year history as a home and trade route for indigenous people, and if land reclamation is unrealistic, the least Congress can do is account for their opinions on the status of the Boundary Waters and protect the reservations that would be impacted by the proposed mine.
[image_caption]Zach Spindler-Krage[/image_caption]
For the Boundary Waters protection movement, it’s unlikely a better opportunity than the present one will arise soon. Public support, scientific studies, economic assessments, indigenous allyship and momentum are all coalescing in time for the kind of “lame-duck” congressional session that historically produces major environmental wins. While some may argue for a slow, calculated strategy, there is no telling when both the presidency and Congress will be controlled by individuals sympathetic to the cause. Over the past three terms, the status of protection has oscillated with each new president. If a Republican takes presidential office in 2024, the mining leases could likely be reinstated, despite current efforts.
In the end, it is primarily up to Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN) to either introduce a companion bill to McCollum’s House bill or negotiate a new omnibus bill. However, the actions of our representatives are contingent on the pressure they feel from constituents. Considering the opportune environment, now is the time to voice your support for the permanent protection of the Boundary Waters by contacting Smith and your House representative (congressional switchboard at [202] 224-3121).
Zach Spindler-Krage is a Minnesota native and Boundary Waters activist, currently studying political science, history, and policy studies at Grinnell College in Iowa.
I see another youngster has bought the “mining will destroy the boundary water canoe area” completely. I was young when the mining industry was changing from iron ore mining to taconite. The “greenies” were out in force claiming the same thing, taconite mining (more water intensive) would destroy the Iron Range ecosystem completely. I’m still waiting for that 60 years later. Anyone who enjoys the boundary waters will still enjoy the wilderness with or without mining. Mining will take up a fraction of the thousands of acres of lakes and forest. With 2022 regulations in place, much different than 1960’s standards, the ridiculous claim that the entirety of BWCA will be destroyed and no one will ever go there again is straight hyperbole.
No the BWCA will not be destroyed by mining. Yes, the business of the BWCA will continue. Great paying jobs will be created through mining and life will go on. I’ve already lived through one “the pristine north woods will be ruined” and the words have little to no meaning to me. Must be the old sky is falling thing.
Joe, you should give us at least one example of hard rock mining that has not polluted the groundwater or caused acid runoff.
It has never been done without poisoning the water. Wisconsin and Canadian projects have all brought environmental degradation.
When sulfide-bearing rock is exposed to air or water, acid is created that changes the pH of the wet environment, killing the flora and fauna that have lived there forever.
Read the piece again Joe, you’re wrong about the safety, the chemistry, the economics, and the long-term health and wealth of your beloved North Country.
btw, none of us have the right to deplete resources that the people collectively own. We are only here for a short lifetime, and should minimize the damage we do to our heritage.
Minntac, Hibbtac, Evtac…. Do you need more ?
Name the mines you offer as hard rock ores in a wet environment.
Please.
Richard, I can see you do not know the Iron Range. The whole area is a wetlands. All 3 mines mentioned are in close proximity to rivers, swamps and lakes. I assume that is what you mean by wetlands.
You are using iron ore mining as if it was sulfide hard-rock mining.
They are very different.
“Sulfide mining differs significantly from iron ore (taconite or ferrous) mining because it has the potential to generate acidic pH. Copper and nickel typically are bound to sulfur in rock. Because of this sulfur bond, they are described as sulfide minerals.”
Richard, you asked for hard rock mining examples, I gave them to you. You may not know it but taconite mining is hard rock mining. Intermingled with the taconite is copper/nickel along with many other minerals. They all get exposed to water, air and the environment in the process of taconite mining. Please try to stay on a topic so folks can have a knowledgeable debate. Thank you.
Tell me, do the open pit mines look “unspoiled” to you? That YOU find the area acceptable is irrelevant, I mean it’s obviously not good enough to keep YOU around, so why should anyone else feel differently? I prefer my wilderness NOT pockmarked with decimated moonscapes (easily visible from the road, much less up close) and my waterways not sterilized with toxic run-off.
Matt, I live up here 5 months a year and never run into old mine sights. We have hundreds of square miles of natural woods, swamps and lakes up here and probably 15 square miles of total mine areas. Your argument makes no sense!
Are unaware that satellite photography is a thing that exists?
Matt, please look at that map and get back to me. You will notice mining areas compromise much less than 1% of the land up here.
I mean he’s got a few years left before he’ll need the lifeboat I suppose.
The Twin Metals project is going to be completely underground and will dry stack tailings. I fail to see how this equates to a catastrophic pollution of BWCA’s watershed. The Superior National Forest plan always included mining and forestry, yet mining companies have to fight off years upon years of lawsuits which completely negates what should be a fair permitting process. Lastly, with all the “green new energy” solutions that are desperately needed, we need the minerals we have in the US to lead the way to our green energy future. The US has very strict environmental and labor standards. Standards other countries don’t have. Where exactly does the author propose we get these minerals from? A third world country that uses child labor? And what of the energy it takes to transport those minerals here to the US? We should be self-reliant and not rely on other countries!
You too should offer an example of where the proposed mining has succeeded in extracting copper ores, smelting and processing without severe environmental degradation.
If you have no examples you have no argument.
Short term thinking and failure to understand the permanent costs is reckless.
You don’t care about child labor, so why bring it up. You also don’t care about your OWN environment, so why should we buy the claim that you’re concerned about anyone else’s. Mining proponents are addicts, to an outdated, and unnecessary lifestyle that has no place in our state. You need an intervention, not enabling.
“The proposed mine would undeniably cause irreversible damage to the environment and economy.”
Sticking to the actual truth always enhances credibility to an opinion piece. I give you:
“The proposed mine could cause irreversible damage to the environment and economy.”
Which leaves us with the 100% “would” and the unknown % “could”. And that is the true question we are debating. And, as repeatedly debated here, the unknown % leaves a possibility of an environmental disaster. And if it is .0001% disaster and 99.999% jobs and economic benefits, common sense says do it.
But, unfortunately, we do not know the %, leaving the next course of action being if we do go ahead based on the best data we can gather and still disaster occurs, who pays?
And that is the rub. Because common sense would also say the mining company causing the disaster should pay. And the mining company has never seemingly said “OK, will pay, here’s the guarantee”. Which leaves the taxpayers as the ones ultimately holding the bag for the cost of any disaster.
And in the end that is what will stop Twin Metals: Their Chilean owners, Antofagasta PLC, will never step up and assume responsibility in large part because they have huge copper reserves in the high desert of Chile where we know:
“Chile’s Atacama Desert. Widely considered the driest place in the world, it has an average rainfall of as little as 0.04 inches per year and meaningful rainfall of about 1.5 inches (enough to leave short-lived shallow lagoons) only once per century on average.”
As opposed to the boundary waters 38 Year Annual Precipitation Average of 29.06″.
No need to stretch the truth when the actual truth gets the job done.
Edward, what were the regulations the mining companies doing business in Atacama had to follow? What regulation that mining companies doing business in BWCA, do you want to change or make stricter? Please be specific. Thank you.
The specific regulation to be put in place before any mining go ahead is given to Twin Metals is a cash guarantee with no corporate shields be put in place at an amount sufficient to fully restore environmental damage from sulfide mining from their operations.
They will never do it: they are counting on corporate welfare to cover it for them.
We can impose all the operational regulations we want and if it does not include this guarantee they should be denied a permit to operate.
Whoops!
I did not quite clarify Joe’s GOTCHA here:
He wants the state to list the operational regulations needed in order to mine and if those regulations are agreed to and “sort of” met, ***GOTCHA*** he supports the taxpayers of Minnesota to be on the hook for any bad stuff that may occur. Giving a needy someone $1,000 to help in a time of housing need is an outrage to Joe, A billion to a Chilean mining company? No big deal.
Easy, 100% guarantee of no leaks or environmental damage, backed by oh say, 500 billion to a trillion in untouchable funds to clean up the inevitable mess when it happens. Executives on the hook for prison time when it happens. Better yet, any and all corporate property globally reverts to state of MN ownership when environmental damage occurs. Don’t like the heat, stay out of our kitchen.
I’m talking regulations not ridiculous demands that no company could comply with. You do know there is a legal way to mine in the USA with a permitting process. Please give me a regulation (not crazy demands) that you think needs to be tightened up to approve the permitting process. Please be specific.
I did. That you think the demands are ridiculous is irrelevant. The goal is to force mining companies to be responsible for the damage they seek to cause. Seems you don’t cotton to corporate responsibility, that’s your shortcoming, not ours.
My earlier post stated the obvious: This is not a game of Gotcha on regulations.
There needs to be an iron clad guarantee of responsibility for any environmental consequences
Joe: Please tell us the nature of an acceptable guarantee, please be specific
While I have asked Joe a number of times whether he would support putting the parent company’s name on the permit (and not the name of their shell company), he always seems to not want to answer. Given that Joe is a huge proponent of personal responsibility one would think that Joe would support such a measure.
Edward, what is acceptable is THE LAW!! There are laws in place monitoring the regulation process, when you meet the standards set IN LAW, you get permitted and can start mining. That is what I’ve been trying to explain to you anti mining folks, follow the law or change the law. Again if you are not happy with the permitting process tell me what you would change. Be specific, thank you.
As a mining company I am sure Antofagasta has substantial Platinum and Paladium reserves. How about an initial deposit in some big secure safe at the State Capital a down payment of 100,000 ounces, about 100 million dollars, to get the permit to start and all Platinum and Paladium recovered gets piled into that safe and held for 100 years after the end of mining
I am wild guessing about 100 million a year in recovery
The only US Paladium mine just sold for 2 b
50% of known US reserves are in N MN
Have at the copper and nickel…
The “greenies” were out in force claiming the same thing, taconite mining (more water intensive) would destroy the Iron Range ecosystem completely.
Tell us Joe, how many people go to the Range to enjoy nature, vs. the BWCA. You already missed your chance to be Brainerd, by choosing dirty mining over tourism, apparently now you’re willing to be a dump like NW WI just to keep up that mining addiction.
Matt, the successful businesses that have been I created from mining dwarfs anything Brainerd will ever do. Please stop with nonsense that you don’t know about.
Please check the respective populations TODAY, then tell us how “successful” your precious Range is. Long after mining wastelands are played out, useless and worthless hunks of moonscape, tourist areas will still be churning out dollars to those intelligent enough to quit relying on short term thinking.
For 100 years mining has driven the economy of the Iron Range, making multiple generations wealthy servicing the mines. The mines gave immigrants a shot at succeeding here in America, including both sets of my Grandparents. The fact that the Iron Range fed America’s need for steel thru WWII and the explosion of American baby boomers success. Duluth grew and thousands of jobs were created moving iron ore to the steel mills around the country. Brainerd has no shot at even putting a dent in the amount of money created from the Range to Duluth. Don’t try to create some equivalent between Brainerd and the mining industry in Minnesota. There is none!!
One’s dead, the other alive. The only metric that matters. If the Range cannot find a way to exist without sulfide mining, than it cannot exist.
Entrepreneurs and businesses create jobs. It is the state’s job to get out of the way. As soon as the state government gets to be more important than the people that it serves, we have a big problem. Metro, Rural, wherever.
There are rules and processes in place to permit mines (design, construction, operation and closure). If they follow the rules they can mine. If you don’t like the rules, change them.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis said every mining job equates to $ 447,643 in gross value. This is one of the highest rates of all jobs (logging is right up there also). Leisure and hospitality (tourism) generates $47,986 in gross value per job. Not even close to which occupation helps the area more.
Except, of course, that each mining job costs what, 100-200 tourism jobs by rendering the area unusable and off-putting to tourists. Not to mention the human cost in injury and illness of the dirty and dangerous mining industry.
Absolutely not accurate. Show me any data that backs up that outrageous statement.
Just an FYI to the anti mining folks. There are currently 4,200 mining jobs up here with an average of $100,000 per job a year (wage and benefits). Copper/nickel would add at the very least, a couple hundred direct mining jobs up here.
So your premise is that I should accept the permanent destruction of the BWCA to provide employment for not even a quarter of the population of the smallish suburb I inhabit. That’s a foolhardy premise. I’d rather pay to transfer every one of them to an actually economically vibrant area like the metro where they won’t constantly need subsidy to remain employed. It’s a win win, nature left to nature, and poor rural citizens with a new chance at an actually sustainable future for themselves.
Obviously, all areas of Minnesota have their positives and negatives: some have more cultural, sporting, educational, outdoors, or economic strengths. Depending on where an individual chooses to live, they love and value something about that area of choice more than others do. Any argument about where “is better” or what “is better” is just personal opinion.
Until residents of some areas demand destructive concessions from those living in others, in order to subsidize their continued existence. Not one of us have a problem with folks choosing to live in the economically depressed Iron Range. Knock yourselves out. Demand that we permit the destruction of the BWCA so that they can continue to do so? Not a chance in hell.
Certainly am not going to argue or swear about it, just noting that people make choices to live where things most important to them are found.