EVENT: League of Women Voters Host Discussion About BWCA

In April, the U.S. Senate passed House Join Resolution 140, which repeals a 20-year ban on mining near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA). This has launched the state into a renewed debate over the risks and rewards of digging for minerals — particularly copper — in an area that contains 20 percent of the freshwater in the U.S. national forest system, which provides critical habitat for wildlife. 

Minnesota’s U.S. Representative Pete Stauber (R-8) introduced the measure, which passed the House in January. It clears the way for a subsidiary of Chilean mining giant Antofagasta to engage in copper-sulfide mining, which produces sulfuric acid. As Heather Cox Richardson wrote: The area “is made up of more than a million acres, or over 4,000 square kilometers, of pristine forests, glacial lakes, marshes, and streams in the Superior National Forest in the northeast of Minnesota. It is the most visited wilderness in the U.S., with about 250,000 visitors annually. The Interior Department estimates that it contributes more than $17 million annually to the economy in northeastern Minnesota by supporting industries in the outdoor recreation business.”

On May 31, the League of Women Voters St. Paul hosted an educational program titled “Mining Near BWCA: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?” This is what I learned from the discussion.

Antofagasta first proposed a copper mine in the region 10 years ago. The resulting study by the U.S. Forestry Service, determined that mining could not be safely performed in the Rainy River watershed, which is deeply interconnected with the waterways in the BWCA, and prompted the recently repealed ban.

Julie Lucas

Antofagasta’s subsidiary in Minnesota, Twin Metals, submitted plans again this year for a new mining project in the Rainy River Watershed to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). According to Julie Lucas, executive director of Mining Minnesota, there are two forces acting on the evaluation of that plan. The first is the undeniable value of Minnesota’s water resources.

“We have a really complicated situation that we have to navigate,” Lucas said. “But if we keep our love and our care for our water front and foremost, I think we will get through these conversations the best.”

The second force is the minerals themselves. “We live in a world that runs on minerals,” Lucas told the audience, and “green technology” like electric vehicles and solar panels are far from an exception.  

“Copper is our nervous system,” said Lucas. “Steel and concrete form our skeleton, but copper really is our nervous system, keeping us going. And we see this even more with clean energy, and particularly Minnesota’s 100% clean energy goal.”

Minnesota has an abundance of the minerals modern technology needs, including copper, nickel, and palladium, said Lucas. “It’s a lot of opportunity here for mining, and a lot of opportunity to figure out how to do it the best in the world.” 

For Lucas, that means protecting the Boundary Waters through extensive planning, careful testing, and aggressive adherence to environmental standards in order to maintain zero impact regulation of the Boundary Waters, something she does not view as incompatible with the mining industry or Twin Metals.

On the Other Hand

Ingrid Lyons

For Ingrid Lyons, executive director of Minnesota-based nonprofit Save the Boundary Waters, protecting the region is only possible through prohibiting sulfide or copper mining. 

According to Lyons, copper mining is distinctly more dangerous than the historic iron ore and taconite industry that have dominated northeastern Minnesota’s economy, which is why she and her organization “fundamentally believe that this is the wrong place for [the copper] industry.”

Their reasoning comes from decades of research demonstrating that all copper mines have degraded water quality or altered the ecosystem. For a mine proposed immediately upstream of BWCA — classified as a prohibited outstanding resource value water with a zero degradation standard — Lyons considers that reason enough to reject the plans. 

Another point of resistance to the planned mine concerns a treaty drawn in 1854 that grants three Anishinaabe bands rights to hunt, fish, and gather in the Boundary Waters wilderness. 

“That’s a non-negotiable. … One of the most important parts of that [treaty] is the right to harvest manoomin, or wild rice,” Lyons continued. “Wild rice is particularly sensitive to sulfate, which is a common byproduct of this type of mining.”

As federal regulations surrounding public comment periods, natural resource management, research standards, and pollution control continue to be minimized, Lyons emphasized the vital role that watchdog organizations like Save the BWCA can still play, with the help of the public. 

“We want permanent protection for this area, and that can still be done through legislation,” Lyons said. “So if you’re feeling inspired or motivated, we’re always happy to talk and always have you join our coalition because really that’s what we are at our core. We are a coalition … working together to Protect the Boundary Waters now and for future generations.”

Learn more about Save the Boundary Waters 

To support our ecosystems coverage