BWCA’s future likely hinges on election

Opinion editor’s note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber has served clear and troubling notice that preserving the Minnesota’s beloved Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness could hinge on the outcome of this fall’s elections.

All voters who care about safeguarding this fragile, watery wilderness should be aware of the threat posed by reckless legislation pushed through the House by the Republican Eighth District congressman.

The bill, HR 3195, is misleadingly dubbed the “Superior National Forest Restoration Act.” It sounds environmentally friendly. It’s anything but. A more accurate name for the bill would be: “Pandering to Chilean Billionaires Act.”

Stauber’s irresponsible bill aims to rescind the new 20-year moratorium on copper-nickel mining in the BWCA’s headwaters. This is an outcome that would greatly benefit Antofagasta, the Chilean mining conglomerate that owns Twin Metals Minnesota. Antofagasta, in turn, is controlled by the Luksics, South America’s wealthiest family.

Antofagasta seeks to open an underground copper-nickel mine just outside the BWCA but on the edge of a lake that drains into the wilderness. That’s a serious problem when the copper mining industry worldwide has an appalling track record of pollution. Copper-nickel mining is also new to Minnesota and carries different risks than our more familiar taconite operations.

In 2019, the Star Tribune Editorial Board’s “Not this mine, not this location” special report spotlighted the risks to the BWCA’s fragile, intertwined waters from potential mining pollution. The report also called for permanent copper-mining protections in the BWCA’s watershed. While mining cheerleaders argue that new technology will minimize risks to the BWCA, responsible stewardship of this natural treasure requires zero risk of pollution in its headwaters.

In January 2023, the Biden administration issued a public land order that effectively bans copper-nickel mining on 225,504 acres of federally owned land in the BWCA watershed for 20 years. As the Editorial Board noted then, it was a landmark step to ensure future generations can enjoy this rare, unspoiled natural gem.

The public land order also stands in commendable contrast to the Trump administration’s efforts to ram through the Antofagasta mine in secrecy, with little regard for science or risks to the BWCA.

Stauber’s attempt to resurrect the project makes it clear that the project and profits for its foreign owners remain a priority for his party and its leadership. In addition to rescinding the public land order, it takes other troubling steps to give the mine kid-glove treatment in the approval process.

Stauber’s bill would expedite timelines for federal officials to complete environmental reviews and would “reissue each canceled mineral lease, preference right lease, and prospecting permit relating to lands within that forest,” according to Congress.gov. It also would block judicial review of any lease or permit reissued under the provisions outlined in the bill.

In a statement provided to an editorial writer, Stauber said the judicial restraints are necessary because “well-funded activist groups” employ “frivolous lawsuits” to “prevent important mining and energy projects from moving forward.”

In reality, the courts have been a vital environmental safeguard, especially when a presidential administration is stacked with industry lobbyists, as former President Donald Trump’s was.

If the Stauber bill is enacted, the ban on judicial review equates to saying, “Tough luck to the American public. You can’t go to the court on this. They’ve got these leases. This foreign mining company has rights to the minerals in the watershed of the Boundary Waters, period. Get used to it,” said Becky Rom, an Ely native, grandmother, former attorney and citizen activist with the Save the Boundary Waters campaign.

Regrettably, Stauber’s bill passed the Republican-controlled House on April 30 on a mostly party line vote of 212-203. All of Minnesota’s GOP representatives voted for it. The state’s Democratic delegation all voted against it.

There’s no companion bill yet in the Senate. If and when there is, that legislation would face appropriate headwinds in this chamber, which is controlled by Democrats. Minnesota U.S. Sen. Tina Smith provided this welcome, energetic statement this week on Stauber’s bill:

“The Boundary Waters are some of the cleanest waters on Earth, and while I support mining, I can’t support sulfide mining in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness’ watershed. While I’m disappointed to see this bill pass the House, I’m going to do everything I can to organize my Senate colleagues against this legislation and protect the Boundary Waters.”

President Joe Biden would be unlikely to sign Stauber’s bill if it passes the Senate. This is little comfort, however, given the looming fall election. A change in leadership in the Senate or the White House could quickly resurrect this risky mine perched on the BWCA’s doorstep.

Instead of reversing the copper mining safeguards for the BWCA, Congress instead needs to enact permanent protections for its headwaters, as Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum is admirably pushing for. Similar safeguards have been put in place on lands near other natural treasures, such as Yellowstone National Park. The BWCA deserves to have the same level of protection. It’s up to voters to ensure that it does.

Editorial Board members are David Banks, Jill Burcum, Scott Gillespie, Denise Johnson and John Rash. Star Tribune Opinion staff members Maggie Kelly, Kavita Kumar and Elena Neuzil also contribute, and Star Tribune CEO and Publisher Steve Grove serves as an adviser to the board.