Listen to the article
Editor’s Note: This column originally was published by Lee Montana Newspapers. “As you’ll read in this powerful op-ed from our own Steven Rinella and now BHA CEO Ryan Callaghan, the spectacular Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is once again at risk. But this time with national implications. This latest attempt to remove protections surrounding the BWCA is unprecedented in its method, and if successful, could be replicated on public lands all across the country. Whether you live in Minnesota, Montana, or Maine, HJR 140 deserves your attention.” – Mark Kenyon, Director of Conservation
We have hunted, fished and paddled Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, just like millions of Americans. This is where fishing and hunting legends are made – and one of the only places in the Lower 48 where those opportunities still exist.
The Boundary Waters is the backcountry experience we all dream about. The water is so clean, you can dip a cup in the lakes and drink. You can catch 200 fish and bag a limit of grouse in a day. It’s that kind of place. And it’s available to us because President Teddy Roosevelt set it aside in 1909 and because, in 1964, Republicans in Congress unanimously voted to strengthen protections to conserve it in perpetuity.
Today, it faces one of the most serious threats in its history.
In 2023, after years of rigorous review and nearly unanimous public support, a 20-year mineral withdrawal was established in the Rainy River Watershed, home of the Boundary Waters. That decision reflects both science and common sense: Some places are too important to gamble.
However, a Chilean mining conglomerate, Antofagasta, continues to push the Twin Metals project, a proposed sulfide-ore copper mine immediately upstream of the Boundary Waters. At the behest of this foreign company and Congressman Pete Stauber of Minnesota, the Interior Department recently took steps to facilitate a Congressional Review Act vote, or CRA, to overturn the mineral withdrawal. The CRA is a blunt instrument infrequently used and intended to challenge agency rules. It was not designed for dismantling public land management decisions rooted in decades of law, science and public engagement.
Just days ago, on Jan. 12, Rep. Stauber took the next step and introduced HJR 140, which would revoke critical Boundary Waters protections. Stauber wants to fast-track the Twin Metals mine – all so a Chilean company can send American minerals to our nation’s adversaries, namely China.
Now, America needs minerals, and we support development of our domestic resources. But this is not the way. And this is absolutely not the place. What’s being pushed now does not respect the American hunter or angler, and it sure looks like a big giveaway, with Antofagasta planning to ship concentrates from Twin Metals straight to Chinese refineries for processing and sale.
Furthermore, if Stauber’s maneuver is successful, it wouldn’t just reopen the door to Twin Metals; it also would set a dangerous national precedent, enabling Congress to use the CRA to unravel public-land decisions anywhere in the country.
This is both a defining moment and a test of leadership.
And this is where the bipartisan House Public Lands Caucus comes into the picture. Created last year to make sure our public lands and waters are shielded from dangerous ideas in Congress, HJR 140 is exactly the type of proposal caucus members must work together to strike down. Republicans and Democrats pushing in the same direction can protect our outdoor heritage by making sure that our wildest places, like the Boundary Waters, remain in public hands.
This is not a narrow Minnesota issue. It’s a test of whether beloved public lands across the country can be stripped of protections with a simple majority vote, no filibuster and little public scrutiny.
That’s why Montana has an important role to play in what happens next. Our state is shaped by mining, timber and other extractive industries. Montanans have lived with the legacy of mining, both positive and sometimes damaging. We know that mines work in some places and in other places they are unacceptable. Hundreds of people spoke up in conservative Ravalli County to make this exact point just a few weeks ago.
Hunters and anglers are uniquely positioned to help determine what happens next – not just to the Boundary Waters or in Montana, but for the future of how our entire nation approaches conservation. We know the value of public lands, public access and the outdoor economy. It’s up to all of us and our champions in Congress to demonstrate that commitment in a meaningful way.
Together we urge House members – including our own delegation – to oppose HJR 140 and its wrongheaded goal of dismantling Boundary Waters protections.
Some places are worth fighting for. And just like Teddy Roosevelt and the many conservation-minded Republicans since, we believe that the Boundary Waters is one of those places.
Feature image via Charlie Williams.
Read the full article here
18 Comments
As someone who has paddled and fished in the Boundary Waters, I can attest to the fact that the water is so clean you can drink it straight from the lakes, and it’s devastating to think that this could be threatened by mining activities.
It’s interesting to note that the proposed Twin Metals mine would be located immediately upstream of the Boundary Waters, which would put the entire ecosystem at risk of pollution and degradation.
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is indeed a unique place where one can catch 200 fish and bag a limit of grouse in a day, and it’s alarming to think that a Chilean mining conglomerate like Antofagasta could threaten this ecosystem with their proposed sulfide-ore copper mine.
The fact that President Teddy Roosevelt set aside the Boundary Waters in 1909 and Republicans in Congress unanimously voted to strengthen protections in 1964 shows that conservation efforts have always been bipartisan, and we should continue to prioritize protecting this unique ecosystem.
I’m curious to know more about the 20-year mineral withdrawal that was established in the Rainy River Watershed in 2023, and how it reflects both science and common sense in protecting the Boundary Waters.
The proposed mine would not only harm the environment but also undermine the economic benefits that the Boundary Waters provides through tourism and outdoor recreation.
The fact that Antofagasta plans to ship concentrates from Twin Metals to Chinese refineries for processing and sale raises questions about the true motivations behind this project and who would ultimately benefit from it.
I’m supportive of the efforts to protect the Boundary Waters and oppose HJR 140, as it’s clear that this unique ecosystem is worth preserving for future generations.
The Boundary Waters is one of the only places in the Lower 48 where opportunities for fishing and hunting still exist, and it’s crucial that we take action to protect it from threats like mining and development.
It’s time for our leaders to take a stand and protect the Boundary Waters from threats like mining and development, and to prioritize the long-term health of our public lands over short-term gains.
I’m curious to know more about the potential environmental impact of the Twin Metals mine and how it would affect the surrounding ecosystem, including the Boundary Waters and the Rainy River Watershed.
The fact that the Boundary Waters has been protected for over a century is a testament to the power of conservation efforts and the importance of preserving our public lands for future generations.
It’s concerning that Rep. Stauber’s HJR 140 would revoke critical Boundary Waters protections, and it seems like a big giveaway to Antofagasta, allowing them to ship concentrates from Twin Metals straight to Chinese refineries for processing and sale.
This is a clear example of how special interests can influence policy decisions, and it’s up to us to hold our representatives accountable for prioritizing the environment and public lands.
The use of the Congressional Review Act to overturn the mineral withdrawal is a concerning development, as it was not designed for dismantling public land management decisions rooted in decades of law, science, and public engagement.
It’s concerning that Rep. Stauber is pushing to fast-track the Twin Metals mine, despite the overwhelming public support for protecting the Boundary Waters and the science that backs it up.
I’m skeptical about the claim that America needs minerals and that the Twin Metals mine is necessary, when in reality it seems like a short-sighted decision that would harm the environment and benefit a foreign company.
The long-term consequences of mining in the Boundary Waters would far outweigh any temporary economic benefits, and we should prioritize sustainable development over destructive extraction.