Minnesota’s Republican members of Congress — Pete Stauber, Brad Finstad, Michelle Fischbach, and Tom Emmer — supported H.J. Res. 140, overturning protections for over 234,000 acres just outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCA) in Minnesota, thereby opening the door to potential copper-nickel sulfide mining next to the BWCA.

As a registered Republican I am disgusted by their choice to support a foreign mining company rather than to protect Minnesota’s most pristine natural environment.

The H.J. Res. 140 decision passed both houses of Congress along party lines — including Minnesota’s neighboring Republican senators from South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. This continues to underscoring the neglectful attitude national Republicans currently have toward protecting environment and culture. (See also exploratory drilling for graphite near Pe’ Sla (sacred Lakota site) in the Black Hills of South Dakota).

Supporters for mining near the BWCA say it will address economic challenges in northeastern Minnesota. This is short-sighted. Since the 1980s, the Minnesota mining economy has experienced multiple boom/bust swings; every protracted recovery has been undermined by another global impact far outside Minnesota’s control. Global recession, global pandemic, global decline in demand for materials, and global price collapse have all been factors impacting the volatile mining industry. Mining is not the long-term economic answer.

Prominent Harvard economics professor James Stock modeled 72 different Iron Range economic scenarios extending 20 years (proposed mine is ~25 years). Stock’s analysis shows that the majority of mining scenarios have a negative impact on the regional economy (both employment and income) due to continued investment in mining rather than diversified economic investment and job creation. (Stock, and Bradt. Ecological Economics. Analysis of proposed 20-year mineral leasing withdrawal in Superior National Forest. 2018.)

H.J. Res. 140 opens the door for Twin Metals Minnesota to pursue mining permits. Don’t be fooled by the name: Twin Metals is not a Minnesota-owned company; rather, it is entirely owned by the foreign mining company Antofagasta PLC. Antofagasta has much to gain — its pre-feasibility study (Barber, et. al., 2014) projects an average annual gross revenue of $1.2 billion. Keep in mind however, this compares to Antofagasta’s projection of $150-$350 million in annual income-earned in the region from direct mining jobs and secondary / supportive role job sectors. Although the northeast job market will benefit for the life of the mine the large wealth extracted from Minnesota will go to Chile.

Sulfide-ore mining carries a long record of acid mine drainage. There are serious hydrological concerns for the BWCA, especially considering that foreign mining companies have a long history of environmental damage, including: Grupo México (MEX) soil, groundwater, and air contamination in Arizona and Texas; Rio Tinto (UK/AUS) acid mine drainage and heavy-metal contamination in Utah; Barrick Gold (CAN) cyanide/tailings impacts on wildlife habitat in Nevada; Teck Resources (CAN) water-quality impacts in the western U.S. and Alaska; and Anglo American (UK) Superfund sites in Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado, and Idaho.

In a study published in The Journal of Hydrology on conceptual flow models into the BWCA, Tom Myers notes several concerns, including; extreme storm events over tailings piles, migration of mining chemicals into the BWCA, and the risk that contamination may not be obvious until after the mine closes. Myers notes that substantial chemical impacts can continue for decades.

Its seem the analysis of these two key studies (i.e. hydrogeologic concerns raised by Myers, and regional economic growth not favoring mining by Stock & Bradt) are not worth the risk to the BWCA watershed; considering copper-nickel sulfide mining sets up the Iron Range for continued boom/bust cycles of growth and recession, and a threat of long-term or significant damage to the BWCA watershed.

I would far prefer the US Congress and Minnesota Legislature to support creation of a diversity of industries that would thrive in Northeast Minnesota — ones that are not so sensitive to volatile global circumstances (e.g., war, the potential A.I. boom or bust, trade collapses with other countries, etc.).

Congressional Republicans (266 total) think the boom-bust history that is Minnesota mining will be different this time. They did not consider scientific or economic studies warning against mining and ignored their citizens’ concerns to protect Minnesota’s pristine environment.

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness receives an estimated 140,000+ visitors annually from across the country (primarily Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and Iowa). BWCA visits invite and embolden a connection and passion for our natural world. This connection and passion can lead one to: a career path, to learn how to cope with self-doubt, provide an essential stress-relief break from the “rat-race” or job stress, strengthen existing relationships or grow new ones, inspire a curiosity and sense of adventure that leads to further exploration, or can be simply a good place to catch a fish, or read a book.

The value of this area is not in economics — especially for such a short-term. The true value of the BWCA is the accessible gift it makes of itself to every citizen of America. Its value is no less than the Grand Canyon, the Great Smoky Mountains, public areas along the Oregon coastline, or even your favorite State / Local park. The BWCA is a priceless gift to all who adventure there, and an essential home to both migratory and permanent wildlife which rely on its purity.

The BWCA should be protected from foreign mining companies. Congressional Republicans have failed to do that. I encourage you to learn how you can be part of the solution to protecting Minnesota’s natural environment.

— Roger Schroeder is a Marshall resident and the Lyon County Environmental Administrator Roger Schroeder