A controversial provision nestled within the massive reconciliation bill known as “Big, Beautiful Bill” may pave the way for a foreign-owned mining company to access thousands of acres of public land bordering Minnesota’s cherished Boundary Waters wilderness. Environmental advocates are sounding alarms, claiming that the legislation could usher in substantial water pollution risks to one of America’s most pristine natural landscapes.
Earlier this month, a wave of relief washed over conservationists when Congressional leaders dropped a set of highly contentious provisions that would have seen the sale of vast swathes of federal land in Nevada and Utah. These plans faced fierce backlash from public land proponents, including some surprising allies among Republican lawmakers, such as Ryan Zinke from Montana, who firmly opposed any sell-off of public land. However, despite this victory, a much less publicised measure remains, potentially allowing Twin Metals Minnesota, a subsidiary of Chilean mining giant Antofagasta PLC, to lease land in perpetuity adjacent to the Boundary Waters wilderness.
Becky Rom, the national chair of Save the Boundary Waters, described this provision as a “giveaway of critical and sensitive federal public land forever to a single mining company.” She emphasised the permanence of this arrangement: “It is a giveaway… This is forever.”
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) was first protected by Congress in 1964 and spans 1.1 million acres of unspoiled lakes and forests, hosting an array of wildlife and attracting approximately 150,000 visitors annually. This area significantly contributes to Minnesota’s $13.5 billion outdoor recreation economy, with the US Forest Service attesting to its “irreplaceable” natural quality that maintains “extremely high water quality.”
However, the region is under threat from its mineral wealth. Antofagasta has long sought to exploit copper and nickel deposits near the BWCAW, and efforts to establish a mine took a hopeful turn during the Trump administration. After suspending mining leases initiated under Barack Obama, the Biden administration responded by rescinding these leases and imposing a 20-year moratorium on mining in the Superior National Forest, which encompasses the potential mining area. The Biden administration cited environmental risks as a primary justification, particularly concerning the impacts of acid mine drainage—a well-documented incident in sulfide ore mining.
In a troubling turn of events, recent lobbying efforts by Antofagasta and its North American branch appear to have yielded significant results. The reconciliation bill, recently passed in the House, now includes language that effectively reinstates these mining rights and lifts the previous moratorium, allowing Twin Metals to pursue a copper-nickel project spanning nearly 6,000 acres near the wilderness. Furthermore, the provision grants the company rights to lease renewals indefinitely and curtails the ability of citizens to legally challenge these arrangements, as only Twin Metals retains the right to judicial review.
Critics of this provision, including Minnesota Senator Tina Smith, have raised their voices in protest. “Senator Smith strongly opposes the reckless Republican provision,” a spokesperson stated, pointing out the potential ecological ramifications of allowing such mining operations so close to the Boundary Waters, which has historically shown to be vulnerable to damage from similar undertakings.
While Twin Metals has dismissed concerns regarding pollution impacts as unfounded, stating that acid mine drainage is a “nonissue,” a significant body of scientific evidence belies this assertion. Potential ramifications of copper mining in the region include detrimental impacts on the water quality of both Birch Lake and the Kawishiwi River, both of which feed directly into the BWCAW. Conservationists stress that failure to effectively manage the toxic byproducts of mining could yield devastating consequences, covering extensive regions in contamination.
As the reconciliation bill progresses through the Senate, there is growing hope among conservationists that this detrimental provision can be stripped from the final legislation. They argue that including such measures in a budget bill may violate Senate rules regarding “extraneous provisions.” With the future of Minnesota's treasured wilderness hanging in the balance, the outcome could significantly affect both local ecology and the state’s vibrant outdoor tourism economy.
📌 Reference Map:
Source: Noah Wire Services