Don't be fooled, the Boundary Waters bill would benefit northeastern Minnesota

This year is critical for the Boundary Waters’ future.

On July 13, 2022, the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee voted to advance Rep. Betty McCollum’s Boundary Waters Protection and Pollution Prevention Act (H.R. 2794) to the House floor. Just weeks before that, the U.S. Forest Service recommended a 20-year ban on proposed sulfide-ore copper mining near the Boundary Waters via its draft environmental study.

It’s been a historic month for America’s most-visited Wilderness, but anti-Boundary Waters lawmakers have tried to push a foreign mining conglomerate’s narrative of profit over Wilderness. Here are five truths in response to common claims about H.R. 2794 and the proposed Twin Metals mine:

1. A pristine Wilderness benefits the economy more than a risky copper mine

The Boundary Waters sustains nearly 14,000 jobs and generates $969 million annually, and its economic potential increases as the outdoors become more accessible. H.R. 2794 would ensure continued growth for this economic machine.

The roughly 20-year lifespan predicted for a Twin Metals mine, however, doesn’t provide such long-term economic stability. This toxic copper mine would only put profits in Chilean bank accounts — but American taxpayers will foot the bill to clean up the ecological disaster and bear the brunt of an economic vacuum.

2. Clean energy expansion can occur without a proposed Twin Metals mine

Time and again, Twin Metals claims that its risky copper mine near the Boundary Waters is necessary to ramp up production of components for clean energy technology. Pitting the Boundary Waters against a green future is a false choice.

In reality, a Twin Metals mine would sacrifice the Boundary Waters for an insignificant supply of “critical minerals” such as cobalt and nickel, which we can obtain from long-term allies.

3. The Boundary Waters protection bill preserves northeastern Minnesota’s way of life

Northeastern Minnesotans have long supported a clean Wilderness that cultivates responsible economic growth. There hasn’t been mining close to the Boundary Waters region for over 60 years, and sulfide-ore copper mining has never occurred in Minnesota.?

Pollution in the Boundary Waters’ watershed would spell disaster for wilderness-edge businesses that rely on tourists. H.R. 2794 protects northeastern Minnesota’s way of life from America’s most toxic industry.?

4. The location of Twin Metals’ proposed mine is especially dangerous to the Boundary Waters

The proposed Twin Metals mine would operate just south of the Wilderness. Because water within the Boundary Waters’ watershed flows northward, any of its pollution would flow directly into millions of acres of public lands. The science is clear: A mine just outside the Boundary Waters’ borders can still do irreparable harm to the entire Wilderness ecosystem.

5. Tailings from a Twin Metals mine would generate acid

Twin Metals’ representatives have claimed that the proposed mine’s tailings (a term that describes a mine’s waste materials) would not generate acid mine drainage. This is simply false.?

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. EPA, and renowned mining experts all agree: A Twin Metals mine would produce acid-generating tailings, leaching toxins into the clean Wilderness waters. H.R. 2794 would guarantee permanent protection for the Boundary Waters from this toxic type of mining.