Image by Daniel Thornberg
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 214-208 on Wednesday, January 21, to allow mining near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, setting the stage for a potential copper mining project in the Superior National Forest watershed.
The resolution, introduced by Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minnesota), would rescind a public land order from the Biden administration that protected roughly 225,500 acres of the Superior National Forest for 20 years. The measure now heads to the Republican-controlled Senate, though the timing for a vote remains unclear.
What’s at Stake
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness comprises over 1,000 lakes in northern Minnesota and is widely regarded as a world-class destination for walleye, lake trout, smallmouth bass, and northern pike fishing. It is the most visited wilderness area in the country, attracting approximately 250,000 visitors annually.
Conservation groups warn that the proposed Twin Metals mine—owned by Chilean company Antofagasta—would introduce sulfide-ore copper mining to the region for the first time. Unlike traditional iron mining, sulfide mining produces sulfuric acid, which can contaminate lakes and rivers for centuries. The region’s interconnected waterways mean pollution could spread across millions of acres, potentially reaching Lake Superior.
“This would pave the way for sulfide-ore copper mining in the region—the most toxic industry in America—which has never been allowed in Minnesota before,” said Rep. Kelly Morrison (D-MN), calling the resolution “the greatest threat to the Boundary Waters in history.”
Broader Implications for Public Lands
The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn a mineral withdrawal—an unprecedented application of the law that conservation groups say could set a dangerous precedent for public lands nationwide.
“Today, those who voted in favor of HJR 140 voted to sell out American public lands to foreign interests,” said Ingrid Lyons, Executive Director of Save the Boundary Waters. “This bill sacrifices America’s most visited Wilderness for the benefit of a Chilean company that sends its concentrates to China.”
According to Save the Boundary Waters, if the resolution is signed into law, it “would mean that no established land management decision would be safe from politicized attack and nullification.”
Sportsmen React
The resolution has drawn opposition from hunting and fishing groups who value the wilderness for its recreational opportunities.
“The hunting, fishing, angling and outdoor community wants to see this place protected, plain and simple,” said Matthew Schultz, spokesperson for Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters. “No matter who you voted for, nobody voted for less public lands and less access to them. Without a shadow of a doubt, should this pass through the Senate, that is what will happen.”
Lukas Leaf, executive director of Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters, noted the cultural significance of the area: “My dad and I used to call it ‘going to church.’ A lot of people resonate with that when it comes to the Boundary Waters.”
What Happens Next
The resolution now moves to the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats. The Senate Parliamentarian must first rule on whether the CRA can legally be used to challenge mineral withdrawals. If the resolution passes both chambers and is signed by President Trump, the 20-year mining ban would be overturned, paving the way for the administration to issue mineral leases in the Boundary Waters watershed.
Conservation groups are urging citizens to contact their U.S. Senators to oppose the measure.
Trending Products
