By John Imsdahl 

Writer/Reporter 

In the wake of Thursday’s 50-49 vote when the United States Senate passed House Joint Resolution 140, overturning a 20-year ban on copper-nickel mining near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), many have been left anxious about what the future holds for the popular canoe destination. Located in Northeastern Minnesota, the one-million-acre wilderness area consists of more than 1,100 interconnected lakes, streams, and rivers and is visited by more than 165,000 people annually.  

Many environmental advocates and fans of the wilderness area have expressed shock and outrage at the vote, fearing the door is now open to what they consider to be a heavy polluting industry, as well as the effects that copper-nickel sulfide mining could have on the BWCAW watershed.   

There are currently two proposed mining projects near the BWCAW: one planned by NewRange Copper Nickel (formerly known as Polymet Mining), a subsidiary of Glencore, and the other by Twin Metals Minnesota, a subsidiary of Antofagasta, a Chilean-owned mining conglomerate.  A third project, the Tamarack Nickel Project, proposed by Talon Metals, is located in Tamarack, MN, but is not in the watershed of the BWCAW and was not previously covered under the overturned mining ban.  

Both proposed mines are targeting valuable metals including copper, nickel, cobalt, and platinum group minerals from the Duluth Complex, a large underground repository of minerals that stretches across much of the arrowhead region of Minnesota.  The Twin Metals site is located near Birch Lake on the edge of the Boundary Waters, while the New Range project is located on the St. Louis River watershed six miles south of Babbit, Minnesota.   

The good news for those opposed to these mining projects is that the current vote is far from a total green light to begin operations.  There is still an extensive process that each of these companies will need to complete before they are allowed to break ground and begin extraction.   

Any company or individual seeking a permit to mine copper or other valuable metals in Minnesota needs to first obtain a variety of permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, as well as the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.  The permits needed for mining include Air Quality, Water Quality, Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Store and Transportation, Above and Below-Ground Storage Tank permits, and Section 140 Certification.  The Section 140 Certification is a water quality protection program that is part of the Federal Clean Water Act.   

In addition to these permits, companies will also need to participate in an extensive environmental review, including submitting a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  The environmental review process also includes a public comment period, in which concerned parties can submit feedback to the MPCA and DNR for their consideration before projects are approved or denied.  These environmental reviews are a lengthy process that can often last years.  

One reason that the permitting process takes so long is due to its complexity.  EIS reports cover all aspects of the mining projects and must be heavily scrutinized to identify potential flaws and ensure that steps are being taken to mitigate risks to safety and the environment. Lawsuits are commonplace as mining companies, and their opponents try to make the case for and against the proposed projects.  

Organizations such as Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy are among the groups that have long opposed these mining projects, citing risks such as sulfate pollution and contamination from heavy metals that can leach into groundwater from the mine waste rock.  

Sulfate pollution is especially damaging to wild rice, which naturally occurs throughout much of the watershed affected by the proposed Twin Metals and New Range projects.  Wild rice, or manoomin, is a sacred plant to the Anishinaabe people of northern Minnesota and is also an important food source for many animals, including waterfowl.  Environmental advocates worry that sulfates discharged into these watersheds can damage or destroy fragile wild rice beds.  The Fond Du Lac Band has filed numerous lawsuits in state and federal courts arguing that mine runoff threatens their treaty-protected right to harvest this wild rice. 

Mining companies have denied that their projects would cause such damage, and argue that new technologies and processes, such as dry stacking of mine tailings, would prevent environmental harm.  Twin Metals has argued that Minnesota’s strict regulatory frameworks would ensure that any mines would operate safely, in contrast to other parts of the world where regulations may not be as stringent.   

Despite the assurances from the mining industry, many remain unconvinced that such projects could operate safely in the state.  Several proposals are currently making their way through the Minnesota Legislature that proponents argue are necessary to protect the Boundary Waters from potential harm.  

One such bill is commonly known as the “Prove It First” bill.  If enacted, it would require any person or organization seeking mining permits must first demonstrate through a rigorous and scientifically sound process, that a similar mine has operated for a minimum of ten years, and then be closed for at least ten years, without causing environmental harm.  A similar law was in place in Wisconsin for nearly twenty years before being repealed in 2017.   

A second bill, HF1197/SF1744, also known as the “Bad Actors” bill, was introduced into the Minnesota legislature in 2025, and seeks to prohibit companies or individuals with records of environmental damage, pollution, bribery or corruption from obtaining mining permits.  Applicants would be required to disclose past infractions, and failure to do so could result in denial or revocation of a permit.  

Currently both of these bills are facing an uphill battle in the legislature.  The closely divided makeup of the body means that these bills would require at least some bipartisan support – something that has been difficult to achieve.  There is also strong opposition from some DFL legislators that represent the Iron Range, where these mines would be located, as those in the region view mining essential to the economy.  

What comes next for the future of copper-nickel mining remains to be seen. With just under a month left in the 2026 legislative session, advocacy groups are expected to make a strong push to encourage legislators to adopt “Prove It First” and the “Bad Actors” Bill.  An Earth Day rally is being held by a large coalition of environmental organizations at the Minnesota State Capitol at 10am on Wednesday, April 22nd with the hope of drawing attention to the issue.