The Boundary Waters are a pristine wilderness on the border of Minnesota with Canada. Their conserved, clean, and natural state is one of the great achievements of American civics, democracy, and economic development. Now, they face potential permanent contamination.

The ability of a society to preserve, protect, and defend, such wild places—to keep water clean and ecosystems healthy and resilient—is a measure of that society’s ability to do the same for human health. Contaminated water does not stay where it was polluted; it travels, through the atmosphere, in waterways, and through the subsurface, and reaches people both near and far.

Industrial processes that not only pollute, but whose financing and profit-model are predicated on being able to avoid the cost of investing to prevent pollution or to clean it up, do not only threaten the immediate environment. They corrupt political processes, consumer prodcuts, and financial markets, and set the standard that such harm can be allowed.

Last week, the United States Senate passed—by the narrowest margin possible, without even a majority of Senators voting in favor—legislation to remove protections against this unaccountable pollution. Congress took this action to benefit a Chilean company that will sell its product to China. Worse still, they have taken this action on the basis of a false claim that this is necessary for the economic development of local communities.

If the proposed mines were to fully commit to preventing all forms of pollution, and to permanently funding and staffing operations that would ensure that commitment is kept, far more money would flow into the local communities. The protections against pollution in the Boundary Waters and surrounding watershed were removed precisely to avoid making this investment.

It is also untrue that no other form of economic development is possible in the surrounding region. It is a common excuse among politicians that have prioritized other public investments that former mining communities cannot develop by other means, because that lets them off the hook for having underfunded diversified economic development. That the excuse is commonly used does not make it true or reasonable.

KARE 11 cites “serious doubts” about the mining project’s ability to abide by environmental law, reporting:

U.S. Forest Service studies conducted in 2016 and 2022 concluded that sulfide-ore copper mining near the Boundary Waters poses severe risks, including permanent water and soil contamination. A separate peer-reviewed report by Earthworks in 2012 examined 14 sulfide-ore copper mines representing 89 percent of U.S. copper production at the time and found that all 14 had experienced some form of accidental release. Thirteen of the 14 also had water collection and treatment failures that resulted in significant impacts to water quality.

Northern Minnesota has many avenues for diversified economic development, which would align with clean, sustainable prosperity, and diversified job opportunity and private investment.

• Ecotourism and regenerative agriculture are two of the major opportunities.
• Land stewardship research and development of a regional knowledge economy centered on Duluth, are also viable as economic development strategies that would deliver a higher rate of income gain to a larger number of people.
• Clean energy installations that can power most of northern Minnesota could also bring more investment and local income into communities, benefitting more people.

These better futures are available to the communities that would be the focus of mining investment. It is the disinterest of pro-mining officials and the mining activities themselves that make such better futures more elusive and unavailable to those communities.

It is a myth that only through pollution-intensive mining activities can local communities benefit from new investment. It is also problematic that—all other considerations aside—the track record of projects like the Twin Metals mine (where a foreign company engages in extractive activities for the benefit of clients far outside the local region) shows little sustained investment over time in the affected communities.

Mineral extraction is notorious for leaving communities economically devastated, polluted, and fundamentally problematic for future investors. If that cycle is to be broken, it must be broken by projects that not only talk about but actively demonstrate an ability to operate with zero pollution of any kind.

No part of the Antofagasta mining project comes even close to making such a claim. Neither Antofagasta nor any local contractors have any demonstrated record of being able to operate without pollution, and Congress has removed protections—as noted before—precisely to allow them to pollute. Antofagasta was fined just three months ago for noncompliance with prohibitions on pollution.

Local communities and allies in conservation advocacy are organizing to protect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the greater Quetico-Superior Ecosystem, which includes the Superior National Forest, Voyageurs National Park, and Canada’s Quetico Provincial park. If successful, they would also succeed in providing clear precedent for the protection of all people’s unalienable right to a clean and healthy environment.

Local communities should work together to develop an integrated anti-pollution development strategy for the Iron Range, which protects the Boundary Waters and Quetico-Superior Ecosystem while protecting locals from toxic waste. Doing so would require a robust, ongoing, inclusive civic engagement process, where all stakeholders are heard and serious alternatives to polluting practices can be considered and adopted.