U.S.

House votes to overturn two‑decade Boundary Waters mining ban; Senate now considers

The House approved H.J. Res. 140 to rescind a 20-year mineral withdrawal upstream of the Boundary Waters; the measure advances to the Senate amid legal and environmental fights.

Marcus Williams3 min read
Published
Listen to this article0:00 min
Share this article:
House votes to overturn two‑decade Boundary Waters mining ban; Senate now considers
Source: img.apmcdn.org

The U.S. House of Representatives approved House Joint Resolution 140, a Congressional Review Act resolution that would nullify Public Land Order 7917 and remove a 20-year federal restriction on copper‑nickel mining and geothermal leasing upstream of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn., MN-08), now moves to the Senate for consideration.

PLO 7917, issued in January 2023, withdrew more than 225,000 acres of federal land in northern Minnesota from mineral entry and leasing; administration records show the withdrawal covers roughly 225,504 acres across Cook, Lake and St. Louis counties, including critical headwaters in the Rainy River watershed, the BWCAW Mining Protection Area and portions of the 1854 Ceded Territory. The original order was framed as a conservation action aimed at preserving ecological integrity, wilderness values and the health of watersheds connected to the BWCAW.

Supporters of H.J. Res. 140, including the resolution’s sponsor and mining proponents, argue the withdrawal curtailed regional industry and union jobs and compromised U.S. access to critical minerals. Rep. Stauber and industry allies said the withdrawal was an "attack on our way of life" and have positioned reopening access to Duluth Complex deposits as a national security and economic priority. Twin Metals Minnesota, a development entity tied to international mineral interests, and allied groups view access to the region's copper‑nickel resources as important to domestic critical‑minerals supply chains.

Opponents, including conservation organizations and tribal representatives, contend the CRA is an improper tool to overturn a mineral withdrawal historically governed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. They warn the move is unprecedented and could set a broader precedent for reversing land-management decisions through expedited congressional action. Ingrid Lyons, executive director of Save the Boundary Waters, said the vote was "significant for public lands across the country." Becky Rom, national chair of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, called the effort "the fight of our lifetime." Chris Knopf, executive director of Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, said his organization will monitor developments and pursue legal challenges and state-level action.

AI-generated illustration
AI-generated illustration

Environmental experts and advocates highlight the hydrological connectivity of the Rainy River watershed and downstream protected areas such as Voyageurs National Park and Quetico Provincial Park in Canada. They warn that sulfide copper‑nickel mining carries a risk of acid mine drainage and toxic runoff that could impair water quality and traditional subsistence and cultural practices for tribal communities in the 1854 Ceded Territory.

Legally, the resolution uses the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 statute that allows Congress to disapprove certain federal rules; under the CRA, a rule revoked by Congress cannot be reissued in substantially the same form without explicit statutory authorization, a provision supporters have cited as a safeguard for their policy change. Opponents counter that mineral withdrawals and public land orders have typically been managed through different statutory mechanisms and that judicial review and state actions are expected next steps.

Passage in the House does not guarantee immediate mining activity. Any development would still require a chain of additional federal, state and private permits, state mineral leases and would likely face court suits. The outcome in the Senate, and the likely legal and political battles that would follow, will determine whether the withdrawal stands or the 2023 protections remain intact.

Know something we missed? Have a correction or additional information?

Submit a Tip

Never miss a story.
Get Prism News updates weekly.

The top stories delivered to your inbox.

Free forever · Unsubscribe anytime

Discussion

More in U.S.