What happens now for the BWCA? Your questions answered
On April 16, 2026, the US Senate voted to strip federal protections from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area – one of Minnesota’s most treasured and iconic wilderness areas. For many who paddle its lakes or care about preserving wild places, the news was a gut punch.
The vote allows the Chilean mining conglomerate Antofagasta and its local subsidiary, Twin Metals, to pursue construction of a copper-sulfide mine in the Boundary Waters watershed. Copper-sulfide mining is among the most environmentally risky types of mining in the world.
Unlike iron ore mining, which has a long history in Northeastern Minnesota, copper-sulfide deposits are bound up with sulfide that, when exposed to air and water, produces sulfuric acid. That acid can leach heavy metals, polluting waterways for decades and even centuries, long after a mine closes. There is no proven way to fully contain that contamination, and no copper-sulfide mine has ever operated anywhere without polluting nearby water.
Here’s the good news: the fight to protect the BWCA from this threat is far from over. Minnesota has its own set of robust environmental laws, its own permitting authority, and local control over state mineral leases in the BWCA watershed, all of which were untouched by the US Senate vote. MCEA and our allies have used these powerful state tools to keep PolyMet/New Range’s sulfide mine proposed upstream of Lake Superior at bay for decades, and we will use them again to protect the BWCA.
More than 1,000 people registered to a webinar MCEA and Friends of the Boundary Waters held to discuss Minnesota's role in this fight moving forward. Questions from the audience poured in about the strength of Minnesota’s laws, their vulnerability to federal interference, and how people can help push elected officials and state agencies to protect this national treasure. Below are answers to questions we didn’t have time to address during the live event, reflecting perspectives and expertise from both Friends and MCEA.
MCEA and Friends both have long histories protecting Minnesota’s waters and communities from the risks posed by sulfide mining. Stay tuned for upcoming ways to help protect the BWCA and all our treasured watersheds from this industry.
Sign up for our emails to stay in the know
Your BWCA Questions Answered
- What are the most powerful tools Minnesota has to prevent sulfide mining in the BWCA watershed?
Minnesota’s state laws require any mining proposal to undergo intensive environmental review and multiple permitting processes that impose limitations on mining operations. First, the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act will require any sulfide mine to conduct the most thorough form of environmental review, called an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which can take years for a complicated project like a mine and analyzes in detail any proposal's environmental impacts. This provides critical information that can be used to set strict limits in the next step of the process: permitting. Minnesota laws require mining proposals to obtain multiple permits, including a permit to mine, a water pollution permit, an air pollution permit, and others, such as construction, stormwater, and public waters permits. These permits can impose meaningful limits on a mining proposal when a state agency is motivated to do so, potentially even making it uneconomic for a company to build a mine in Minnesota. In particular, as a result of litigation brought by MCEA and Friends in response to the PolyMet permit, Minnesota’s rules for a “permit to mine” require the proposer to create a mine-closure reclamation plan that demonstrates how it will keep mining waste safe. Minnesota also requires a mine operator to post financial assurance to ensure the proposed closure plan can be implemented.
Minnesota’s laws have not been updated since 1993 and are less strict than some other jurisdictions. However, there are things Minnesotans can do to make sure the permits are as strong as possible, including keeping pressure on the Governor to ensure his agencies do a good job, and ensuring that watchdog organizations have the resources to hire experts and monitor every detail of the process. While the process is not perfect, if a mining proposer cannot show that the standards can be met, Minnesota can decline to grant it a permit necessary for its operations, or courts can overturn those permits, as they have in the past.
- Can the federal government use national security declarations or eminent domain to override Minnesota's state authority and permitting process?
MCEA - Predicting what the Trump administration might attempt is difficult, but state authority to impose environmental regulations on mining operations within the state, even on federal land within the state, is well established. The administration has already issued national security declarations attempting to smooth the path for mining projects, and thus far, they have had little practical effect in Minnesota. The PolyMet/New Range proposal, for example, is listed on the federal government’s Fast 41 website for favored projects, yet Minnesota DNR has not made any changes to its permitting procedures for the proposal.
The federal administration might expedite federal environmental studies or permits based on national security declarations, but such declarations should not affect Minnesota’s laws. Eminent domain also should not come into play here, as the federal government already holds the mineral rights to the area where Twin Metals wants to open its mine, so it does not need to obtain that property using eminent domain.
- Was the use of the Congressional Review Act, which was used to strip the BWCA’s federal protections in the US Senate vote, legal and unprecedented? Is it being challenged in court?
FRIENDS - We, as well as other national organizations, believe it was both unprecedented and illegal, and are examining its use in this instance, as well as other analogous cases out west, to develop a legal theory to challenge it.
MCEA - This article from Public Citizen explains why the use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the mineral withdrawal was unprecedented – the CRA allows the overturning of “rules” proposed by federal agencies within a brief time frame, but Public Land Orders like the mineral withdrawal have never been considered to be agency “rules” under the CRA.
As EarthJustice explains, this use of the CRA could endanger not only the Boundary Waters but also other beloved public lands.
- The US Senate vote paves the way for the federal administration to grant mineral leases to Chilean-owned Twin Metals. But aren’t state leases also in play, and could our state cancel those to prevent mining in the BWCA watershed?
FRIENDS - There are several state mineral leases in play, and one of them is up for cancellation. That means Governor Walz and DNR could cancel it, but that cancellation right only extends to the end of this year, so they’d have to act before then.
This particular mineral lease is not part of Twin Metals’ current proposal, but the company is currently doing exploratory drilling in the area, so it could very well end up being part of the mining operation in the BWCA watershed. Canceling the lease would not end the Twin Metals project, but it would be a crucial first step and set a precedent for canceling all of the proposal’s state leases in the coming years.
- What is the relevance of a previous Environmental Protection Agency report that found that sulfide mining in northern Minnesota could not be done safely?
MCEA - In 2022, the U.S. Forestry Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a federal Environmental Assessment for what is known as the “mineral withdrawal,” the order recently overturned by Congress, which withdrew 225,000 acres of federal land near the BWCA from eligibility for mining projects. In that assessment, the Forestry Service and BLM found that sulfide mining “no matter how it is conducted, poses a risk of environmental contamination due to the potential failure over time of engineered mitigation technology.” That assessment supported the decision to complete the mineral withdrawal. However, it did not prohibit undoing the mineral withdrawal. While the Environmental Assessment is useful as federal recognition of the dangers of sulfide mining near the Boundary Waters, it did not require the government to maintain the mineral withdrawal.
- How do we pressure Governor Walz, the DNR, and/or the future Governor to take a definitive stance against copper-sulfide mining, and what role do upcoming state elections play?
FRIENDS - The first step is to push them to cancel the state mineral lease, because again, it’s an action squarely within the Governor’s realm of responsibility and would signal the state’s position on this proposal. The second is to push for legislation next session that would help protect the Boundary Waters and Minnesotans from sulfide mining in this sensitive watershed. That legislation includes the Prove it First bill, the Bad Actor Bill, which would prohibit the state from issuing nonferrous mining permits to corporations that have violated certain international laws, and the Boundary Waters Permanent Protection Bill, which would prohibit copper-sulfide mining on any state lands in the BWCA watershed.
MCEA: When it comes to upcoming elections, ask candidates running for office their position on sulfide mining, and what, if anything, they are prepared to do to fight to protect Minnesotans and our water from it. Put them on the spot and ask them to get specific. Send emails; make phone calls. The more candidates and elected officials hear Minnesotans talk about this issue, the more likely they are to act on it.
- What can both Minnesota residents and out-of-state supporters do to influence the permitting process and support protective legislation?
MCEA - During the environmental review process and some permitting processes, there will be public comment periods during which residents and out-of-state supporters can share their opinions about the environmental impacts of mining proposals and restrictions that should be imposed on the mining proposal. Groups like MCEA and Friends will send out information about these comment periods as they occur, explaining how to participate and offering ideas for public comments. While agencies may say that they aren’t paying attention to the number of comments, rest assured that their boss - the Governor - is, as are other elected officials in the state. For legislation, state residents can ask their state legislators to support the bills listed in the answer above, and out-of-state residents can ask their representatives to support the Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act that has been introduced several times in the federal House of Representatives.
- What happens next in this process? Does Twin Metals need to submit a project proposal? Do we know when that might happen?
MCEA - During the Biden administration, along with the mineral withdrawal, Twin Metals also lost the federal mining leases it needed for its proposal. The history of the leases was being litigated in federal courts, but now Twin Metals is hoping that Congress will return the leases directly through legislation. A provision to do so is already included in an appropriations bill being heard in committees in the U.S. House. https://www.startribune.com/twin-metals-taps-norm-coleman-to-lobby-for-mine-near-the-boundary-waters/601847905
At the state level, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) halted the state environmental review in February 2022, when Twin Metals lost its federal mineral leases. Twin Metals could ask the DNR to reopen the existing environmental review if it regains its leases, or it could make changes to its proposal first, especially as the DNR has expressed concerns about the location of Twin Metals’ proposed site for disposing of tailings, or mining waste.
Whatever happens next, make sure you are on MCEA and Friends of the Boundary Waters email lists so you can follow and take action when it’s needed most.