REGIONAL— Proponents of expanded protections for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from the effects of sulfide-based mining are taking issue with the region’s only remaining DFL lawmaker, Sen. Grant Hauschild, of Hermantown.
Hauschild is facing growing criticism from a series of actions over the past few months, starting with his decision to co-sign a letter to then President-elect Donald Trump in the wake of the 2024 election urging him to reverse the 20-year mineral withdrawal put into effect by the Biden administration just over two years ago.
The administration also terminated mineral leases then under the control of Antofagasta subsidiary Twin Metals, arguing that the leases had been restored illegally by the first Trump administration.
But in a Nov. 14, 2024, letter to Trump, addressed to the White House then still in control of the Biden administration, Hauschild and Republican Rep. Roger Skraba, of Ely, urged Trump to rescind the withdrawal, seen as a major victory for environmentalists opposed to Twin Metals’ proposed copper-nickel mine near Ely.
“We ask that your administration withdraw this order to allow relevant state and federal regulators the opportunity to consider critical mineral projects in our Districts,” wrote Hauschild and Skraba. “This withdrawal has had a stifling impact on our communities and the region. The 20-year moratorium on the development of these critical minerals runs counter to recent efforts in shoring up our domestic supply chains, investing in the green economy of the future, and supporting the men and women of labor throughout our country.”
That position has come under fire, however, from the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, which is circulating a letter to Hauschild expressing “serious objection” to his letter to Trump and asking him to rescind a bill he’s backing that would ease permitting rules for many projects.
The mineral withdrawal, known as Public Land Order 7917, “provides the most important protections for the Boundary Waters in 45 years,” notes the draft letter sent to supporters of the campaign. “After rigorous scientific study, the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Interior determined that sulfide-ore copper mining in this special place would be highly risky and would permanently damage the headwaters and the wilderness in a way that could never be fixed or mitigated,” notes the letter.
The group is also asking Hauschild to withdraw his support for Senate File 577, a measure Hauschild claims would allow some projects to begin construction even before they were fully permitted. It would achieve that by separating construction permits from operating permits, allowing construction to get underway before operating permits have been issued or during legal challenges.
“The separation of construction and operation permits risks a situation where an applicant receives a construction permit but cannot secure an operation permit from an agency, or where a fully constructed facility has its operation permit reversed by a court. Allowing projects to be built while environmental or permit review is underway on the “operation” of the project, is a disservice to project proposers and Minnesotans,” notes the letter.
Critics further take issue with the bill’s efforts to limit who can seek environmental review of a project. “S.F. 577 prohibits members of the public who don’t live in the county or adjoining county of a project to request environmental review. Your constituents will be barred from providing input on projects likely to negatively impact the environment - even if they have nearby second homes or businesses or public lands- or if they are members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe with Treaty rights in the area,” notes the letter.
Members of the campaign argue that Hauschild is ignoring the views of his northeastern Minnesota constituents most affected by the mining debate. They note that Biden Vice President Kamala Harris won majorities of the vote in St. Louis, Lake, and Cook counties, where the Boundary Waters is located.
Hauschild acknowledges that his district is split. “There are so many divergent cultures and opinions,” he said. “I’m trying to reflect that while sticking with my convictions.”
Hauschild said he has always opposed using mineral withdrawals as a means of stopping a proposed mining project. “I don’t think it should be based on presidential politics,” he said, arguing that it creates a toxic political environment. “It should be based on an objective analysis,” he said. “We’re going to determine through the regulatory process whether a mine can meet our standards.”
At the same time, Hauschild said he had not read the analysis produced by the U.S. Forest Service when it made the request for the mineral withdrawal, initially in 2016 and again in 2022. That analysis concluded that the inherent risks of sulfide-based mining in a water-rich environment just upstream from the Boundary Waters wilderness, contradicted the agency’s mandate to protect the wilderness from pollution.
Hauschild said he’s been working with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce on the permitting reform and he said the mining industry doesn’t appear particularly interested in the measure. “They’ve even said they would never start construction without all their permits in place because of the high cost,” he said.
School trust lands another bone of
contention
Local environmental groups were taken aback yet again when Hauschild co-introduced a bill (SF 1702) in the state Senate last Thursday that would prohibit completion of the planned sale of approximately 80,000 acres of school trust lands located within the Boundary Waters. The state acreage, which consists mostly of school trust land, has been effectively landlocked within the federal wilderness since 1978. Under the state’s constitution, school trust lands are required to generate revenue for the school trust, either through sale of the land or from the sale of commodities, such as timber or minerals. But since logging and mining are prohibited in the wilderness, state officials have proposed a sale of the land to the federal government at several points over the past 47 years. That proposal has continuously met opposition from some lawmakers from the region, who have advocated for a land exchange as an alternative.
State and federal officials recently spent nearly a decade trying to reach a deal on what would be one of the largest and most complex land exchanges in U.S. history, without reaching agreement. Last year, state and federal officials announced a plan to facilitate a sale of the state land to the federal government, but that proposal is once again facing pushback from some local lawmakers, like Hauschild.
Critics of the measure say Hauschild’s opposition to a sale will likely continue to leave the issue unresolved. “This bill goes against the sound decision made last summer by the Department of Natural Resources, the Office of School Trust Lands, and Forest Service, as well as the financial analysis that makes clear that a purchase, not a land exchange, of the school trust lands is in the greater financial interest of public education,” said Ingrid Lyons, Executive Director of Save the Boundary Waters. “It’s difficult to understand why anyone who purports to support education in our state would be against a proposal that would infuse millions of dollars into supporting K-12 Minnesota school children and solve a longstanding lands management issue. The question then becomes, who benefits from this bill? Because it certainly isn’t the schoolchildren of Minnesota, as the Permanent School Fund intends.”
Hauschild offered no comment other than to say he’s not focused on the measure.
“This is an effort that is being led by Senator Farnsworth and many of the Iron Range Republican delegation members,” he said.
Rep. Skraba, who also opposes a sale, argues that an exchange would provide the DNR with additional acres outside the wilderness that it could manage for timber production. A Timberjay analysis of that claim found that revenue from the sale of timber from an additional 80,000 acres of state land would amount to about $160,000 a year. A sale of the 80,000 acres would be expected to generate about $34 million, which would generate far more in investment income than the school trust would ever receive from timber receipts. With an average return of seven percent from the state’s well-managed investment fund, the school trust could be expected to generate about $2.38 million annually, or about 15 times more than timber receipts.
While backers of an exchange have suggested that the state would benefit from mining royalties from exchanged property, any exchange would not include mineral rights, since such a transfer of rights is prohibited both at the state and federal level.