U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber has demonstrated yet again that he is wrong for Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District, just as sulfide-ore copper mining is wrong for the headwaters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
On May 24, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing on HR 2794, a bill that would permanently protect 234,328 acres of Superior National Forest lands in the headwaters of the Boundary Waters and Voyageurs National Park from sulfide-ore copper mining. Stauber was in attack mode, wrongly accusing three witnesses, including a prominent business owner in his district, of disinformation, misleading statements and half-truths. As a recent Star Tribune editorial observed, the disinformation, misleading statements and half-truths came from Stauber and his Republican allies, not from the witnesses speaking in support of the bill.
The canoe country of northeastern Minnesota is priceless; our state and federal governments have worked to protect this magnificent public land since 1902. The work continues to this day, informed by sound science and unyielding to reckless plans such as that of Antofagasta’s Twin Metals, which wants to mine upstream from the heart of the Boundary Waters. Nearly 70% of Minnesotans support legislation to permanently protect the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore mining in its watershed. Of Stauber’s constituents, 57% oppose this type of mining in this place because with sulfide-ore copper mining the risks are high, and no risk to the Boundary Waters is acceptable.
Stauber attacks citizens testifying in support of the bill, but it is his favorite Chilean mining company, Antofagasta, that has trouble getting its story straight. Julie Padilla, a representative of Antofagasta and an officer of Twin Metals, testified on May 24 to oppose protecting the Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. In 2019, in response to a Star Tribune writer who asked if Twin Metals could say there was zero risk to the Boundary Waters, Padilla answered “That’s not a fair question.” This past March, Padilla testified at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing and said “everything has a risk.” On May 24, she flipflopped to “there is no risk.”
In fact, the risk is enormous.
Twin Metals cynically claims that its proposed storage technique for toxic tailings dry stacking is perfect and will never leach. At the May 24 hearing, Padilla omitted that in 2018 the dry stacking technique was rejected by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for a Polymet mine. The DNR found that in a wet climate such as northern Minnesota, dry stacking has major environmental disadvantages, including the potential to leach heavy metals and other pollutants into surface and ground water. Padilla failed to admit that the two mines in the United States that Twin Metals holds out as perfect examples of dry stacking are failures. An April 2022 report documented that these two mines, together with three others in Alaska, experienced more than 8,000 spills among them. She also failed to inform the subcommittee that the site Twin Metals proposed for storage — on state land — was rejected by the DNR in February 2022 because storage of these toxic tailings on state land “would pose an unacceptable financial risk to the State.”
Padilla testified that a Twin Metals mine won’t leach acid mine drainage. But Padilla failed to tell the subcommittee that the DNR determined that the claim by Twin Metals that its tailings pile would not generate acid mine drainage was unsubstantiated.
Instead of accepting the self-interested statements of a foreign mining company that wants to mine on public land, let’s make decisions based on facts and science. Let’s recognize what is at stake: Minnesota’s greatest natural area, with the cleanest water in America, and a major reason that people live, work and play in Stauber’s district.
[image_caption]Becky Rom[/image_caption]
The Forest Service is now diligently completing the analysis. More than 270,000 citizens provided new comments. Stauber’s constituents want decisions based on facts and science — and values. Stauber’s derogatory comments and false allegations won’t overcome facts and science. The Forest Service analysis will provide a solid framework for judging HR 2794. Let’s use it.
Becky Rom is the national chair of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters and a resident of Ely, Minn.
It’s appalling that so many citizens now vote to oppose some manufactured lib’rul boogeyman like Nancy Pelosi instead of the actual policy positions of a mining tool like self-proclaimed “moderate” Pete Stauber.
He is the elected rep for the district includes the priceless BWCA and what does he spend all his energy on? Risking its destruction at the hands of a foreign mining concern, one that seems to have, shall we say, not the greatest track record in either its public statements or pollution controls. And Stauber does this in defiance of the wishes of a majority of his district to boot. Supposedly for the paltry number of mining jobs.
So what is going on here? How can this guy keep his seat? Because for most of his constituents, opposing the demonic Dems (as daily falsely portrayed in Rightwing media) apparently counts for more than their real interests, if they actually thought about it for a few minutes.
With mining, it’s not “if” it will damage the environment, but “when”which leaves us tax payers to fund the cleanup.
Not sure why this is tolerated.
We have littering laws for us but not for mining and other industries that are destroying our environment
I live in the Eighth District (hopefully not Stauber’s District for much longer). He started out his first term promising to represent the interests of all those living in the district. Over the course of his two terms, he has narrowed his views and actions to only represent those who are hard core right fringe.
He voted against strengthening unions, he wouldn’t support vaccinations (and wouldn’t say whether he was vaccinated), voted against the infrastructure bill (but has been going around claiming credit for projects it is funding), talks up his 23 years as a police officer (but those who worked with him describe him as “not the brightest bulb”), and hasn’t had much interest in doing anything proactive about climate change.
On the other hand, he has picked fights with the Indian tribes and the Interior Secretary (also a Native American). Ironically, all the northern tribes, because of the redistricting are now part of “The Great Eighth” (as he likes to call it). He did get Trump, Pence, and Kevin McCarthy to make our area a destination. He also assures those who might be worried that he isn’t for gun control, or women making choices about abortions. Gas prices and inflation are all Biden’s fault as are immigrants, the Ukraine War and pretty much everything else.
And to top it off, he and our Mayor, Chris Swanson are great buddies – Chris contributes to Pete’s campaign and Pete says good things about Chris. If you haven’t heard of Mayor Swanson, do a search for Two Harbors Mayor Swanson. It will keep you entertained.
Really wish people would stop with voting for parties; and instead vote for the things that mattered. Environment, policy that makes sense economically, health and education. We just might find out we have much in common, and much we can agree on. Pass on a salvageable future, for the next generation, improve things for the current generation, look at cause and effect, and maybe delve into the why’s, not parrot simple solutions that don’t address the true depths of issues.
Stauber and his fellow Republican elects primary interest is in appeasing their corporate financers be it Twin Metals, NRA, Enbridge, et. al. As long as they continue to finance Stauber’s reelection campaigns, self-interest politicians like Stauber will continue to undermine the will of the majority of their constituents.
Typical non mining sediment by an anti mining person. Back on Nov 1st,2018 was the author as willing to go along with the permitting process when DNR said Polymet was good to proceed with mining copper/nickel? I doubt it. If the mining companies cannot pass the permitting process they shouldn’t be able to mine. If they do, let them mine, regardless of the anti mining folks.
The little question Joe always refuses to answer:
Should the mining companies be required to post a guarantee, free of corporate shields, that if environmental damage occurs the public is not left holding the bag?
Joe opposes most welfare programs except for corporate welfare for offshore mining companies with previous subsidized disasters in their wakes.
Maybe we get an answer this time?
The flooding and “water everywhere” in both the Rainy River and St. Louis watersheds has been an eye-opener this spring.
If people saw this coming they were quiet about it. I’d say the late spring and heavy spring snowfall didn’t look like it would take a month or more off the recreational season for resorts and businesses fighting high water.
The purpose of the “DRY STACK” is to keep the water away from the sulfide waste rock so it doesn’t make sulfuric acid. “dry” indeed…
Look TODAY at the water in these two watersheds where well heads are under water and subject to pollution. Remember the pH damage to the rivers and groundwater. We don’t need history to tell us we are lucky they have not been allowed to make yet another mess in our naturally pristine areas.
Climate change is rapidly proving to any observer:
YOU CANNOT SAFELY MINE HARD ROCK IN A WET ENVIRONMENT.
Absolutely correct. What I’m worried about in addition to the normal “I don’t want our environment destroyed for corporate profits” is that everything I’ve read indicates that the rust belt around the great lakes is going to be a climate haven in the future, suffering less from the effects of climate change, offering fresh water and other resources needed by an increasing number of people. In that context it’s even more vital that we keep the area as undamaged and the water of the lakes as clean as possible.