In northeastern Minnesota, a conflict between proponents of mining and wilderness/tourism is increasingly reminiscent of the classic prairie clash between farmers and cowhands. Evidence of rising tension surfaced last week when state Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk contacted the Cook County Board to advise it against adopting a resolution favoring a ban on copper mining near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) Wilderness.

Bakk described his message as "helpful advice" and a warning about the potential loss of tax relief if Cook County alienates itself from the rest of the Iron Range.

County Commissioner Frank Moe, sponsor of the unadopted resolution, had other words to describe Bakk's action. In an e-mail to journalists, he complained about "intimidation" and threats to "kick us out of the taconite relief district and dry up our IRRRB funding."

Bakk's GOP legislative counterpart, Senate Minority Leader David Hann, chimed in with a call for Bakk to release an e-mail he sent to Bluefin Bay Resort owner Dennis Rysdahl about the matter — a call that Bakk has refused. "This looks like a senator using his official office to threaten a County Board," Hann said.

It does — until one considers how unlikely it is that a legislator would seek to boost the property tax bills of a sizable share of his own constituency. That's what would ensue in Bakk's Senate District 3 if Cook County were removed from the Taconite Tax Relief Area.

The area was established by the Legislature 75 years ago and expanded to include Cook County at the state's northeastern tip 39 years ago. There, taconite producers pay production taxes in lieu of property taxes, which are in turn distributed to local governments, schools and homeowners in the form of direct property tax relief. Those tax dollars also pay for the economic development work of the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB), an agency whose governing board is composed entirely of area legislators. (That governance structure was recently faulted by a legislative auditor's report — rightly, we think — for vesting too much power in legislators' hands.)

Some Iron Range legislators — Bakk not among them — have argued for years that Cook County's inclusion in the taconite relief area is no longer warranted. Its inclusion in 1977 was justified by the Minnesota Power plant in Schroeder, which served the LTV mine that closed in 2001. That power plant is now slated for closure later this year. Bakk is aware — and now, so are Cook County commissioners — that the county's standing in the district is politically and perhaps legally precarious.

We hope that awareness does not stifle debate in Cook County over mining's future. A majority of Cook County residents owe their livelihoods to tourism, not mining, yet they benefit directly and indirectly from mining via tax relief and IRRRB-backed projects. They have an economic stake on both sides of the question. That gives them a valuable vantage from which to weigh the potential gains and risks associated with copper-nickel mining in their midst.

As we have urged before, a science-driven regulatory process — and not politics or popular passions — should decide the fate of the proposed Twin Metals mining project near Ely. That said, we hope Cook County's copper-nickel conversation continues. It should proceed unimpeded by the area's legislators — but with the board's full knowledge that their county's financial ties to mining are substantial and are not forever guaranteed. Indeed, much the same can be said for the state of Minnesota itself.