In his Sept. 3 counterpoint, state Rep. Dave Lislegard ignores the fact that Minnesota's environmental review process and permitting standards are not designed to protect the Boundary Waters from copper mining ("We know mining. Our laws, processes work").
The process with national public lands begins at the federal level with the question, "Is this location the right place for a mine?"
That question was answered in 2016 when the U.S. Forest Service completed a three-year scientific review of a Twin Metals mine and unequivocally determined that copper mining next to the Boundary Waters would permanently damage the wilderness. Twin Metals federal mining leases were terminated, and the Forest Service launched a detailed study to consider a long-term ban on mining as the best way to protect the wilderness. This study was abruptly aborted by President Donald Trump, and the Twin Metals leases were unlawfully resurrected from the dead.
Congress and the Star Tribune are absolutely right to demand that the Forest Service study be completed and the reports made available to the public; it is clear that the study would show that only a copper mining ban will protect the Boundary Waters. It would also show that the region would perform dramatically better as to jobs and income without copper mining.
The state process is designed for mines in mining districts, places where significant changes to ecosystems and landscapes are acceptable. State standards limit pollution of the environment — but don't prohibit it. The Forest Service concluded there is no technology that would prevent or repair the inevitable damage to the Boundary Waters.
The greatest natural resource in the state of Minnesota is at stake. We are one Minnesota in our love for the Boundary Waters. We can create jobs and attract new residents and businesses to the Boundary Waters region by protecting it from copper mining.
Becky Rom, Ely, Minn.
The writer is the national chair for Save the Boundary Waters.
DISCOURSE
Library fee debate, and others, are happening on different planes
The recent debate over whether or not to charge overdue library fees ("Let's shelve overdue fees," Sept. 3, and "Overdue charges don't discriminate," Sept. 4) is a perfect example of arguing from different ethical frames. In moral foundations theory, first proposed by psychologist Jonathan Haidt and several colleagues, humans use combinations of up to six different ethical axioms from which to judge the world. Because of this, the participants of many arguments are essentially using different values that talk past one another.