One of the main arguments mining proponents make for copper mining within the watershed of the Boundary Waters is that it would boost the regional economy. But is that true? Let’s find out.
The latest: This is the latest installment in our series breaking down the threats facing the Boundary Waters and why we need to safeguard the Wilderness permanently. This week, we’re digging into the economic impacts of a proposed copper mine—and why protecting the Wilderness is the smarter choice for Minnesota’s communities.
A diverse and lasting economy
- Outdoor recreation is booming – Minnesota’s outdoor recreation economy grew by 10.5% in 2023, outpacing the national average.1 Nationally, outdoor recreation generates more for the economy than all other natural resource industries combined, including mining and logging.[1]
Also, in 2023, through manufacturing, jobs and registrations, canoeing and kayaking generated more than $37 million toward the state’s gross domestic product, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.[4] - Diverse and lasting economy – People live and work in Wilderness-edge communities largely because they value the outdoor opportunities, and many businesses last for generations, supporting families and communities. Since the iron-ore mining decline of the last half century, the Arrowhead Region has diversified its economy with growth in industries like professional services, real estate, and arts and entertainment. This economic diversification, supported by the Boundary Waters’ natural beauty, has driven steady increases in population, income, and small business growth.
- A place where people want to live and visit – The Boundary Waters’ exceptionally clean waters and unspoiled Wilderness attract new businesses, residents, and visitors who contribute to a thriving local economy.
Instead of risking long-term damage for short-term mining profits, Minnesota can continue to build a strong, sustainable economy by protecting the Boundary Waters.
The false promise of a mining economy
Foreign mining giant Antofagasta and its subsidiary Twin Metals Minnesota claim they’ll bring economic prosperity to the region. But their history and data tell a different story.
- Boom-and-bust economy – The mining industry is highly volatile, with jobs disappearing when prices drop or resources run out. Towns that once relied on mining often struggle with long-term economic decline.
- Threat to existing jobs – The growing outdoor recreation industry supports nearly 96,000 jobs in Minnesota and generates $13.5 billion annually.[1] Polluted waters and a damaged Wilderness directly threaten thousands of livelihoods in guiding, tourism, hospitality, and small businesses. Copper mining could cost the Arrowhead Region’s economy up to 22,791 jobs and between $402 million and $1.6 billion in lost annual income, while travel and tourism alone could suffer $288 million in lost visitor spending annually, risking 4,490 local jobs.[2]
- Declining property values – Studies show that communities near mining sites often see reduced property values and economic stagnation, as pollution and environmental degradation drive people away. If the Twin Metals mine opens, 23% of property owners in the proposed mining area would move away[3] and it is estimated that property value loss would be over $500 million.[2]
So, is mining necessary for economic growth?
1 Outdoor recreation | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2023.
2 Stock, J. H., Department of Economics and Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, Bradt, J. T., & Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University. (2019). Analysis of proposed 20-year mineral leasing withdrawal in Superior National Forest.
3 Phillips, S., & Alkire, C. (2017). Sulfide-Ore copper mining and/or a sustainable boundary waters economy: the need to consider real tradeoffs (By Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness).
4 Timmons, B., (2025, March 17). Add another ‘Opening Day’ to Minnesota’s outdoor recreation calendar.
