Stauber’s ploy

We’ve learned one more disappointing fact about Eighth District Rep. Pete Stauber. He prefers power plays in Washington, designed to benefit foreign multinationals, to local voices when it comes to management of our public lands.
While Congressman Stauber has painted his recent legislative maneuver to strip away the 20-year mining ban upstream of the Boundary Waters as some kind of victory, it’s another example of the lack of strategic thinking coming out of the current Congress. Stauber’s ploy (and that is the only way to describe it) opens a vast Pandora’s box that throws the management of federal lands across the country into chaos.
Under Stauber’s “creative” interpretation of federal law, virtually every management plan, including the Superior Forest Plan, developed since 1996, would be rendered invalid. That’s because none of them were previously subject to congressional repeal and none of them provided the kind of notice to Congress spelled out in the Congressional Review Act, which is the authority under which the mining ban would ostensibly be repealed. What’s more, under this approach, no similar management plan could be adopted for any of these public lands.
While Stauber’s move can be seen as a victory for Antofagasta, the Chilean mining giant that hopes to develop a sulfide-based copper-nickel mine near Ely, federal land management plans provide the legal framework for all kinds of management decisions on these lands, including oil and gas leases, timber sales, and mining and grazing rights. Effectively invalidating these plans across the country (which is what Stauber’s plan will do if approved by the Senate) will open up avenues for a flood of litigation against the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and other federal land management agencies. Environmental groups, in particular, would soon be able to challenge many extractive projects on federal lands as lacking the foundational justification of a management plan.
According to Robert T. Anderson, of Ely, who served as the Interior Department’s solicitor under President Joe Biden, this action will undermine management plans affecting 166 million acres of BLM land alone. It will impact probably as many acres overseen by the U.S. Forest Service.
As we know, development of these management plans typically takes years. The most recent Superior Forest Plan, finalized in 2004, took nearly a decade to complete and was undertaken following years of analysis and consultation with local stakeholders from all points of view. They involve extensive public notice and opportunities for public input. In more recent years, these plans also include tribal consultation.
So, carefully developed plans that work to balance the concerns of local stakeholders and take years to develop, could now be wiped away by party line votes by members of Congress who couldn’t find the affected communities on a map if they tried. As is the case with Stauber’s initiative, these congressional actions will be rushed decisions (since Congress only has 60 days to repeal a management plan that took years to develop) that will happen with little or no public input and will almost always be enacted at the behest of well-heeled special interests.
It’s the same with public land orders, such as the mining ban, which also went through environmental review and extensive public comment. Polls have consistently shown broad public support, including within the Eighth District, for protecting the BWCAW from mining pollution. Yet, as Stauber’s action makes clear, he puts the interests of foreign mining companies ahead of the desires of his own constituents.
What we know for sure is that lawyers are licking their chops. First, if the Senate goes along with Stauber’s ploy, it is certain to be challenged in court and there is a strong case that it is both contrary to law as well as decades of past practice. That issue, on its own, will take years to litigate and could very well invalidate last week’s vote in the House. That leaves plenty of uncertainty about the path ahead.
What we do know is that Stauber’s action could eventually undo a public land order that was widely supported, including in communities like Ely, that would be most affected by a mining venture that a Harvard economist determined would most likely leave the community worse off economically than with the current economic model based on outdoor recreation.
We would challenge the congressman to hold a public forum in Ely sometime within the next few weeks to explain the rationale for his recent actions and explain why the chaos it threatens in public lands management across the country was worth it. If history is any guide, the last thing Stauber wants to do is talk to constituents, particularly those who might not agree with him. He plainly prefers mining lobbyists to residents of the Eighth District.