Governor Mark Dayton and MN Congressional Leaders: Prevent sulfide mining pollution by adopting four Clean Water Principles.
  • Petitioned Minnesota Governor

This petition was delivered to:

Minnesota Governor
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives

Governor Mark Dayton and MN Congressional Leaders: Prevent sulfide mining pollution by adopting four Clean Water Principles.

    1. Sponsored by

      Conservation Minnesota

Minnesota faces crucial decisions about whether to permit sulfide mining proposals. Mines like those proposed by PolyMet and Twin Metals are a new type of mining for Minnesota, posing serious risks. I am concerned about the risk to our water, economy, and way of life from these proposals.

Below are four questions that state leaders should be asking when deciding whether or not to permit sulfide mines for the first time in Minnesota. These questions are very simple, but they couldn’t be more important in light of the fact that no sulfide mine in the world has successfully operated and closed without polluting nearby waters. 

Before Minnesota says yes to any sulfide mine, I want you, Governor Dayton, to insist that the answer to each of the following questions is an unequivocal “yes”:

1. Will Minnesota’s water stay safe and clean? 

Sulfide mines have a long record of polluting surrounding lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater with mercury, acid mine drainage, and toxic metals.  Mines proposed inMinnesota would pose risks to some of our most important water resources like Lake Superior and the Boundary Waters. Evidence shows that children in northern Minnesota are already exposed to higher levels of mercury than in other parts of the state.  Any increased risk to these children would be unacceptable. Minnesota has rules designed to protect our water and our health.  The State can’t cut corners on enforcing those rules for new sulfide mines.

2. Are there strong safeguards in place for when things go wrong?

Lots of things can and do go wrong at a copper mine.  Is the mine designed to withstand weather events like the flooding in Duluth last year without releasing pollution?  What happens when contamination levels turn up worse than predicted? Or in unexpected places? What if the waste treatment facility breaks down or needs extended maintenance?  Has all the technology that is supposed to protect the public been tested in a real mining situation, or just on paper or on a small scale? Contingency plans should be in place, and money set aside, for all reasonably foreseeable problems so that local communities and taxpayers aren’t left with a mess that should have been prevented.

3. Will the company leave the site clean and maintenance free?

When a sulfide mine closes in Minnesota, the mining company is supposed to reclaim the area and leave it so that it doesn’t need any additional maintenance.  Will that rule be enforced? Minnesota’s government shouldn’t allow mines that are likely to produce pollution and require water treatment for 50, 100, 250 or more years, after they stop mining. 

4. Will Minnesota’s taxpayers be protected?

There are costs from mining pollution – and either the polluter, the taxpayers or the environment will pay.  Mining companies often declare bankruptcy when metal prices fall or after the ore is depleted, and the parent companies can just walk away. Will the mining company put up a damage deposit that truly protects taxpayers and the environment from day one?  Water pollution and risks to taxpayers begin as soon as the digging starts, and can last for hundreds of years.  Taxpayer protection can’t wait until the digging starts and the damage is done.

These are simple, common sense questions. I’m asking you to adopt these Clean Water Principles and use them as you consider sulfide mining proposals like PolyMet and Twin Metals. Minnesota’s waters, economy, and way of life are at stake.

Recent signatures


    1. Reached 10,000 signatures


    Reasons for signing

    • Rachel Pratt LENGBY, MN
      • 4 months ago

      Why would we pollute our waters? I am doing a scholarship essay on this and believe this is morally wrong. I don't understand the point of polluting our waters with potentially hazardous chemicals such as Mercury. I do not want this in my drinking water.

    • Rohan Kramer CENTERVILLE, OH
      • 4 months ago

      I have been to the Boundary Waters before and I can hardly imagine a place more beautiful. The most astounding thing about the BWCAW is the fact that the water is so clean, you can drink it straight out of the center of the lake. Every time I learn something new about water in America (and the rest of the world), this becomes ever more amazing to me, that there is water you don't have to treat because it's clean, it's free, there's nothing in it that will hurt you. What Polymet is proposing to do makes me literally feel sick every time I think about it- people only see money where they should see concerns about life and about the wonderfulness the natural world. Please don't let them exploit the environment and turn one of the most beautiful places in the world, filled with eagles and fish and turtles and waterfowl, into a stinking chemical stew.

    • Alicia Uzarek MINNEAPOLIS, MN
      • 4 months ago

      I care about water pollution and LOVE wild rice. Keep this pollution out of MN waters!

    • Soda Loon MANKATO, MN
      • 5 months ago

      As a kid growing up in Minnesota, I have been fishing, canoeing, tubing, and visiting the Boundary Waters. I don't want the future generations of Minnesota to miss out on these great opportunities. Not only are they fun, you can bond with your family, learn skills like patience and forgiveness, and become a stronger Minnesota citizen.

    • Benjamin Wilson ST. PAUL, MN
      • 5 months ago

      The economic benefits are great, but short term. I want to ensure the environment and our future generations will not suffer because of the needs of our short term financial goals.


    Develop your own tools to win.

    Use the API to develop your own organizing tools. Find out how to get started.