Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill withdraws approximately 225,504 acres of National Forest System lands and waters in the Rainy River Watershed, Minnesota, from mining and mineral leasing laws, codifying the area described in Public Land Order 7917. It prohibits new mining claims, locations, and most mineral leasing, applies the withdrawal to subsequently acquired lands, and allows the Forest Service limited authority to permit removal of sand, gravel, granite, iron ore, and taconite if not detrimental to water, air, or forest health.
Progressives emphasize water and treaty protections over development
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive land-withdrawal measure that articulates the problem and uses established withdrawal machinery tied to an existing Public Land Order and map.
This bill withdraws approximately 225,504 acres of National Forest System lands and waters in the Rainy River Watershed, Minnesota, from mining and mineral leasing laws, codifying the area described in Public Land Order 7917.
It prohibits new mining claims, locations, and most mineral leasing, applies the withdrawal to subsequently acquired lands, and allows the Forest Service limited authority to permit removal of sand, gravel, granite, iron ore, and taconite if not detrimental to water, air, or forest health.
Content is narrowly focused and administratively straightforward, aiding prospects, but controversy over mining limits and procedural Senate barriers lower chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive land-withdrawal measure that articulates the problem and uses established withdrawal machinery tied to an existing Public Land Order and map. It specifies the scope of the withdrawal, includes acquired lands, preserves valid existing rights, and provides a narrowly framed exception for removal of certain non-sulfide materials under Forest Service determination.
Progressives emphasize water and treaty protections over development
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize water and treaty protections over development
Likely strongly supportive because the bill protects pristine waters, treaty resources, and wilderness character from sulfide-ore mining risks.
It codifies a prior administrative withdrawal and affirms federal trust responsibilities to Tribal nations and ecological preservation.
Cautiously supportive if the bill balances environmental protection with local economic impacts.
It clarifies withdrawal boundaries and codifies a prior executive action, but leaves some operational questions about exceptions, economic consequences, and enforcement.
Likely opposed due to permanent federal withdrawal of resource development rights and perceived federal overreach.
Concerns center on lost economic opportunity, precedent for closing Federal lands, and limited local or state control.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrowly focused and administratively straightforward, aiding prospects, but controversy over mining limits and procedural Senate barriers lower chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize water and treaty protections over development
Content is narrowly focused and administratively straightforward, aiding prospects, but controversy over mining limits and procedural Senat…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive land-withdrawal measure that articulates the problem and uses established withdrawal machinery tied to an existing Public Land Order and map. I…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.