Congressional decision on mining in Boundary Waters is deeply troubling | Opinion

Boundary Waters

The congressional decision lifting the mining ban in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area is deeply troubling. For anyone who has paddled those lakes or walked those portages, the Boundary Waters is not just another spot on a map. It is one of the last quiet, intact wilderness areas in the United States — a place where the water is clear enough to drink from the canoe, where loons carry across miles, and where generations have gone to remember what an unspoiled landscape feels like.

Once a wilderness is industrialized, it cannot be restored. Sulfide‑ore copper mining is one of the most toxic forms of mining, and the Boundary Waters watershed is especially vulnerable. A single spill or leak would not remain isolated; it would move through the interconnected lakes and rivers that define the region.

Reports also note that the company promoting this project is Chilean‑owned and that much of the extracted copper would likely be sold overseas. Many people see this as asking the country to risk an irreplaceable American wilderness so a foreign corporation can export American minerals.

Some places are too valuable to sacrifice. For many, the Boundary Waters is one of them.

Wayne Beebe, Pullman, Washington

Electoral College myth

It’s always tragic when those who claim to be “patriots” can’t take the time to learn our nation’s history and the philosophical origins of our founding documents and systems. Laziness isn’t patriotism. Tragically, Sam Cardwell in his recent op-ed, once again showed us that Idaho Republicans are not what they once were and live in mythology, not actual history and study. Hamilton didn’t create the electoral college to protect smaller states, rather have a secondary line of educated men who could override the votes of a populous he felt could easily be swayed by the despot who promised them the world. It never worked out how Hamilton wished it would, and Trump is proof positive.

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation...” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 68

Sam, our founders sincerely believed the greatest threat to self-governance was when the voters stopped educating themselves. Jefferson stated, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” You’ve certainly proven our founders correct.

Brian McKay, Boise

War

We keep having the same conversation about war — but missing the same point.

Today, conflicts can feel like they cost only a few hundred dollars per household. Manageable. Abstract.

But Iraq and Afghanistan tell a different story: what began as modest estimates grew into $15,000–$30,000 per household over time — funded largely through debt, delayed, and easy to ignore.

That’s the problem.

When wars aren’t paid for in real time — through something visible like a tax — most Americans never feel the cost. No direct sacrifice. No hard tradeoffs. And the scrutiny never matches the stakes.

There’s a counterpoint. During World War II, Americans did feel the cost — higher taxes, war bonds, rationing. And there was a draft. The burden was both financial and personal, shared across society.

Today, we have an all-volunteer military. It’s highly capable—but it also means most families have no direct connection to the human cost. The burden falls on a small slice of the country.

So both financially and personally, most Americans remain detached.

Imagine if every household read: “Your share of this war: $7,500… and rising.”

Would the debate change?

If we don’t feel the cost—economic or human—we don’t fully examine the decision. And that’s a dangerous disconnect.

Timothy Rosandick, Caldwell

Marijuana

Donors have invested $2.6 million to hire paid signature gatherers to attempt to put the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act on the November 2026 ballot. There are many devils in the act’s details. The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act 1) does not require a doctor’s prescription for a person to get marijuana, 2) has so many qualifying conditions listed, including very common ones like insomnia, acute pain and anxiety, that almost anyone could qualify for a medical marijuana card, 3) provides up to a quarter-pound (240 marijuana cigarettes)/20 grams of ingestible THC (2,000 ingestibles) per month, 4) would ultimately create 12 marijuana farms, 36 dispensaries and online ordering and home delivery of marijuana and 5) would force the state of Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare and Board of Pharmacy to run a “seed to sale” marijuana operation when marijuana is federally illegal. Last week, the Secretary of State’s office forced the donors of $2.6 million, industrial hemp grower Double Springs Ranch (May, Idaho) and Mike Tunney to identify themselves. The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act would award initial “medical cannabis production licenses” to farms like Double Springs Ranch, awarding them extremely valuable assets: two marijuana farms and six dispensaries. The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act is horrible for Idaho and great for the act’s donors.

Victor Miller, Meridian

Rental system

Idaho’s rental system can place tenants in an unfair position when circumstances require early lease termination.

After relocating to Pullman for work, I vacated my apartment in Boise and continued paying rent in good faith. I was later charged thousands of dollars for the remaining lease term, despite the unit being listed for re-rent in a tight housing market. While Idaho law requires “reasonable efforts” to mitigate damages, there is little transparency around what that means in practice.

Tenants can end up paying for housing they no longer occupy, with no clear limit on liability and no visibility into re-rental efforts.

Countries with similar legal and business traditions, such as Australia and New Zealand, take a more structured approach. Early termination is governed by defined fees or proportional penalties, creating predictability for tenants while still compensating landlords fairly.

In the United States, contracts often place the full burden on tenants. As housing costs rise, it may be time to consider clearer standards that introduce transparency, reasonable limits on liability, and a fairer balance between both parties.

Mark Constantine IV, Pullman