When ‘Strict’ Isn’t Enough: Michigan’s Mining Laws and the Copperwood Controversy
Ally O’Neill
Nestled along the shores of Lake Superior in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan is Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park. The park includes one of the largest remaining tracts of old growth forest in Michigan, with trees spanning between 360-410 years old, reaching over 160 feet tall.[1] Immediately adjacent to the park, and just north of one of the longest hiking trails in the U.S., is the proposed Copperwood mine.[2] The mine is being developed by a subsidiary of the Canadian company Highland Copper.[3]
With the rise of electric cars and AI, refined copper is in high demand in the U.S.[4] However, Highland plans to refine the copper from the Michigan mine in Canada.[5] Although Highland Copper CEO stated in a 2024 Senate committee appropriations meeting that the company “would love to supply our copper directly to the Michigan industry,” no official arrangements to return the copper to the U.S. have been publicly announced.[6]
Highland Copper claims that the Copperwood mine is expected to generate $425 million and create approximately 700 jobs.[7] Despite the potential creation of jobs, the mine is highly controversial. Both the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians have spoken publicly against the mine, stating that the proposed mine site is part of the 1842 Treaty of La Pointe ceded territory, and would negatively impact the tribes ability to hunt, fish, trap, and gather, which are all rights protected by the treaty.[8]
The Lac Vieux Tribe also noted that no federally recognized Tribe has been given the opportunity to discuss or provide input on the mine’s impact on cultural resources and sacred sites.[9]
Additionally, a petition opposing the mine, circulated by the Protect the Porkies campaign, has collected over 450,000 signatures.[10] The campaign highlights numerous environmental concerns, including habitat fragmentation, light and sound pollution, and air and water contamination.[11] The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) has joined the concern, analyzing the potential impacts of a tailings basin dam failure, noting the proximity to Lake Superior.[12] After modeling dam failure, GLIFWC found that tailings released by a dam failure could reach Lake Superior in less than an hour, flood the Presque Isle River in less than 1.5 hours, and could reach up to 46 feet high in parts of the flooded areas.[13]
Furthermore, the mine’s operators, Highland Copper, haven’t created the best reputation for themselves. In 2018, the company signed an administrative consent order, which included a $25,000 fine for unpermitted drilling during spring snowmelt.[14] The drilling damaged wetlands and caused substantial soil erosion.[15]
Despite these concerns, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), the department with permitting authority under Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), has permitted Copperwood “under the provisions of Part 632, Nonferrous Metallic Mineral Mining, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (NREPA).”[16] This means that Copperwood has met the state’s burden of proof that the mining project satisfies applicable requirements under MCL 324.63205(3), including the requirement that the project will minimize adverse impacts on the environment.[17]
Michigan mining law is often regarded as among the strictest in the nation because of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.[18] Under NREPA, those requesting a mining permit must conduct an in-depth environmental impact assessment; create a mining, reclamation, and environmental protection plan; provide provisions for prevention, control, and monitoring of waste products that could affect ground and surface water; and create a contingency plan that includes an assessment of the risk to the environment or public health and safety associated with potential significant incidents or failures.[19] According to EGLE, Copperwood has met these requirements. One may wonder how, among the numerous environmental concerns voiced by opponents of the mine (including reputable scientific organizations like GLIWC), EGLE — whose mission is to “protect Michigan’s environment and public health by managing air, water, land, and energy resources” through permitting — decided that Copperwood met their burden of proof showing minimal adverse environmental impacts. Can the permit be challenged?
Under MCL 324.1701(1), any person can bring a lawsuit to Michigan’s natural resources, and may ask the court to grant declaratory or equitable relief.[20] National Wildlife Federation v. Department of Environmental Quality gives us a glimpse into the likely outcome of a case against Copperwood.[21] In National Wildlife Federation, a permit given to a nickel and copper mine was challenged by the National Wildlife Federation and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community due to the mine’s encroachment on a native religious site, and its potential to collapse and cause acid rock drainage on a large scale.[22] However, the appellate court used a deferential standard of review, holding that as long as the trial court found “evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion,” then the permit was valid.[23] The court held that this evidence must “consist of more than a scintilla of evidence, [but] may be substantially less than a preponderance.”[24] This means that, despite a large amount of evidence of copperwoods negative impact on the environment, as long as Copperwood provides “more than a scintilla of evidence” in support of the agency’s permit determination, they are likely to be successful in retaining their permit.
However, despite being permitted, section 324.63211 of NREPA provides that Copperwood is required to maintain financial assurance to cover the closure & reclamation cost of the mine, which is estimated to be approximately $37 million dollars.[25] Highland Copper has already posted $6.5 million, but is yet to meet the total.[26]
Highland Copper requested a $50 million infrastructure grant from the Michigan legislature, which passed the House but was rejected by the Michigan Senate Appropriations Committee in 2024 in the face of public pressure.[27] The grassroots movement including the Protect the Porkies campaign and petition, and the wide-spread call to contact lawmakers on the committee, proved quite successful. Despite this large blow to the project’s proponents, it is still possible that the mine could come to operation and meet its required bond amount through private investment.[28] Despite Michigan having some of the “strictest” mining laws in the country, it seems that the greatest impediment to Copperwood’s operation so far has not been Michigan’s laws, but public pressure on the Senate not to fund the project. This fact, along with the common use of a deferential standard of review when permits are challenged, leaves us to ask, are Michigan’s mining laws doing enough?
[1] Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Mich. Dep’t Nat. Res., https://www.michigandnr.com/parksandtrails/details.aspx?id=121&type=SPTR (last visited Mar. 11, 2026).
[2] North Country National Scenic Trail, North Country Trail Ass’n, https://northcountrytrail.org (last visited Mar. 11, 2026).
[3] Copperwood Project, Highland Copper Co., https://www.highlandcopper.com/projects/copperwood-project/ (last visited Mar. 11, 2026).
[4] U.S. Geological Survey,Mineral Commodity Summaries (Table 4, at 27), https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2025/1047/ofr20251047.pdf; U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries (Table 4, at 27), https://pubs.usgs. gov/of/2025/1047/ofr20251047.pdf; U.S. Copper Demand Surges in 2024, Copper Dev. Ass’n (2025), https://copper.org/about/pressreleases/2025/ us-copper-demand-surges-in-2024.php; Can U.S. Copper Meet Surging Demand from AI and Data Centers?, Copper Dev. Ass’n, https://copper.org /copper conversations/thought-leadership/us-opper-meet-surging-demand-ai-data-centers.php (last visited Mar. 11, 2026).
[5] Copperwood Project Questions and Answers, Highland Copper Co. (Dec. 2024), https://www.highlandcopper.com/wp-content/ uploads/2024/12/Copperwood-QA-December-2024-Final.pdf.
[6] State Lawmakers Review $50M Proposal to Back Copperwood Mine Project, Upper Mich.’s Source (May 29, 2024), https:// www.upper michiganssource.com/2024/05/29/state-lawmakers-review-50m-proposal-back-copperwood-mine-project/.
[7] Copperwood Project Questions and Answers, supra note 5.
[8] Comments of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community on the Copperwood Mining Permit Application, Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty., https://taking astandfortheland.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/comments-of-kbic-on-mining-permit-app-by_orvana_resources.pdf; Opposition Letter Regarding Copperwood Mine, Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Feb. 12, 2024), https://lvdnsn.gov/media /pdf/2024%2002% 2012%20Copperwood%20Mine%20Opposition %20Letter_final.pdf.
[9] Opposition Letter Regarding Copperwood Mine, Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Feb. 12, 2024), https://lvdnsn.gov /media/pdf/2024%2002%2012%20Copperwood%20Mine%20Opposition%20Letter_final.pdf.
[10] Protect the Porkies—Protect Lake Superior—Stop the Copperwood Mine, Change.org, https://www.change.org/p/protect-the-porkies-protect-lake-superior-stop-the-copperwood-mine (last visited Mar. 11, 2026). Protect the Porkies, https://protectthe porkies.com (last visited Mar. 11, 2026).
[11] Protect the Porkies, https://protecttheporkies.com (last visited Mar. 11, 2026).
[12] Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Preliminary Dam Breach Inundation Analysis for the Copperwood Project, Admin. Rep. 24-01 (July 2024), https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/9cfe9c54-7e79-4b30-a586-009e37868ba9/downloads/57d4b561-4dd3-4c72-8ae697adf0ad3cc9/ GLIFWC-Copperwood-report-2024.pdf?ver=1738524844510.
[13] Copperwood Project Updates: Funding Shortfall and Potential Mining Impacts, Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Comm’n, https://glifwc.org/ about-us/news/copperwood-project-updates-funding-shortfall-glifwc-report-details-potential-mining (last visited Mar. 11, 2026).
[14] Michigan’s New Mining Law Protects Environment, Mich. Dep’t Nat. Res., https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MIDNR/ bulletins/1d2b659 (last visited Mar. 11, 2026).
[15] Id.
[16] Copperwood Mining Permit, Mich. Dep’t Env’t, Great Lakes & Energy, https://www.michigan.gov/egle/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Programs/GRMD/Mining/NonferrousMetallicMining/Copperwood/Copperwood-Permit.PDF.
[17] Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.63205(3) (West 2024).
[18] Press Release, Jennifer M. Granholm, Granholm Signs Law to Toughen Michigan’s Mining Regulations (Dec. 27, 2004), https://www. michigan.gov/formergovernors/recent/granholm/press-releases/ 2004/12/27/granholm-signs-law-to-toughen-michigans-mining-regulations.
[19] Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.63205 (West 2024).
[20] Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1701 (West 2024).
[21] Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Dep’t of Env’t Quality (No. 1), 856 N.W.2d 252 (2014). See Exec. Order No. 2019-6, § 1(a) (Mich. Feb. 20, 2019) (renaming the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality as the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy).
[22] Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 856 N.W.2d.
[23] Id. at 262.
[24] Id. (citingTomczik v. State Tenure Comm’n, 499, 438 N.W.2d 642 (Mich. App. 1989)).
[25] Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.63211 (West 2024); Copperwood Mining Permit Amendment, Volume I, Mich. Dep’t Env’t, Great Lakes & Energy, tbl. 9-1, https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/ Documents/Programs/GRMD/Mining/Nonferrous-MetallicMining/ Copperwood/Copperwood-Mining-Permit-Amendment-Volume-I.pdf.
[26] Copperwood Project Questions and Answers, supra note 5.
[27] Izzy Ross, Funding for U.P. Copper Mine Held Up in Senate Appropriations Committee, Mich. Advance (Dec. 24, 2024), https://michiganadvance.com/2024/12/24/funding-for-up-copper-mine-held-up-in-senate-appropriations-committee/.
[28] Anna Busse, $50M Cut from Controversial Mining Project in New Michigan Budget, Mich. Public (Oct. 23, 2025), https://www.michigan public.org/environment-climate-change/2025-10-03/50m-cut-from-controversial-mining-project-in-new-michigan-budget.