HR-6674-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Melanie Stansbury (D-NM)
What it does
This bill would replace the current flat $100 annual hardrock mining claim maintenance fee with a tiered fee structure ranging from $300 to $1,100, based on how close a mining claim is to a national park or national monument. Claims inside a "covered area" (national parks and monuments) would pay $1,100; claims more than 30 miles away would pay $300. The bill would exempt small miners (those holding 10 or fewer claims, operating under 200 acres, and earning less than $50,000 annually from mineral production) from all fees and assessment work requirements. Excess fee revenue beyond what is needed to administer mining laws would be distributed to abandoned mine cleanup programs (40%), the Tribal Historic Preservation Program (20%), states with mining claims (20%), the Land and Water Conservation Fund (10%), and the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund (10%). Fees would be adjusted for inflation at least every five years.
Who benefits
Small-scale and hobbyist miners who meet the "small miner" definition and would be fully exempt from fees and assessment work requirements. Tribal nations and Indigenous communities, who would receive 20% of excess fee revenue through the Tribal Historic Preservation Program. States with significant federal mining claim activity, who would receive 20% of excess revenue proportional to their share of total claims. Communities near abandoned mine sites, who would benefit from 40% of excess revenue directed to cleanup programs under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Visitors and residents near national parks and monuments, who may benefit from reduced mining pressure in those areas. Conservation organizations and land trusts that support reduced mining activity near protected lands.
Who is hurt
Hardrock mining companies and claim holders operating near national parks or monuments, who would face fees up to 11 times higher than the current $100 rate. Mid-size mining operations that fall just above the small miner threshold and cannot absorb significantly higher fees. Prospectors and recreational miners who hold more than 10 claims or earn more than $50,000 annually and thus do not qualify for the small miner exemption. Rural economies in mining-dependent regions near protected lands, where higher fees could reduce exploration and employment. Domestic hardrock mineral supply chains (including for critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and copper) that may be slowed if higher fees deter claim maintenance near protected areas.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current $100 flat fee — unchanged in real terms for decades — dramatically undervalues access to federal public lands and fails to reflect the environmental risks mining poses near sensitive protected areas. They contend the tiered proximity-based structure creates a rational economic incentive to direct mining activity away from national parks and monuments, while the small miner exemption protects individual prospectors and subsistence miners from bearing the same burden as large commercial operations. They further argue that directing excess revenue to abandoned mine cleanup, tribal preservation, and conservation funds addresses longstanding underfunding of programs that repair the legacy harms of hardrock mining on public lands.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that dramatically higher fees near national parks and monuments would effectively price mining companies out of legally valid claims on federal land, functioning as a de facto prohibition without going through the formal withdrawal process required by law. They contend the bill could reduce domestic production of critical minerals — including those needed for electric vehicles and defense applications — at a time when the U.S. is actively working to reduce dependence on foreign mineral supply chains. They further argue that the proximity-based fee tiers are arbitrary, since a claim 5 miles from a monument boundary may pose no greater environmental risk than one 35 miles away, and that the fee increases lack a demonstrated connection to actual administrative costs.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority over federal public lands under the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2) and the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which together underpin the Mining Law of 1872 and subsequent fee statutes. No active constitutional tension is directly implicated, though post-Loper Bright (2024), any Interior Department rulemaking to implement the tiered fee structure or define "covered area" boundaries would face independent judicial review rather than automatic deference.
Checks and balances
Congress sets the fee structure and revenue allocation; the Secretary of the Interior gains authority to collect fees, adjust for inflation, and establish additional user fees, subject to judicial review of any implementing regulations under the post-Chevron standard.
Historical precedent
The current hardrock mining claim maintenance fee was established by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, replacing the prior assessment work requirement; this bill would be the first significant structural revision to that fee system in over 30 years.