CLAIM Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 11, 2025
Bottom line
The CLAIM Act substantially revises the financial obligations for hardrock mining claims on federal lands, aiming to generate more revenue for conservation and tribal programs while discouraging mining near protected areas through increased and tiered fees.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the CLAIM Act of 2025, amends the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 to significantly increase and tier hardrock mining claim maintenance fees based on their proximity to protected areas like National Parks and Monuments. It also mandates inflation adjustments for these fees, authorizes new user fees for administrative costs, and establishes a detailed allocation scheme for excess fee revenue, directing funds towards abandoned mine land reclamation, Tribal Historic Preservation, state mining programs, and federal conservation funds. Additionally, it updates the definition of 'small miner' to clarify exemptions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill modernizes outdated mining fees, ensuring fair compensation for the use of public lands and incentivizing responsible mining practices. They contend that the increased revenue will provide much-needed funding for critical environmental restoration, tribal preservation, and state programs, particularly addressing the impacts of mining near sensitive ecological and cultural sites.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the substantial increase in fees and the new tiered structure place an undue financial burden on the hardrock mining industry, especially for smaller operations, potentially hindering domestic mineral production and increasing reliance on foreign sources. They may also contend that the new fee structure is arbitrary and could disincentivize exploration and development in the United States.
The bill is concise and can be read and understood within a short timeframe, making it accessible for evaluation by an informed reader.
Section 2(2)(A) of H.R. 6674, amending Section 10101(a)(1) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Establishment of Tiered Hardrock Mining Claim Maintenance Fees
This provision replaces the existing flat $100 annual maintenance fee for hardrock mining claims with a new tiered structure. Fees now range from $300 to $1,100 per claim or site, with higher fees applied to claims located closer to or within 'covered areas' (National Park System units and national monuments). This aims to increase revenue and discourage mining near sensitive lands.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the previous $100 fee was outdated and did not reflect the true value of public land use or the environmental costs of mining. The tiered structure incentivizes mining further from sensitive protected areas and generates more revenue for public land management and conservation.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that the substantial increase, especially near protected areas, could make many mining claims economically unviable, particularly for smaller operations, and could be seen as a de facto ban on mining in certain regions, hindering domestic mineral production.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to generate revenue and protect sensitive lands with concerns about the economic viability of domestic hardrock mining and potential impacts on mineral supply chains.
Section 2(2)(A)(iii) and (B) of H.R. 6674, amending Section 10101(a) and striking subsection (d).
Fee in Lieu of Assessment Work and Small Miner Exemption
This provision clarifies that the new maintenance fee fulfills the annual assessment work requirement under the Mining Law of 1872, streamlining compliance. It also explicitly states that the fee and assessment work requirements do not apply to 'small miners,' as newly defined in the bill, and removes the previous, less detailed small miner exemption language.
Section 2(3) of H.R. 6674, amending Section 10105(c) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Mandatory Inflation Adjustment for Maintenance Fees
This provision mandates that the Secretary of the Interior adjust all maintenance fees at least once every five years (or more frequently if deemed reasonable) to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. Claimants must be notified by July 1 of the adjustment year, and the new fees apply the following calendar year, ensuring fees keep pace with inflation.
Section 2(4) of H.R. 6674, adding new Section 10107 to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Authority to Establish User Fees for Administration
This provision grants the Secretary of the Interior the authority to establish and collect user fees from individuals subject to the hardrock mining claim requirements. These fees are intended to reimburse the United States for expenses incurred in administering these requirements, such as processing applications or permits.
Section 2(4) of H.R. 6674, adding new Section 10108 to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Allocation of Hardrock Mining Claim Maintenance Fee Revenue
This provision dictates how the revenue from the hardrock mining claim maintenance fees will be used. After covering administrative costs, any excess funds are allocated: 40% to the abandoned mine land reclamation program, 20% to the Tribal Historic Preservation Program, 20% to States based on mining claim ratios, 10% to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 10% to the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund.
Section 2(4) of H.R. 6674, adding new Section 10109 to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Updated Definitions, including 'Covered Area' and 'Small Miner'
This section introduces several key definitions. 'Covered area' is defined as units of the National Park System and national monuments, which is crucial for the tiered fee structure. The definition of 'small miner' is updated to be a person holding not more than 10 claims/sites (or 200 acres), with annual gross income from mineral production less than $50,000, and who certifies use only for 'casual use.' It also defines 'casual use' and 'hardrock mineral' to clarify the bill's scope.
This provision extensively defines 'small miner' for the purpose of exemption from maintenance fees and assessment work. It specifies criteria including holding not more than 10 claims/sites (or 200 acres), having an annual gross income from mineral production less than $50,000, and certifying use only for 'casual use.' Crucially, it includes detailed definitions of 'all related parties' (e.g., spouse, qualifying child, controlled entities, partners) and 'control' to prevent circumvention of the exemption.
Section 2(4), adding new Section 10109(8) to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Why it matters:This level of detail is standard legislative practice for anti-abuse provisions, ensuring that exemptions are not exploited by larger entities. However, its complexity means a casual reader might miss the nuances of who truly qualifies for the small miner exemption.
Case for: Supporters argue this detailed definition is essential to prevent larger mining operations from structuring themselves to claim the small miner exemption, ensuring that the increased fees apply as intended to commercial-scale activities and that the exemption genuinely benefits individual prospectors engaged in casual use.
Case against: Critics might argue that the complexity and strictness of the 'small miner' definition, particularly the income and casual use requirements, could inadvertently exclude many legitimate small-to-medium sized mining businesses that are not 'large' but also not 'casual use' in their operations, thereby undermining the intent of supporting smaller enterprises.
Estimated impact: This provision will significantly narrow the scope of the small miner exemption, potentially increasing the number of entities subject to the new, higher maintenance fees and impacting the operational models of many smaller mining businesses.
This provision defines 'casual use' as mineral activities that do not ordinarily result in any disturbance of Federal land and resources, including handtools, hand panning, or nonmotorized sluicing. Crucially, it explicitly excludes the use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, suction dredging, explosives, motor vehicles in closed areas, road/drill pad construction, or toxic/hazardous materials. This definition is critical because the 'small miner' exemption is only available if the claim is used solely for casual use.
Section 2(4), adding new Section 10109(1) to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Why it matters:Standard practice for defining terms, but the specific exclusions are key to understanding the scope of the small miner exemption and the types of activities that would disqualify an operation from that status. Its placement requires careful attention to detail.
Case for: Proponents argue that a clear and restrictive definition of 'casual use' is necessary to ensure that the small miner exemption is truly limited to minimal impact activities, preventing larger or more impactful operations from avoiding fees by claiming small miner status. This protects public lands from significant disturbance without proper oversight.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the definition is too narrow, effectively limiting the small miner exemption to hobbyists and excluding small-scale commercial operations that might use some mechanized equipment but still have a relatively low impact compared to industrial mining. This could disproportionately affect legitimate small businesses.
Estimated impact: This definition, in conjunction with the 'small miner' definition, will significantly limit the number of operations that can qualify for the fee exemption, ensuring that only the lowest-impact activities are exempt from the new fee structure.