A New Era of US Mineral Mining Must Put Communities First
The area around California's Salton Sea is incredibly rich in lithium — enough to support over 375 million electric vehicle batteries. A new mine, dubbed Hell's Kitchen, plans to tap this vast mineral wealth. Once completed, it will be among the largest lithium producers in the world.
Hell's Kitchen is one of several new mines that have been fast-tracked by the U.S. federal government as part of an ongoing push to scale up domestic critical mineral supplies. Demand for these minerals — which include lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements and others — is surging both in the U.S. and globally, in part thanks to the rise of clean energy technologies like electric vehicles, utility-scale energy storage and solar panels. This rising need is rapidly outpacing U.S. production, meaning the country will have to both increase imports and scale domestic mining in the coming years.
While critical minerals are essential to securing a clean energy future, mining is an extractive practice with environmental and social risks that has historically done more harm than good. This legacy, especially for Tribal Nations and Native communities, has created deep distrust and widespread opposition to new projects in the U.S.
The Salton Sea is no stranger to these pitfalls. For all the area's mineral riches, it is economically poor. It's seen a long history of one-sided extraction projects that have largely failed to improve the lives of working people.
These concerns are at the fore for many as the U.S. enters a new era of mining. Some projects are already facing significant opposition and litigation, delaying development and increasing financial risks for developers.
Meaningful community engagement will be crucial moving forward — not only to unlock development and meet the country's resource needs, but to avoid harm and provide tangible benefits to the communities hosting these projects.
Amid Booming Mineral Demand, U.S. Seeks Domestic Supplies
In the U.S., critical minerals are those that are essential to the economy and national security and have a vulnerable supply chain.
These minerals are ubiquitous in modern technologies, from medical devices and defense equipment to cell phones and televisions. They're also needed to build solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and other clean technologies increasingly powering our daily lives. This is a big part of the reason demand is booming today.
While 60 minerals are considered "critical" by the U.S. Geological Survey, around 10 are essential to the clean energy transition, including lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel, aluminum and zinc.
Recent analysis suggests that demand for certain critical minerals will far outstrip the United States' domestic supply in the coming years. For instance, the U.S. is expected to produce around 28,000 metric tons of lithium in 2035. But demand could reach over 100,000 metric tons — more than triple this output.
How the country will meet this need is an urgent question. The U.S. currently relies 100% on imports for 12 out of 60 critical minerals, while another 28 have a net import reliance of over 50%. This poses challenges to supply chain security. For example, China controls 70% of global rare earth mining and 90% of refining and has leveraged this dominance as a political tool by restricting exports to the U.S. and other countries.
While metal recycling may be able to help meet domestic demand in the future, scaling up mining will be necessary in the near term.
Both recent federal administrations have seen critical mineral supply chains as a key priority and taken steps to shore up domestic production. For instance, the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act provided incentives for critical mineral production through the Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit. (This was amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to include a phaseout by 2034.)
In March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order to "facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent." This order created a list of priority critical minerals projects and invoked the Defense Production Act to expedite permitting processes on federal lands. Thirteen domestic critical minerals projects have been fast-tracked under this order since April 2025, with a further 37 on the permitting transparency dashboard.
Although the permitting process for new mines in the U.S. is notably lengthy and complex, rushing to expedite them without meaningful community engagement and consultation with Tribal Nations is likely to cause problems.
Mining Projects Bring Social and Environmental Risks
Several companies are already developing critical mineral projects across the U.S., often in small rural communities. If not managed responsibly, these projects can come with significant environmental and social risks for nearby communities.
For one, mining waste can contaminate local water supplies. Some extraction methods also require significant amounts of water. This can lead to conflicts, particularly in agricultural communities where water is already scarce. Mining activities can also damage wildlife habitat and biodiversity and pollute the air.
Hell's Kitchen, for example, would operate in a part of California already grappling with water scarcity, water pollution, and air pollution that drives high rates of asthma. Several environmental groups have voiced worries that the project would put further strain on water supplies, worsen air quality and generate hazardous waste.
In addition, mining can lead to economic booms and busts if a community becomes overly reliant on a single, non-renewable industry. For small communities, a major influx of workers can overwhelm local roads, services and housing, increasing traffic and straining public infrastructure.
Tribal Nations and Native communities have been disproportionately impacted by the mining sector in the past and are especially exposed to new critical mineral mines. An analysis of U.S. mineral reserves found that a high percentage — 97% for nickel, 89% for copper, 79% for lithium and 68% for cobalt — are located within 35 miles of Native American reservations. Although not necessarily located on reservations themselves, the reserves are often located on land that has cultural, ancestral and historic significance, placing many tribal communities in the direct path of new mining operations.
Some experts have pointed out that the recent increase in domestic critical mineral production has already reignited historic conflicts over tribal sovereignty between Native American people and the federal government.
Some New Mines Are Seeing Pushback
Historically, mining projects in the U.S. have done little, if anything, to involve local communities in the development process. Many left the surrounding area worse off economically and environmentally. This has left many communities feeling ignored or betrayed by companies and, in some cases, the government.
As a result, new mines in the U.S. often face significant local pushback. This can lead to litigation, long project delays or even cancellation, as well as reputational damage for companies. Several critical mineral projects in the U.S. are facing such opposition today.
For example, the Thacker Pass mine in Nevada — expected to be a major source of lithium for EV batteries — has faced legal challenges from the Numu/Nuwu and Newe (Northern Paiute and Western Shoshone) and environmental groups over water use and potential groundwater contamination. They've also raised concerns about the lack of free, prior and informed consent for local Tribes and limiting access to culturally significant land.
Hell's Kitchen faced a similar lawsuit in 2024. Environmental groups argued that the environmental impact report failed to analyze and mitigate concerns around air quality and hazardous waste, and that local agencies did not consult with local Tribes — including Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Indians and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians — as required by law.
It is worth noting that local support or opposition can vary significantly, and no Tribe or community is a monolith.
For example, the Black Butte copper mine has faced multiple lawsuits from environmental groups due to concerns that the project was granted permits based on insufficient environmental impact reviews. Yet some residents welcome the project for its potential to create new jobs in the area.
In the case of Hell's Kitchen, some of the groups that brought about the 2024 lawsuit have stated that they are not necessarily against the development of the mine, seeing it as an opportunity for new jobs and other local benefits. However, they want the project to commit to ensuring good jobs and a healthy environment while respecting Indigenous rights and protecting Tribal resources.
Strategies for Robust Community Engagement
There is no silver bullet to address mining's impacts. But there are many ways governments and companies can tangibly improve the sector, and meaningful community engagement is a critical foundation. Below we outline three strategies that can help encourage local engagement, mitigate harms, and lead to positive outcomes for communities hosting critical minerals projects:
1) Securing real benefits for communities through benefits-sharing agreements
New mines are often billed as an opportunity for nearby communities. But they don't always deliver. Benefits-sharing frameworks — such as community benefits agreement (CBAs), good neighbor agreements (GNAs) or Tribal Benefit Agreements (TBAs) — can help.
These are voluntary but legally binding mechanisms between project developers and local communities that help ensure mines avoid harm and bring real benefits to local people. When designed well, they can help foster trust, address local concerns and enable groups to hold project developers accountable, while also curbing opposition to new projects.
The Stillwater Mine Good Neighbor Agreement in Montana is a strong example. The GNA establishes water quality metrics that are more stringent than state and federal requirements and incorporates rigorous monitoring to ensure compliance. The mining company, Sibanye-Stillwater, funds independent environmental performance audits each year. The GNA also established processes for local groups to monitor mine operations, access data, conduct inspections, and weigh in on mine plans and permit revisions, fostering trust and transparency.
The Stillwater agreement also takes a robust approach to dispute resolution. Its multi-tiered process starts with good faith negotiation, moves to binding arbitration by a neutral third party if talks fail, and ultimately allows for civil enforcement in court to uphold the contract. Thanks to this, there has been no arbitration or litigation around the Stillwater mine since the GNA came into effect in 2000.
Despite its successes, some advocates have pointed out that Stillwater's GNA does not go beyond mitigating potential harms to deliver broader community benefits. Benefits-sharing agreements are considered most effective when they also secure things like direct job guarantees or infrastructure investments that ensure long-term community well-being.
Stillwater has inspired similar agreements, including one being negotiated for the Black Butte Copper mine in Montana. In the case of Hell's Kitchen, a coalition of local nonprofits has called for a community benefits agreement "to strike a balance for community prosperity and environmental protection."
Some mining companies have successfully engaged communities without signing a formal benefits-sharing agreement. Eagle Mine, the only primary nickel producer in the country, initially faced organized opposition. But its operators created formal procedures to engage with local groups that gradually overcame this pushback. The company created a "community environmental monitoring program" and invested in the local economy and education. Lundin Mining, the current operator, has also developed a voluntary community monitoring system; it uses a third-party organization to survey community sentiment toward the mine every six months, which is incorporated into its decision-making.
However, this kind of voluntary corporate engagement remains the exception rather than the norm. And it doesn't offer tools to hold companies accountable. Because of this, legally binding agreements are seen as a more effective option. They can empower communities to secure specific, long-term benefits and provide a more structured and reliable approach to development.
2) Improving regulation to give communities a seat at the table
Most states require mining companies to obtain various permits that involve mandatory public notice and comment periods. This gives community members a chance to provide input to state agencies.
However, Montana has gone a step further: Its Hard Rock Mining Impact Act (HRMIA) is considered unique in that it gives communities formal standing and leverage to address mining impacts.
HRMIA requires any developer of a large-scale hard rock mine to prepare an impact plan that describes its expected social and economic impacts on local government entities — such as counties, cities and school districts — who can then negotiate with the mining company for funding to address them. This might include money for things like new infrastructure, public health services or road maintenance. In 2020, for example, Meagher County and the City of White Sulphur Springs received $437,000 from Black Butte copper mine's developer. This kind of upfront funding is intended to address infrastructure and service needs and financial gaps before the expanded tax base from the mining operation begins to provide revenue.
Montana created a Hard Rock Mining Impact Board that reviews impact plans for compliance and can adjudicate disputes between local governments and companies. The five-member board balances local government, community, industry and finance interests by mandating that at least three members must be from an area affected by large-scale mining development, one member from the hard rock mining industry, and one from a major financial institution in the state.
A companion law, the Property Tax Base Sharing Act, ensures that 35% of metal mines tax revenues are allocated to local governments to mitigate the fiscal impacts of mining operations. The state law also requires counties to place at least 37.5% of that allocation into a designated savings account: a "rainy-day" fund to be used in the event of a mine shutdown or major workforce reduction.
Montana's framework, especially its provisions for mitigating local fiscal and infrastructure impacts from large mines, can be a model for other states and the federal government.
3) Leveraging third-party sustainability frameworks
Voluntary, third-party sustainability frameworks — such as the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) and The Copper Mark — can be powerful tools for any project looking to demonstrate a commitment to industry best practices. These frameworks ensure responsible mining by setting rigorous standards for environmental and social performance; providing independent verification; increasing transparency; and building trust among stakeholders, such as communities, buyers and investors.
Frameworks also provide common standards for community engagement, including proactively identifying and engaging with vulnerable and Tribal stakeholders, documenting input received from communities and addressing their concerns. And they include independent assessments of whether a mine is meeting relevant requirements. While not a substitute for strong government regulation, if used well, these frameworks can help identify and mitigate sustainability risks and improve relations with the local community.
Yet uptake is limited, including in the U.S. IRMA, considered by some to be the most rigorous sustainability framework, has not independently assessed a single mine in the United States to date. Copper Mark is an exception; it has been awarded to 11 out of 25 operating copper mines in the U.S., which is significant.
With an estimated 280 metal mines operating in the U.S., there's substantial potential to expand the use of voluntary sustainability frameworks. By increasing their reach, these frameworks could play a critical role in raising the performance of the U.S. mining sector, particularly in areas like meaningful and equitable community engagement.
Moving Forward
These strategies offer concrete pathways for the U.S. to build a more responsible mining industry. They're not the only ones.
Additional approaches have been proposed by academics, researchers and others that will also be crucial to improving the sector. This includes the need for restorative justice to address the United States' harmful mining history through long-term truth and reconciliation processes between the federal government and Tribal Nations. The sector also needs to consider economic models that emphasize reduction, reuse and recycling of resources to minimize the need for new mining.
Ultimately, the United States must create a project and policy environment that builds transparency, opens spaces for negotiation, fosters accountability and proactively managed environmental risks. This will be the only way forward to ensure that clean energy drives truly equitable and resilient growth.
Disclaimer: Some observations noted in this article are based on stakeholder conversations with mining companies and community members.
Projects
U.S. People-Centered Transitions
Visit ProjectAddressing environmental justice, equity and just transition issues in the United States.
Part of Climate
U.S. Climate
Visit ProjectAdvancing climate action on federal, state and local levels to ensure a sustainable, prosperous and just future for all Americans.
Part of Climate
U.S. Energy
Visit ProjectHelping cities, states, corporations, utilities and other key players in the U.S. power system accelerate their transition to renewable energy and a more reliable, resilient electricity grid.
Part of Energy
Energy Minerals and Circularity
Visit ProjectWRI works to promote a range of responsible strategies to meet the demand for critical minerals needed in a clean energy transition.
Part of Energy