Spring 2026

Critical Minerals Move to the Forefront of United States Mining

By Leonard Ancuta, Ph.D., GIT, Meghna Swamy, M.S., and Jerry Hu, M.S.

Critical minerals are needed for today’s clean energy technologies, as well as other major industries, such as aerospace, defense, and healthcare – industries worth trillions of dollars (see Figure).  These minerals are essential to the nation’s economy and national security, and, because their supply chains are vulnerable to disruption (USGS, 2025), any interruption or deficit in their supply would have significant economic consequences.  In short, critical minerals are vital to the success of United States (US) manufacturing and defense.  The strategic importance of these minerals has increased amid geopolitical tensions and surging global demand, which is expected to nearly double by 2030, primarily driven by growth in renewable energy (IEA, 2024).  Despite this projected growth in demand, the US has greater than 50 percent net import reliance for 20 of the 60 critical minerals identified by the US Geological Survey (USGS) (USGS, 2026).

Critical Minerals and Their Usage

Recent changes in regulatory requirements, aimed at increasing domestic production, have significantly altered the environmental permitting landscape for the critical minerals mining industry.  In 2025, the Department of the Interior implemented emergency expedited review procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for critical mineral projects.  These procedures substantially reduce environmental review timelines from several years in many cases to as little as 14 days for Environmental Assessments (EAs) and 28 days for Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).  In addition, the recent regulatory changes eliminate the public comment period that traditionally has formed a central component of the review process. Although these policy initiatives reduce permitting costs and accelerate project development, they also increase the likelihood of environmental disputes and litigation related to, for example, groundwater impacts, water rights, habitat destruction, and air pollution.

Increased demand for critical minerals has led to the reopening of abandoned mines, reprocessing of legacy tailings, and extraction of lower-quality ores, where historical exploration has depleted high-quality deposits.”

The potential environmental impacts associated with critical mineral mining are numerous.  Many of the geologic formations that contain well-known critical minerals, such as lithium, nickel, and cobalt and their lesser-known counterparts tellurium and indium, are rich in sulfide and often require extensive processing to release the minerals from the ore body.  When mining exposes sulfide-rich ores to water and air, it generates acidic drainage and mobilizes heavy metals, and can impact surrounding groundwater and surface water (USGS, 2017).  Increased demand for critical minerals has led to the reopening of abandoned mines, reprocessing of legacy tailings, and extraction of lower-quality ores, where historical exploration has depleted high-quality deposits.  Generally, processing lower-quality ores uses more energy and generates larger volumes of waste rock and tailings (IEA, 2025).  Additionally, the reopening of abandoned mines and reprocessing of legacy tailings for critical mineral extraction can oxidize newly exposed sulfide-rich materials and exacerbate historical contamination.

Critical mineral mining consumes substantial amounts of groundwater and surface water, as most extraction methods require water for mineral separation, machinery cooling, and dust control (WRI, 2024).  Lithium mining is particularly challenging due to its reliance on brine evaporation, which can deplete aquifers and contaminate them with saline water in water-scarce regions (DRI, 2023; USGS, 2017).  With more than 50 percent of today’s lithium production concentrated in areas with high water-stress levels, concerns regarding depletion of precious water resources may fuel an increase in water rights disputes.

Removal of the public comment period during the NEPA process has shifted environmental groups from voicing concerns during the administrative review stage to pursuing legal challenges following approved permits.”

While recent policy initiatives have accelerated permitting timelines and reduced barriers to opening mining operations for critical minerals, mining companies and stakeholders may ultimately face increased liabilities and litigation risks.  For example, removal of the public comment period during the NEPA process has shifted environmental groups from voicing concerns during the administrative review stage to pursuing legal challenges following approved permits.  Disputes with these environmental groups have illustrated gaps in the new permitting process, where environmental impacts and water use risks are not well characterized prior to breaking ground, leaving mining companies potentially vulnerable to environmental liabilities and reputational harm.  Furthermore, the reopening of mines has led to complex source evaluation and liability issues between new and former stakeholders when legacy issues are exposed and exacerbated by new mining activities.

Given the rapidly evolving regulatory landscape, stakeholders should try to understand and mitigate these potential environmental risks during the due diligence process, even if these efforts are not specifically required by the streamlined NEPA process.  A more complete understanding of potential environmental impacts and water rights issues early in the mine planning process will help safeguard projects from costly legal challenges and allow for a better understanding of environmental risks through the life of the mine.