Billions in funding are available, but execution will determine what actually gets done.
Across the United States, billions in federal funding are now available to address abandoned mine lands, and a meaningful portion of it is going unused.
The need is clear. The national cleanup backlog is estimated at $25 billion.
But the constraint is no longer funding alone. It is execution.
The passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) marked a turning point, with $12 billion allocated through 2036 to address long-standing hazards. For the first time in decades, states and communities have the resources to make significant progress.
However, funding comes with timelines. Projects must advance, deliver, and demonstrate results within defined windows. The risk is not just environmental delay; it is leaving available funding on the table.
The challenge behind the funding
The AML problem is not just financial. It is structural.
Billions of dollars are now flowing through federal programs, but many agencies face a different constraint: the capacity to design, permit, and deliver projects at the pace required. Without that capacity, funding cannot be fully utilized.
At the same time, reclamation costs continue to exceed available budgets. Nationwide, damages from abandoned mines are estimated at tens of billions of dollars, far beyond current allocations. Outdated inventories, administrative complexity, and limited technical resources further slow progress.
This creates a gap between opportunity and execution.
Reclamation cannot be approached as a series of isolated fixes. It must be delivered in a way that produces measurable, lasting outcomes, stabilizing land, improving water quality, and reducing long-term risk.
From liabilities to assets
When delivered effectively, AML reclamation does more than address hazards. It reshapes landscapes in ways that create long-term environmental and community value.
Projects can:
This shift, from liability to asset, is already taking shape.
Across the country, reclamation projects are transforming degraded mine lands into stable, functional landscapes that support both ecological recovery and future use.
→ Explore reclamation projects in practice
Tools for transformation
Achieving these outcomes requires more than technical expertise. It requires rethinking how projects are delivered.
Traditional, fragmented delivery models, with separate designers, contractors, and long-term operators, often introduce delays, cost uncertainty, and gaps in accountability.
In contrast, integrated approaches are gaining traction.
Design-Build Delivery
By consolidating planning and construction into a single contract, design-build reduces administrative friction and accelerates timelines. This is particularly important when funding windows are fixed, and delays carry real consequences.
Outcomes-Based Contracting
Tying project success to measurable results shifts accountability toward performance, ensuring that environmental outcomes, not just project completion, define success.
These approaches are already being applied on complex reclamation sites where coordination, speed, and long-term performance are critical.
For example, at the Meadow Fork Clogged Stream project in West Virginia, more than 16,600 linear feet of restoration is being delivered under a single design-build contract, aligning planning, construction, and performance objectives from the outset.
What this means for AML projects today
For agencies, project sponsors, and communities, the takeaway is straightforward:
The next decade of AML funding will not be defined by how much money is available, but by how effectively it is deployed.
Projects that can move efficiently from concept to construction, maintain accountability through delivery, and demonstrate measurable outcomes will be best positioned to succeed.
The question is no longer whether funding exists. It is whether projects can move fast enough and perform well enough to use it.
If you’re advancing an AML project or evaluating how to deploy available funding, understanding how the delivery strategy influences timeline, cost, and outcomes can provide critical context.
