Opinion: Ami Bera’s Mining Money and Nevada County’s Lasting Cleanup Burden (Oct. 7, 2026 @ 7:35PST)
“In perpetuity.” Those words appear in a 2017 California water board permit describing the expected operation of Newmont USA’s North Star Water Treatment Facility near Grass Valley. The facility was built to treat drainage from abandoned underground mines before discharge toward Wolf Creek, reducing iron and manganese concentrations. Mining had left a responsibility expected to continue indefinitely.
Against that background, Ami Bera’s campaign reported receiving $1,500 from Newmont Corporation PAC, known as NEWPAC, on March 4, 2026. The uploaded campaign records cover January 2025 through June 2026. A company associated with Nevada County’s enduring mining liabilities also has a political fundraising connection to a congressman helping shape federal mineral policy.
Bera deserves criticism for accepting that support. The donation’s modest size does not make the relationship irrelevant, although it cannot establish that anyone purchased influence. The criticism is straightforward: accepting industry campaign support creates an avoidable question about independence when public officials help determine policies that industry supports.
North Star also demonstrates the importance of remediation. Newmont’s treatment responsibilities are part of the solution to historical contamination. At another local site, Lava Cap Mine near Nevada City, Newmont entities agreed to pay $3 million under a 2009 cleanup liability settlement. EPA emphasized their limited ownership from 1983 through 1986 and absence of active mining during that association. Those records document cleanup obligations without establishing current violations or assigning Newmont responsibility for every historical discharge.
The connection to Bera’s legislative work is documented. He and Representative Young Kim introduced the DOMINANCE Act on January 13, 2026, proposing stronger international critical mineral partnerships and coordinated federal diplomacy and investment. When the House passed the legislation June 8, an official announcement listed Newmont among its supporters. Campaign support and policy alignment warrant examination; their coexistence does not establish causation.
Bera has explained his rationale. In his June 8 statement, he argued that reliable mineral supplies are necessary for national security and reducing dependence on China. He also said: “The United States must continue expanding domestic mining, processing, refining, and recycling capacity.” Those are legitimate policy objectives. They also make his position on the safeguards accompanying expanded extraction especially important.
His environmental platform emphasizes protecting drinking water and combining environmental stewardship with economic opportunity. Nevada County’s mining history provides a concrete test of those commitments: who guarantees treatment decades after a mine closes, what financial assurances remain available, and how will public officials preserve independent oversight when industry participates in their fundraising?
Bera’s campaign also received $8,000 in personal donations from Ankit Desai during the reviewed period. His later contributions listed Lilette Advisors as his employer. Lilette’s third-quarter 2025 disclosure identified Desai as a lobbyist for Vale USA on mineral processing and metals production.
Separately, Cassidy & Associates reported approximately $50,000 in second-quarter 2025 lobbying income for Newmont on permitting, mineral policy and water quality. These professional advocacy relationships are documented; neither disclosure establishes preferential access to Bera.
The reviewed campaign disbursements identify no payments to Newmont, Vale, Cassidy or Lilette. Desai’s personal donations cannot be treated as Vale corporate funding, and mining companies’ lobbying contractors cannot be relabeled Bera’s campaign vendors.
Local projects require equal precision. Nevada County supervisors unanimously rejected the Idaho-Maryland reopening proposal’s requested rezoning and variance in February 2024. In March 2026, Rise Gold submitted plans for limited exploratory drilling for gold and tungsten. County guidance distinguishes that exploration from commercial reopening and requires compliance with applicable noise, lighting and construction rules.
Rise Grass Valley and Newmont are distinct companies. The research reviewed here establishes neither a contribution from the Idaho-Maryland applicant nor intervention by Bera on its behalf. It also did not locate his project-specific position. His general support for expanded mining should not be presented as endorsement of this particular mine.
Bera should now provide specific answers through a public written statement. What meetings or communications has he had with Newmont and its representatives? What input, if any, did mining interests supply to his legislation? What protections would he require before supporting federal assistance for a mining project? Would he oppose arrangements that leave taxpayers responsible for unfunded cleanup? Will he support independent water monitoring and enforceable financial assurances throughout a project’s life?
He should return NEWPAC’s contribution and decline future mining PAC support. That would remove one avoidable fundraising relationship while leaving him free to argue for mineral security on its merits. Nevada County’s experience demands lasting cleanup commitments and credible oversight. Bera should demonstrate that his independence is as durable as the obligations mining leaves behind.