PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2025
Gold King Mine Spill Compensation Act of 2025
This bill authorizes and provides funding for compensation for certain homeowners, livestock grazers, farmers, and companies who suffered damages as a result of the Gold King Mine spill on August 5, 2015, in southwest Colorado.
To be eligible for compensation, a homeowner, livestock grazer, farmer, or company (1) must have submitted an administrative claim to the Environmental Protection Agency on or before August 5, 2017, that was denied or not fully compensated; and (2) must not have entered a settlement with the United States for an amount exceeding $2,500.
Under the bill, covered damages include lost business income, expenses arising from relocating livestock and providing alternative water supplies, and crop loss or diminished crop yield.
People & committees
Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 13, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1315 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1315 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1315 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1315 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Gold King Mine Spill Compensation Act of 2025 would provide federal compensation to certain homeowners, farmers, livestock grazers and businesses harmed by the 2015 spill whose timely claims were denied or not fully paid. It would cover specified, documented losses that remain uncompensated, subject to eligibility restrictions and payment limits. The Environmental Protection Agency would decide claims, and the bill would provide up to $3.3 million for payments. Accepting payment would release related covered claims against the federal government.
This Act may be cited as the Gold King Mine Spill Compensation Act of 2025.
the term injured person means a homeowner, a livestock grazer, a farmer, or a recreation company or other business
denied a covered claim; or (II) did not fully compensate the individual or entity for covered damages described in a covered claim.
adequately documented, as determined by the Administrator, damages suffered by an injured person as a result of the Gold King Mine spill that is otherwise uncompensated
has, on or before August 5, 2017, submitted a covered claim to the Administrator
The term Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall determine and fix the amount, if any, to be paid for the covered claim.
such sums as are necessary, but not to exceed $3,300,000, for the payment of claims in accordance with this Act
constitute a complete release of all covered claims against the United States (including any agency or employee of the United States)
The bill defines the covered spill as the August 5, 2015 release of more than 3 million gallons of acidic mine drainage containing heavy metals from the Gold King Mine in San Juan County, Colorado. The definition says the release occurred during an Environmental Protection Agency removal-site evaluation and reached downstream waters, including the Animas and San Juan Rivers.
The term Gold King Mine spill means the release, on August 5, 2015, of more than 3,000,000 gallons of acid mine drainage containing heavy metals from the Gold King Mine located in San Juan County, Colorado, into downstream waters, including the Animas and San Juan Rivers, that occurred during a removal site evaluation by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Eligible claimants would have to be homeowners, livestock grazers, farmers, recreation companies or other businesses with covered losses. They must have submitted a written claim specifying a dollar amount to the Environmental Protection Agency by August 5, 2017 under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the federal damages-claim framework referenced by the bill. Their covered claim must have been denied or not fully compensated.
The term covered claim means a written request for monetary compensation of a certain amount under chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as the Federal Tort Claims Act), submitted to the Administrator on or before August 5, 2017, by an injured person for compensation for covered damages.
the term injured person means a homeowner, a livestock grazer, a farmer, or a recreation company or other business— (i) that, as a result of the Gold King Mine spill, suffered covered damages
to which the Administrator— (I) denied a covered claim; or (II) did not fully compensate the individual or entity for covered damages described in a covered claim.
A claimant would be ineligible if, before enactment, they had entered a settlement with the United States exceeding $2,500 or had a court judgment entered in any case related to the spill or the defined Bonita Peak Mining District contamination.
has not, prior to the date of enactment of this Act, entered into a settlement agreement with the United States for any amount exceeding $2,500, or had a judgment entered by any court in any case related to BPMD contamination or the Gold King Mine spill
For that eligibility restriction, Bonita Peak Mining District contamination would include releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances occurring by enactment at or from mining sources within the specified federal cleanup site in San Juan County, Colorado. The definition includes every area the Environmental Protection Agency has ever described as part of that site for purposes related to the National Priorities List.
The term BPMD contamination means a release or threatened release of hazardous substances that occurred or is occurring on or before the date of enactment of this Act at or from mining-related sources within the Bonita Peak Mining District Superfund Site in San Juan County, Colorado
including all areas of that site that the Environmental Protection Agency has ever defined or described for purposes of, or in relation to, the National Priorities List
A business would have to remain in operation when payment is made. Businesses that own a mine or conduct any mine-related business would be excluded.
if the entity is a business, is in operation as of the date of a payment under this Act; and (iii) if the entity is a business, does not own a mine or perform any mine-related business.
Covered losses would have to result from the spill, remain uncompensated and be adequately documented to the Environmental Protection Agency's satisfaction. Injury would be a covered category, using an existing federal statute's meaning of property injury or loss, personal injury, or death.
The term covered damages means any of the following types of adequately documented, as determined by the Administrator, damages suffered by an injured person as a result of the Gold King Mine spill that is otherwise uncompensated: (i) Injury.
The term injury has the same meaning as the term injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death as used in section 1346(b)(1) of title 28, United States Code.
Covered business-income losses would be limited to August 5 through December 31, 2015, and would exclude vacation-rental income. Reduced agricultural yields or lost crops would be covered for the same period.
Lost business income incurred during the period beginning on August 5, 2015, and ending on December 31, 2015, excluding lost business income from vacation rentals.
Diminished yield or loss of agricultural crops occurring during the period beginning on August 5, 2015, and ending on December 31, 2015.
Expenses for moving livestock and supplying alternative water would be covered only if incurred from August 5 through October 15, 2015.
Expenses arising from relocating livestock and providing alternative water supplies incurred during the period beginning on August 5, 2015, and ending on October 15, 2015.
The bill would exclude emotional distress and costs classified as environmental response costs under the referenced federal environmental cleanup law.
The term covered damages does not include— (i) costs for response (as defined in section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601)); or (ii) emotional distress.
Each eligible injured person would be entitled to federal compensation for covered losses. The Environmental Protection Agency Administrator would investigate and decide or settle covered claims. Colorado law would govern the calculation of losses unless the bill provides otherwise.
Each injured person shall be entitled to receive from the United States compensation for covered damages suffered by the injured person as a result of the Gold King Mine spill.
The Administrator shall, on behalf of the United States, investigate, consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, grant, deny, or settle any covered claim
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the laws of the State of Colorado shall apply to the calculation of covered damages.
The term Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Payments would be limited to compensation for actual injury and could not exceed the amount originally claimed. They could not include interest or punitive damages—additional damages intended as punishment.
Any payment under this Act— (A) shall be limited to— (i) actual compensatory damages measured by injuries suffered; and (ii) the amount originally claimed by the injured person in the covered claim; and (B) shall not include— (i) interest before or after settlement or payment of a covered claim; or (ii) punitive damages.
Within 180 days after enactment, the Administrator would have to determine the amount, if any, payable on each covered claim. The decision would be limited to claimant eligibility, whether the spill caused the claimed injury, the allowable amount and who should receive it.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall determine and fix the amount, if any, to be paid for the covered claim.
the Administrator shall determine only— (A) whether the claimant is an injured person; (B) whether the injury that is the subject of the covered claim resulted from the Gold King Mine spill; (C) the amount, if any, to be allowed and paid under this Act; and (D) the person or persons entitled to receive the amount.
Accepting any payment would conclusively resolve the claimant's covered claims relating to the same subject matter and release those claims against the United States, its agencies and its employees under federal or state law. Acceptance would also require certification that the claim is true and correct, under penalty of perjury and subject to the referenced federal false-statement provision.
The acceptance by a claimant of any payment under this Act shall— (1) be final and conclusive on the claimant with respect to all covered claims arising out of or relating to the same subject matter; (2) constitute a complete release of all covered claims against the United States (including any agency or employee of the United States) under chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as the Federal Tort Claims Act), or any other Federal or State law, arising out of or relating to the same subject matter
include a certification by the claimant, made under penalty of perjury and subject to the provisions of section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, that the covered claim is true and correct.
An eligible injured person could choose compensation through a covered claim, a Federal Tort Claims Act claim or lawsuit, or another legally authorized lawsuit. That choice would bind the claimant for all injuries they suffered from the spill. Rights to claim benefits under federal entitlement programs would remain unaffected.
An injured person may elect to seek compensation from the United States for 1 or more injuries resulting from the Gold King Mine spill by— (A) pursuing compensation under a covered claim; (B) filing a claim or bringing a civil action under chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code; or (C) bringing an authorized civil action under any other provision of law.
An election by an injured person to seek compensation in any manner described in paragraph (1) shall be final and conclusive on the claimant with respect to all injuries resulting from the Gold King Mine spill that are suffered by the claimant.
Nothing in this Act affects any right of a claimant to file a claim for benefits under any Federal entitlement program.
A claimant adversely affected by a final agency decision could seek to change or overturn it in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado within 60 days after issuance. The court would use the agency record and would have to uphold a decision supported by substantial evidence in that record as a whole.
Any claimant aggrieved by a final decision of the Administrator under this Act may, not later than 60 days after the date on which the decision is issued, bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, to modify or set aside the decision, in whole or in part.
The court shall hear a civil action under paragraph (1) on the record made before the Administrator.
The decision of the Administrator incorporating the findings of the Administrator shall be upheld if the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
Within 90 days after all covered claims have been processed, the Administrator would have to report to Congress on the amounts claimed, the nature of the claims and their outcomes, including payments.
Not later than 90 days after the date on which all covered claims have been processed under this Act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that describes— (1) the amounts claimed; (2) a brief description of the nature of the covered claims; and (3) the disposition of the covered claims, including the amount of any payment under this Act.
The bill would directly provide as much funding as necessary for claim payments, capped at $3.3 million, for fiscal year 2025. This is a proposed appropriation, meaning funding provided by the bill itself if enacted. The money would remain available until spent rather than expire at the end of that fiscal year.
There are appropriated to the Administrator for fiscal year 2025, out of any amounts in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as are necessary, but not to exceed $3,300,000, for the payment of claims in accordance with this Act, to remain available until expended.
The bill would designate the entire appropriation as an emergency requirement under the cited federal budget-control law.
The entire amount made available under subsection (a) is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement under section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 13, 2026, records introduction in the House on February 13, 2025 and referral that day to the Judiciary and Budget Committees for provisions within their respective jurisdictions. This snapshot does not establish the bill's subsequent progress or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-13T17:25:05Z.
2025-02-13: Introduced in House
2025-02-13: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or separate policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish attachment history or the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text under the stated definition. Funding for a compensation program's intended claimants is not automatically an earmark. This conclusion is limited to this version; formal earmark status cannot be established without relevant accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No separate preferential carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The compensation program's intended beneficiaries and eligibility restrictions were not treated as preferential benefits solely because the program has a narrow scope. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 13, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI