[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CLEANING UP THE PAST, BUILDING THE FUTURE:
THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM
=======================================================================
(119-19)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 7, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-917 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
District of Columbia Arkansas,
Jerrold Nadler, New York Vice Chairman
Steve Cohen, Tennessee Daniel Webster, Florida
John Garamendi, California Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaott Perry, Pennsylvania
Andre Carson, Indiana Brian Babin, Texas
Dina Titus, Nevada David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Salud O. Carbajal, California Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Greg Stanton, Arizona Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Sharice Davids, Kansas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Burgess Owens, Utah
Patrick Ryan, New York Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Mike Collins, Georgia
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio, Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Vice Ranking Member Kevin Kiley, California
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Vince Fong, California
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan
Robert Garcia, California Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Pennsylvania
Laura Friedman, California Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Laura Gillen, New York Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
Shomari Figures, Alabama Addison P. McDowell, North
Carolina
David J. Taylor, Ohio
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Jimmy Patronis, Florida
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Mike Collins, Georgia, Chairman
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida,
Ranking Member
John Garamendi, California Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Jared Huffman, California Arkansas
Patrick Ryan, New York Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Brian Babin, Texas
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio Mike Bost, Illinois
Laura Friedman, California Doug LaMalfa, California
Shomari Figures, Alabama Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Julia Brownley, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Mark DeSaulnier, California Tracey Mann, Kansas
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Eric Burlison, Missouri
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan, Kevin Kiley, California
Vice Ranking Member Vince Fong, California
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Laura Gillen, New York Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Eleanor Holmes Norton, David J. Taylor, Ohio, Vice
District of Columbia Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Brad Knott, North Carolina
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Jimmy Patronis, Florida
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, opening statement................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 53
WITNESSES
Hon. Terry M. Wilbur, Clerk, Oswego County, New York, on behalf
of the National Association of Counties, oral statement........ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Lisa Shook, Assistant Chief, Division of Environmental Response
and Remediation, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, oral
statement...................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Lance N. Larson, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Congressional
Research Service, oral statement............................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Michael R. Goldstein, Esq., Managing Partner, The Goldstein
Environmental Law Firm, P.A., oral statement................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter of May 3, 2025, from the Environmental Council of the
States to Hon. Lee Zeldin, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Frederica
S. Wilson...................................................... 25
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
May 2, 2025
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Cleaning Up the Past,
Building the Future: The Brownfields Program''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on
Wednesday, May 7, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 Rayburn House
Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing entitled,
``Cleaning Up the Past, Building the Future: The Brownfields
Program.'' The hearing will provide Members with an opportunity
to hear local and National perspectives on the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields program.
At the hearing, Members will receive testimony from
witnesses representing the National Association of Counties,
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the Congressional
Research Service, and the Goldstein Environmental Law Firm.
II. COMPRHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABIITY ACT
(CERCLA)
CERCLA, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), is the Federal Government's principal law for addressing
the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants, through immediate removal or long-
term remedial actions.\1\ CERCLA establishes a framework for
the EPA to seek out and compel potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) to clean up contaminated sites or recover cleanup costs
from PRPs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David M. Bearden, Cong. Rsch Serv. (R41039), Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of
Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, (June
14, 2012), available at https://www.crs.gov/reports/pdf/R41039/
R41039.pdf [hereinafter CRS Report R41039].
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liability for PRPs under CERCLA is triggered if there has
been an actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance
that causes the incurrence of response costs.\3\ Section 107 of
CERCLA identifies four categories of PRPs: (1) any current
owner or operator of a contaminated facility; (2) any past
owner or operator of a contaminated facility; (3) any person
who arranged for the disposal or treatment of a hazardous
substance, and; (4) any person who transported hazardous
substances for disposal or treatment.\4\ There are liability
protections provided under the statute for individuals in
certain circumstances, such as innocent landowners,\5\
contiguous property owners,\6\ persons who contributed only
very small qualities of waste to a site,\7\ or bona fide
prospective purchasers, which are individuals who knowingly
acquire contaminated property and adhere to certain statutory
criteria.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 40 C.F.R. Sec. 302.4 (2025).
\4\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607.
\5\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(b)(3).
\6\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(q).
\7\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(o).
\8\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courts have consistently interpreted liability under CERCLA
to be retroactive, strict, and joint and several in nature.\9\
Specifically:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., CRS Report R41039, supra note 1.
LRetroactive Liability: Courts have held that
CERCLA liability applies to the release or disposal of
hazardous substances occurring prior to the statute's enactment
on December 11, 1980.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical
Co. (NEPACCO), 810 F.2d 726 (8th Cir. 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LStrict Liability: Courts have attached strict
liability regardless of fault; a party may be liable under
CERCLA even if it exercised due care and did not act
negligently.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) (CERCLA
imposes strict liability on ``covered persons'' without a requirement
to prove negligence or intent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LJoint and Several Liability: Courts have imposed
joint and several liability where the harm caused by hazardous
substances cannot be reasonably divided among multiple
parties.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp., 572 F. Supp. 802 (S.D. Ohio
1983).
If PRPs can be identified and are able to finance a
cleanup, the Federal Government can enforce liability through
CERCLA in several ways, by: (1) a judicial or administrative
order; (2) cost-recovery actions through administrative or
judicial proceedings; or (3) voluntary settlement
agreements.\13\ Alternatively, EPA may clean up ``orphan
sites'' when PRPs are not identified, or when they fail to
act.\14\ These Federal response actions are generally funded by
the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ EPA, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and Federal Facilities, available at https://
www.epa.gov/enforcement/comprehensive-environmental-response-
compensation-and-liability-act-cercla-and-federal.
\14\ E.g., CRS Report R41039, supra note 1.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
A brownfield site is defined as ``real property, the
expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated
by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant.'' \16\ Brownfields are properties
that are typically abandoned, underutilized, or idle with
either known or suspected contamination. The possibility of
contamination is often a deterrent for many prospective
investors and developers because of potential CERCLA
liability.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(39).
\17\ CRS Report R41039, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of brownfields can include inactive factories, gas
stations, salvage or scrap yards, or abandoned warehouses.\18\
However, many other commercial, industrial, and agricultural,
and even some residential areas may be contaminated due to
current or past uses at the site.\19\ Brownfield sites are
generally less contaminated than those listed on the National
Priorities List,\20\ but still may require remediation work to
make them suitable for reuse and redevelopment.\21\ For
example, according to EPA, lead, asbestos, volatile organic
compounds, petroleum, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
arsenic, and other heavy metals are the most reported
contaminants found at brownfield sites.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ EPA, What is a Brownfield?, available at bf-101.1-with-
voiceover-what-are-brownfields.pptx.
\19\ EPA, Environmental Contamination at Brownfield Sites,
available at https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/environmental-
contamination-brownfield-sites. [hereinafter Environmental
Contamination].
\20\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9605 (requires the EPA to list National
priorities for Superfund sites based on the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS). This list, known as the National Priorities List (NPL),
identifies sites that warrant further investigation and potential
remediation under CERCLA).
\21\ CRS Report R41039, supra note 1.
\22\ Environmental Contamination, supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brownfield sites drive down property values, provide little
or no tax revenue to the local area, and contribute to
community blight.\23\ EPA reports that an estimated 450,000 to
one million brownfields sites exist within the United
States.\24\ The EPA Brownfields Program aims to support states,
Tribal Nations, local communities, and other stakeholders in
their efforts to prevent, assess, remediate, and reuse
brownfield sites.\25\ The cleanup and redevelopment of these
abandoned sites and blighted properties can increase local tax
bases, promote economic development, revitalize neighborhoods,
facilitate job growth, enable the creation of public parks and
open space, or preserve existing properties.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id.
\24\ See, EPA, Brownfields--About, available at https://
www.epa.gov/brownfields/about.
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Brownfields program supports land revitalization by
providing grants and technical assistance to help communities
identify, clean up, and develop brownfield sites. The program
distributes funds that are appropriated annually by Congress
through technical assistance, competitive grants, and non-
competitive funding.\27\ Specifically, the program offers the
following types of funding assistance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ EPA, Brownfields Program Grants, available at https://
www.epa.gov/resilient-investments/brownfields-program-grants.
[hereinafter Brownfields Program Grants].
LBrownfields Assessment Grants: which provide
funding for brownfield inventories, planning, environmental
assessments, and community outreach. There are several
different types of assessment grants available.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ EPA, Brownfields Assessment Grants, available at https://
www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfields-assessment-grants.
LBrownfields Cleanup Grants: which provide funding
to carry out cleanup activities at brownfields sites owned by
the applicant. An applicant may request funding to address
either a single brownfield site or multiple sites within the
same application.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ EPA, EPA Brownfields Cleanup Grants: Interested in Applying
for Funding?, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/
2022-08/Program%20Overview_Cleanup.pdf.
LBrownfields Multipurpose Grants: which allow
communities that have identified a geographic area with one or
more brownfield sites to carry out a variety of eligible
assessment and cleanup activities in the area, such as
inventorying brownfields sites, conducting environmental
assessments, and developing an overall plan for
revitalization.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA, EPA Brownfields Multipurpose Grants: Interested in
Applying for Funding?, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
documents/2022-08/Program%20Overview_Cleanup.pdf.
LBrownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grants:
which allow eligible entities (as defined in section 104(k)(1)
of CERCLA) to capitalize revolving funds for the remediation of
brownfields, subject to the same funding limitations as direct
grants.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ EPA, Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund RLF Grants, available at
https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfields-revolving-loan-fund-rlf-
grants.
LBrownfields Job Training Grants: which provide
funding to nonprofits, local governments, and other eligible
organizations to provide training for residents impacted by
brownfield sites in their communities. Students develop skills
needed to secure employment in the hazardous and solid waste
management field.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ EPA, EPA Brownfields Job Training Grants: Interested in
Applying for Funding?, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
documents/2024-01/bfjt-program-overview.pdf.
LState and Tribal Response Program: which provides
non-competitive funding through cooperative agreements to
states and Tribes to establish or enhance their non-Federal
environmental response programs.\33\ States, Territories, and
Tribes are responsible for developing brownfields cleanup
standards and policy and conducting or overseeing the
assessment, cleanup, and reuse of brownfield sites within their
jurisdictions.\34\ EPA supports these state and Tribal programs
through this funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9628.
\34\ EPA, EPA Brownfields and Land Revitalization CERCLA Section
128(a) State and Tribal Response Program Funding, available at https://
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-09/
updated_128a_fact_sheet_final_080422.pdf
A wide range of eligible entities can apply for the
competitive grants, including local government, quasi-
governmental entities, redevelopment agencies, states,
Federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Regional
Corporations, nonprofit organizations and certain limited
liability corporations and partnerships with nonprofit
affiliations.\35\ For-profit organizations, individual entities
and nonprofit organizations exempt from taxation under section
501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that lobby are not
eligible to receive grants through the Brownfields program.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Brownfields Program Grants, supra note 23.
\36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE AND FUNDING HISTORY
Using existing CERCLA authorities, EPA originally
established a program in 1993 to provide federal assistance to
support the cleanup of brownfields properties.\37\ In 2002, the
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act (P.L. 107-118) amended CERCLA to provide explicit statutory
authority for the EPA to provide Federal grants to assist in
the cleanup of brownfields properties. It also established
new--and clarified existing--targeted CERCLA liability
protections. Because CERCLA has far-reaching liability
implications, these protections play an important role in
facilitating the redevelopment of brownfields by clarifying and
reducing potential liabilities for property owners and
developers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ CRS Report R41039, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, Congress further amended the program through the
Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development
(BUILD) Act, enacted as Division N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018.\38\ The BUILD Act reauthorized the
Brownfields program through fiscal year (FY) 2023 and made
several changes to the program, including increasing certain
per-project funding limits, providing new granting authorities,
and modifying the definition of a ``bona fide prospective
purchaser.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. Law No. 115-141,
132 Stat. 350.
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
provided a total of $1.5 billion for the program from FY 2022
through FY 2026.\40\ EPA has reported that of the $1.5 billion
provided by IIJA, $1.2 billion is allocated for direct grants
and technical assistance to communities and $300 million is
allocated for state and Tribal Response programs.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58,
135 Stat 1169.
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For FY 2024, the Brownfields program received a total of
$170 million.\42\ This included $25.7 million for program
administration, $98 million for state and Tribal Response
programs, and $46.3 million for categorical grants (which
includes funding for assessment, cleanup, multipurpose, RLF,
technical assistance, and job training grants).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Pub. Law No. 118-42,
138 Stat. 252.
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES
The Brownfields program has been generally well received by
EPA, states, communities, investors, and developers. According
to EPA, since its inception, the program has made over 10,800
sites ready for productive reuse, leveraged more than $40.4
billion in additional cleanup and redevelopment funding, and
helped to create or leverage more than 270,000 jobs.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ EPA, Fiscal Year 2025 Justification of Appropriation Estimate
for the Committee on Appropriations Tab 05: Environmental Programs and
Management (Mar. 2024) available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
documents/2024-04/fy25-cj-05-epm.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) completed two
reports on the Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grant
program in August 2017 \45\ and March 2022.\46\ These reports
focused on EPA's monitoring of the program income of RLF
grants. The OIG found in the 2017 report that--of the 20 RLF
agreements that were reviewed--approximately $10.9 million in
Federal funding was sitting idle instead of being revolved back
into other brownfields projects. This is contrary to the goal
of RLF grants, which are intended to provide an ongoing source
of capital within a community for brownfields projects. The
2017 report also identified several inconsistencies in program
application across the different EPA regions and RLF grant
recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ EPA Office of Inspector General, Improved Management of
Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Program Is Required To Maximize
Cleanups (Aug. 23, 2017) available at https://www.epaoig.gov/sites/
default/files/2017-08/documents/_epaoig_20170823-17-p-0368.pdf.
[hereinafter OIG Report 17-P-0368].
\46\ EPA Office of Inspector General, Brownfields Program-Income
Monitoring Deficiencies Persist Because EPA Did Not Complete All
Certified Corrective Actions (Mar. 31, 2022) available at https://
www.epaoig.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/_epaoig_20220331-
22-p-0033.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2022 report found that of the 17 recommendations
addressed to the Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization
(OBLR) in the 2017 report, OBLR did not fully complete the
agreed-to corrective actions for five recommendations, despite
certifying that those actions were completed.\47\ EPA recently
reported to the Committee that OBLR has committed to nine of
the corrective actions in response to six recommendations
outline in the 2022 OIG report.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Id.
\48\ EPA to Staff, H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, (Apr. 22
at 6:32p.m.) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. WITNESSES
LHon. Terry M. Wilbur, Clerk, Oswego County, New
York, on behalf of the National Association of Counties
LMs. Lisa Shook, Assistant Chief, Division of
Environmental Response and Remediation, Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
LMr. Lance Larson, Analyst in Environmental
Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division,
Congressional Research Service
LMr. Michael R. Goldstein, Esq., Managing Partner,
Goldstein Environmental Law Firm, P.A.
CLEANING UP THE PAST, BUILDING THE FUTURE: THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Collins
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Collins. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so
ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
I now recognize myself for the purpose of an opening
statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COLLINS OF GEORGIA, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Collins. I want to first thank the witnesses for
joining us this morning to discuss EPA's Brownfields Program.
As we review the program, last authorized in 2018, I am looking
forward to learning from our witnesses about their experiences
with the program, suggestions for program improvements, as well
as the tangible impacts it has had on the ground.
All of us here throughout our travels have seen abandoned
warehouses, dilapidated gas stations, or vacant factories.
Often, these blighted properties, which are eyesores in our
communities, are considered brownfields. Brownfields are
properties that are abandoned or underused due to concerns
about environmental contamination, and the EPA has estimated
that there are more than 450,000 brownfield sites across the
United States. Their redevelopment and reuse can help increase
local tax bases, create jobs, and encourage additional
development.
According to EPA, since its inception, the program has made
over 10,800 sites ready for productive reuse, leveraged more
than $40.4 billion in additional cleanup and redevelopment
funding, and helped to create or leverage more than 270,000
jobs. However, property owners and developers are often
hesitant to finance the redevelopment of these sites because of
possible liability under CERCLA.
CERCLA liability is no joke. CERCLA has extremely stringent
liability standards that could result in a current property
owner being held responsible for cleanup costs at a site, even
if there was no negligence on their part or if other parties
had previously caused the contamination.
This program provides commonsense liability relief to folks
who want to improve a degraded site. The EPA Brownfields
Program helps communities assess and evaluate contamination at
these sites and provides funding to help clean up and promote
their redevelopment.
For example, in my district in Georgia, the program
assisted the city of Greensboro in addressing contamination in
an old cotton mill. As part of this project, approximately
2,600 tons of contaminated soil were removed from the property,
and the mill was ultimately redeveloped and converted into a
71-unit apartment complex.
Federal funding through the Brownfields Program helped
attract other non-Federal project funding for assessment,
remediation, and redevelopment efforts. But we know that just
throwing hard-earned taxpayer money at problems doesn't make
them go away. That is why I also want to underscore the
importance of programmatic efficiencies and regulatory relief
when it comes to redevelopment and timely project completions.
For far too long, the EPA has placed unattainable
regulatory and bureaucratic burdens on hard-working Americans
that cost them time and money. That is why I am working with my
colleagues here in Congress and with the Trump administration
on efforts to reduce redtape and streamline the permitting
processes.
At the end of the day, these types of improvements will
help important projects get done more efficiently, whether it's
redeveloping brownfield sites or constructing an Army Corps
project. And that benefits all Americans.
[Mr. Collins' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
I want to first thank our witnesses for joining us this morning to
discuss EPA's Brownfields Program. As we review the program, last
authorized in 2018, I'm looking forward to learning from our witnesses
about their experiences with the program, suggestions for program
improvements, as well as the tangible impact it's had on the ground.
All of us here, throughout our travels, have seen abandoned
warehouses, dilapidated gas stations, or vacant factories. Often, these
blighted properties, which are eyesores in our communities, are
considered brownfields. Brownfields are properties that are abandoned
or underused due to concerns about environmental contamination. EPA has
estimated that there are more than 450,000 brownfield sites across the
United States. Their redevelopment and reuse can help increase local
tax bases, create jobs, and encourage additional development.
According to EPA, since its inception, the program has made over
10,800 sites ready for productive reuse, leveraged more than $40.4
billion in additional cleanup and redevelopment funding, and helped to
create or leverage more than 270,000 jobs.
However, property owners and developers are often hesitant to
finance the redevelopment of these sites because of possible liability
under CERCLA.
CERCLA liability is no joke. CERCLA has extremely stringent
liability standards that could result in a current property owner being
held responsible for cleanup costs at a site, even if there was no
negligence on their part or if other parties had previously caused the
contamination.
This program provides commonsense liability relief to folks who
want to improve a degraded site. The EPA Brownfields Program helps
communities assess and evaluate contamination at these sites and
provides funding to help clean up and promote their redevelopment.
For example, in my district in Georgia, the program assisted the
city of Greensboro in addressing contamination at an old cotton mill.
As part of this project, approximately 2,600 tons of contaminated soil
were removed from the property, and the mill was ultimately redeveloped
and converted into a 71-unit apartment complex.
Federal funding through the Brownfields Program helps attract other
non-federal project funding for assessment, remediation, and
redevelopment efforts. But we know that just throwing hard-earned
taxpayer money at problems doesn't make them go away.
That's why I also want to underscore the importance of programmatic
efficiencies and regulatory relief when it comes to redevelopment and
timely project completions.
For far too long, the EPA has placed untenable regulatory and
bureaucratic burdens on hard-working Americans that cost them time and
money. That's why I am working with my colleagues here in Congress and
with the Trump Administration on efforts to reduce red tape and
streamline permitting processes.
At the end of the day, these types of improvements will help
important projects get done more efficiently--whether it's redeveloping
Brownfields sites or constructing an Army Corps project. And that
benefits all Americans.
Mr. Collins. I now recognize Ranking Member Wilson for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FREDERICA S. WILSON OF FLORIDA,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting today's discussion on
how Federal brownfields investments help to revitalize our
communities.
EPA's Brownfields Program has, on most accounts, been
successful in redeveloping abandoned or underutilized
properties throughout the Nation. According to EPA, roughly
half of the U.S. population lives within 3 miles of a
brownfields site that receives EPA funding, which includes
sites in rural, Tribal, and economically disadvantaged
communities.
As of December 2023, EPA brownfields grants have prepared
over 10,800 properties for productive use and leveraged over
270,000 jobs and over $40.4 billion in private investment.
I have heard questions on whether all communities have
equally benefited from this critical redevelopment investment
or whether this investment has actually benefited those who
have had to suffer with legacy contamination for decades. But
those questions do not undermine the fact that the program is
making a difference in revitalizing neighborhoods.
Many States and local governments, such as my home State of
Florida and Miami-Dade County, have been leaders in the
implementation of the Brownfields Law.
In its brief history as a State-delegated Brownfields
Program, Miami-Dade County has successfully assessed and
remediated 31 brownfields sites, with an additional 74 sites
under active review.
I hope to learn more about these efforts from our witness,
Mr. Goldstein--welcome, Mr. Goldstein--who worked on projects
at contaminated sites in over 90 jurisdictions across the State
of Florida.
Continued success in brownfields redevelopment depends on
continued Federal partnerships with, and funding for, States,
local governments, redevelopment interests, and community
leaders. Yet, this success is undermined by the chaos that the
President and his Republican allies in Congress continue to
create with their management of the Government and the economy.
This economic chaos created by the President and rubberstamped
by Republicans in Congress continues to push up inflation and
the cost of groceries and other commodities, and push down
consumer confidence.
In just over 100 days, American families are paying more
and getting less, and this trend continues.
States have already testified that the President's
disruption in water infrastructure financing was having an
impact on local redevelopment projects, resulting in project
delays, increased costs, and the potential abandonment of local
projects.
This uncertainty is equally felt within the brownfields
community and made worse by the President's proposal to cut the
Environmental Protection Agency's investment by a minimum of 65
percent. This Republican economic chaos threatens the jobs of
laborers, manufacturers, and brownfields redevelopers, and
threatens to decimate our national, regional, and local
economies.
Our communities cannot withstand further setbacks caused by
the Republicans' efforts to drive our economy into the ground.
We cannot allow the President and his allies to hurt American
families and increase costs and public health risks.
I stand with our communities who are trying to affordably
meet their local needs and keep our families safe, healthy, and
prosperous.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[Ms. Wilson of Florida's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting today's discussion on how
federal brownfields investments help to revitalize our communities.
EPA's Brownfields Program has, on most accounts, been successful in
redeveloping abandoned or under-utilized properties throughout the
nation.
According to EPA, roughly half of the U.S. population lives within
three miles of a brownfields site that receives EPA funding--which
includes sites in rural, Tribal, and economically-disadvantaged
communities.
As of December 2023, EPA brownfields grants have prepared over
10,800 properties for productive use and leveraged over 270 thousand
jobs and over $40.4 billion in private investment.
I have heard questions whether all communities have equally
benefited from this critical redevelopment investment or whether this
investment has actually benefited those who have had to suffer with
legacy contamination for decades.
But those questions do not undermine the fact that the program is
making a difference in revitalizing neighborhoods.
Many States and local governments, such as my home state of Florida
and Miami-Dade County, have been leaders in the implementation of the
brownfields law.
In its brief history as a state-delegated Brownfields Program,
Miami-Dade County has successfully assessed and remediated 31
brownfields sites, with an additional 74 sites under active review.
I hope to learn more about these efforts from our witness, Mr.
Goldstein, who worked on projects at contaminated sites in over 90
jurisdictions across the state of Florida.
Continued success in brownfields redevelopment depends on continued
federal partnerships with, and funding for, states, local governments,
redevelopment interests and community leaders.
Yet, this success is undermined by the chaos that the President,
and his Republican allies in Congress, continue to create with their
management of the government and the economy.
This economic chaos created by the President, and rubber stamped by
Republicans in Congress, continues to push up inflation and the costs
of groceries and other commodities, and push down consumer confidence.
In just over 100 days, American families are paying more and
getting less--and this trend continues.
States have already testified that the President's disruption in
water infrastructure financing was having an impact on local
redevelopment projects--resulting in project delays, increased costs
and the potential abandonment of local projects.
This uncertainty is equally felt within the brownfields community
and made worse by the President's proposal to zero out EPA investments
in brownfields and other critical grant programs.
The President's indifference to the needs of everyday Americans is
striking. The economic chaos he creates, and that my Republican
colleagues' silence seems to encourage, threatens the jobs of laborers,
manufacturers and brownfields redevelopers and threatens to decimate
our national, regional and local economies.
Our communities cannot withstand further setbacks caused by the
Republicans' vainglorious efforts to drive our economy into the ground.
We cannot allow the President and his allies to burden American
families with increased costs and public health risks.
I stand with our communities who are trying to affordably meet
their local needs and keep our families safe, healthy and prosperous.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses, and thank you
for being here today. We have the Honorable Terry Wilbur from
Oswego County, as the Oswego County clerk, on behalf of the
National Association of Counties.
There, I didn't butcher it.
Mr. Wilbur. You did good.
Mr. Collins. We also have Ms. Lisa Shook, assistant chief
of the Environmental Response and Remediation Division of the
Ohio EPA; Mr. Lance Larson, analyst in environmental policy at
the Congressional Research Service; and Mr. Michael Goldstein,
managing partner at The Goldstein Environmental Law Firm.
Briefly, I am going to take just a moment to explain our
lighting system. As you know, there are three lights there, the
green is when you begin to talk. The yellow will light up as it
gets near the end of the time, and of course if it turns red,
then go ahead and please wrap up so that we don't have to bang
the gavel on you.
I also ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full
statements be included in the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
As your written testimony has been made part of the record,
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5
minutes.
With that, Mr. Wilbur, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TERRY M. WILBUR, CLERK, OSWEGO COUNTY, NEW
YORK, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; LISA
SHOOK, ASSISTANT CHIEF, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE AND
REMEDIATION, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; LANCE N.
LARSON, ANALYST IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
SERVICE; AND MICHAEL R. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ., MANAGING PARTNER, THE
GOLDSTEIN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FIRM, P.A.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TERRY M. WILBUR, CLERK, OSWEGO COUNTY, NEW
YORK, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
Mr. Wilbur. Thank you, Chair.
Chair Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
today. My name is Terry Wilbur, and I serve as the county clerk
for Oswego County, New York. Today, I am here on behalf of the
National Association of Counties, which represents all 3,069
counties, parishes, and boroughs throughout the country,
including all 62 in my home State of New York.
Today's hearing is of great importance to counties as we
are responsible for protecting the environment, ensuring public
health, and strengthening the economic vitality of our
communities. The EPA Brownfields Program is a highly effective
Federal program that helps counties redevelop underutilized,
contaminated sites to reinvigorate communities and their
economies, as well.
There are over 450,000 brownfield sites, and 63 percent of
counties have at least 1 brownfield site. However, many
counties have more than 1 brownfield site, including my county,
Oswego County, where we have 125 sites.
As many of you know, a brownfield site is an abandoned or
vacant property that has been exposed to hazardous substances
or contaminants. Brownfield sites range from former industrial
complexes to older public buildings and even smaller properties
such as former gas stations.
While the presence of brownfield sites can present land-use
challenges and negatively impact property values, redevelopment
can spur economic growth and revitalize the surrounding
environment.
Oswego County is a rural county located in upstate New York
that borders Lake Ontario, with a population of 118,000
residents. Oswego County has received two brownfields
assessment grants, one in 2004 and another in 2022. This
funding has been used to identify the 125 brownfield sites that
we have and conduct the environmental assessments necessary for
redevelopment at several sites.
Some completed brownfield assessments and projects in
Oswego County include two housing developments on the Oswego
riverfront--the Stevedore Lofts and Harbor View Apartments--
that together created 108 housing units and 5 commercial
leasing spaces, with a total investment of $30 million.
We were also able to leverage brownfield assessment funding
to receive grant funding from the State to restore the historic
Oswego Lighthouse, which is now open for public tours in the
heart of our major city.
The Federal investment from the Brownfields Program is
crucial for both urban and rural counties. In Oswego County, we
would not have been able to complete this work without the
brownfields funding we received.
To that end, counties have the following recommendations
for the committee. Our first recommendation is to reauthorize
the Brownfields Program. Congress should reauthorize the
Brownfields Program to ensure that this critical source of
Federal funding remains available to counties for brownfields
assessments, cleanup, and redevelopment, as well as providing
incentives for private investment in our communities.
Our second recommendation is to increase funding levels for
the Brownfields Program. Congress should increase the overall
authorization level for the Brownfields Program to allow more
counties to address brownfield sites. In many States, counties
are severely constrained in our ability to both raise and
collect tax revenues. However, counties must still deliver
essential services to our residents and visitors despite these
limitations.
Counties are very grateful for the additional funds
provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for the
Brownfields Program. However, there is still a clear need for
increased funding as thousands of sites are still waiting to be
redeveloped.
Additionally, NACo recommends increasing the cleanup grant
ceiling to $1 million and the flexibility to award up to $2
million due to complexity of the cleanup process and to allow
communities to clean up more sites.
Our third and final recommendation is to increase the
administrative cap on Brownfields Program grants. Congress
should allow counties to use a small portion of their
brownfield funding to cover reasonable administrative costs.
Many rural counties face difficulties in accessing Federal
funds as they have limited staff, expertise, and financial
resources available to complete these complex grant
applications or to comply with the burdensome reporting.
In conclusion, counties recognize the Brownfields Program
is a vital component of the intergovernmental partnership to
drive economic development, address environmental concerns, and
protect public health.
I would also like to thank the U.S. Conference of Mayors
and National League of Cities who have been great partners in
our joint efforts to reauthorize the Brownfields Program.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue, and I
urge your support for reauthorization of the Brownfields
Program. And I want to thank you again for the opportunity to
testify today. I look forward to answering any questions you
may have. Thank you.
[Mr. Wilbur's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Terry M. Wilbur, Clerk, Oswego County, New
York, on behalf of the National Association of Counties
Introduction
Chair Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Brownfields Program. I also
want to thank Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen for their
leadership and support of the Brownfields Program at the full committee
level.
My name is Terry Wilbur, and I serve as the County Clerk for Oswego
County, New York. Today I am here on behalf of the National Association
of Counties (NACo), which represents all 3,069 counties, parishes and
boroughs throughout the country, including the 62 counties in my home
state of New York.
Today's hearing is of great importance to both urban and rural
counties as we are responsible for protecting the environment, ensuring
public health and strengthening the economic vitality of our
communities. The EPA Brownfields Program is a highly successful and
effective federal program that helps counties redevelop underutilized,
contaminated sites to reinvigorate entire communities and their
economies.
As many of you know, a Brownfields site is an abandoned or vacant
property that has been exposed to hazardous substances or contaminants.
Brownfields sites range from former industrial complexes to older
public buildings and even smaller properties such as former gas
stations. EPA estimates there are over 450,000 brownfield sites
throughout the country and 63 percent of counties have at least one
Brownfield site in their boundaries. However, many counties have more
than one Brownfield site, including Oswego County, with 125 identified
sites. While the presence of Brownfield sites can present land use
challenges and negatively impact property values, redevelopment can
spur economic growth and revitalize the surrounding environment.
About NACo
Founded in 1935, NACo is the only national organization that
represents county governments in the United States and brings together
county officials to advocate with a collective voice on national
policy, exchange ideas, build new leadership skills, pursue
transformational county solutions, enrich the public's understanding of
county government and exercise exemplary leadership in public service.
About America's Counties
Counties employ more than 3.6 million Americans who support 1,900
local public health departments, 900 hospitals, 700 long-term care
facilities, 750 behavioral health centers and 91 percent of local
jails. Counties also maintain 44 percent of America's roads, 38 percent
of bridges, a third of airports and 40 percent of the nation's public
transit systems. We are responsible for emergency operations, 911
services, public safety and protective services for vulnerable
populations. Counties are also environmental stewards responsible for
protecting local water, air and land resources. Annually, counties
invest nearly $743 billion in our communities, including more than $146
billion in public infrastructure and facilities.
Counties are highly diverse and vary immensely in natural
resources, social and political systems, cultural, economic and
structural circumstances, and public health and environmental
responsibilities. Counties range in area from 26 square miles
(Arlington County, Virginia) to 87,860 square miles (North Slope
Borough, Alaska). The population of counties varies from Loving County,
Texas, with just under 100 residents, to Los Angeles County,
California, which is home to nearly ten million people. Of the nation's
3,069 counties, approximately 70 percent are considered ``rural,'' with
populations less than 50,000, and 50 percent of these have populations
below 25,000. At the same time, there are more than 120 major urban
counties, which collectively provide essential services to more than
130 million people every day.
Many of our responsibilities are mandated by federal and state
governments. Although counties cover a wide range of responsibilities,
most states require counties to carry out a range of critical services
and support for our residents. These responsibilities include
construction and maintenance of roads, bridges and other
infrastructure, assessment of property taxes, record keeping,
administering elections and overseeing jails, court systems and public
hospitals. Land use planning, environmental protection and local and
regional economic development are critical components of these
responsibilities and often converge around the reuse of Brownfields.
About Oswego County
Oswego County is a rural county located in upstate New York that
borders Lake Ontario. The total population of the county is 118,000
people, most of which is concentrated in the cities of Oswego and
Fulton that border the Oswego River. Oswego County has 125 Brownfield
sites, many of which are former industrial facilities. Between 1980-
2010 the county's industrial base declined as major companies such as
Nestle, Hammermill and Miller Brewing closed their doors. Many of these
once prosperous facilities with prime waterfront locations became
vacant properties contaminated with hazardous substances.
Oswego County is also home to the Port of Oswego, the first U.S.
port of call and deepwater port on the Great Lakes from the St.
Lawrence Seaway. Located on Lake Ontario on route to the interior of
North America, we are accessible from any international port in the
world. The historical port is also home to Oswego Marina, Goble Marina,
the H. Lee White Marine Museum, and historic maritime district. The
Port of Oswego's strategic location at the crossroads of the
Northeastern North American shipping market, puts us less than 350
miles from 60 million people. Extend that to 750 miles and we reach
half of the United States and Canadian population, and half of their
business and manufacturing facilities. The Port of Oswego is New York
State's only Grain Export Center on Lake Ontario and home to 14
companies that utilize the Port for both their domestic and
international operations. A 2023 U.S./Canadian research study shows
that the Port of Oswego Authority makes a $513 million impact on the
local and regional economy and supports 2,229 jobs by its maritime
activity.
Oswego County has received two Brownfields Assessment grants,
$400,000 in 2004 and $500,000 in 2022. This funding has been used to
identify the 125 Brownfield sites and conduct the environmental site
assessments necessary for redevelopment at several sites. The
Brownfields assessment grants are critical to our ability to repurpose
Brownfield sites and turn these once blighted properties into tax
revenue generators for the county. We would not be able to do this work
without the assessment grants we have received.
Some completed Brownfields assessment and redevelopment projects in
Oswego County include:
The Stevedore Lofts--a multi-use historic building
located on the Oswego River featuring apartments, office, and retail
space ideal for commuters to and from Syracuse and convenient access to
SUNY Oswego.
The Harborview apartments--a vacant lot that now hosts an
apartment complex of four buildings. The former blighted condition and
underutilization of the property negatively impacted downtown, the
waterfront, and the gateway to the waterfront. The redevelopment of the
site plays an integral role in the creation of the waterfront corridor
by connecting the downtown business district to the western waterfront
district. Together these two housing developments have added 108
housing units and 5 commercial leasing spaces with a total investment
of $30 million.
The Oswego West Pierhead Lighthouse--the Brownfield
assessment grant funded a Phase I assessment which allowed the State to
ultimately provide grant funding for the exterior restoration of this
historic site. As a result, this ultimately saved this historic gem
which is iconic to the historic landscape of the port city. Now there
are historic tours that are offered, and the site is saved for future
generations.
Former Columbia Mills Superfund site--this site is
located in the city of Minetto on the Oswego River. The Phase I
assessment for this site was recently completed and we are currently in
talks with a potential developer for up to 96 housing units.
Lake Ontario Industrial Park--a 50 acre facility within
an Oswego Opportunity Zone located one mile from the Port of Oswego and
12 miles from the Oswego County Airport, is prime for future expansion
for commercial purposes or housing. The Phase I assessment is completed
and a Phase 2 assessment is needed to continue working toward the
future of this property.
Former Nestle Building--a Phase I assessment has been
completed, and we are working on a Phase II assessment to work toward
the safest way to remove the hazardous chemicals that are still present
on the property.
As you can see from these examples, the Brownfields Program has
been very successful in Oswego County. However, with 125 brownfield
sites throughout the county there is still much work to be done.
Impact of Brownfields on Counties
While the presence of Brownfields sites can negatively impact
county governments from both an economic and environmental perspective,
there are multiple benefits associated with redeveloping these sites.
By providing funding for redevelopment, the EPA Brownfields Program
benefits counties by both spurring economic growth and protecting
public health and the environment.
Economic development is important for counties because it helps to
retain and grow jobs and investment within a community. The tax base
that is created through this growth and investment is used by counties
to provide essential services such as police and fire, road and bridge
construction, transit operations, senior services, parks and
recreation, library services and more. In many states, counties are
severely constrained in their ability to raise and collect tax revenue.
Forty-two states limit county property tax authority, and restrictions
have expanded extensively in recent decades. In New York counties are
subject to an annual statewide property tax growth cap of 2 percent and
must receive permission from the State to levy a sales tax greater than
3 percent. Despite limitations and unfunded mandates placed on counties
from both federal and state governments, counties must still deliver
essential services to our residents and visitors.
The EPA Brownfields Program is a critical tool for counties to
bolster our economic development by providing support for cleaning up
and reusing Brownfields sites which, in turn, strengthens the local
economy, creates new jobs and increases the tax base. Brownfields
redevelopment has been an indispensable component of our economic
development in Oswego County. Any changes to the federal program and
its requirements would directly affect our residents and our local
economy.
County governments play a critical role in addressing environmental
and public health concerns at Brownfield sites. While these sites are
generally not considered ``highly contaminated,'' the types and levels
of contaminants present can vary and may directly or indirectly impact
groundwater and the surrounding land and buildings. Types of
contaminants include lead, asbestos, petroleum products, treated wood,
industrial chemicals and diesel fuel. To fully protect human health,
safeguard the environment and foster economic development, cleanup and
redevelopment of these sites are necessary. The EPA Brownfields Program
helps counties achieve these goals.
Recommendations for the reauthorization of the EPA Brownfields Program
The federal investment from the Brownfields Program is crucial for
both urban and rural counties by providing funds needed for the cleanup
and redevelopment of contaminated sites, which helps to attract new
business and provide new economic development opportunities for our
communities. The Brownfields Program has historically been a highly
successful federal program and should be reauthorized and properly
funded by Congress.
Counties offer the following recommendations to Congress regarding
the Brownfields Program:
1) Reauthorize the Brownfields Program
Congress should reauthorize the Brownfields Program to ensure that
this critical source of federal funding remains available to counties
for Brownfields assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment, as well as
providing incentives for private investment in our communities.
Brownfields exist in rural as well as urban and suburban counties and
redevelopment of these abandoned or underutilized sites is vital in
stimulating economic revitalization in these areas in counties across
the United States.
It is essential that federal resources remain available for
counties. As such, NACo urges Congress to reauthorize the EPA
Brownfields Program.
2) Increase funding levels for the Brownfields Program
Many Brownfield sites remain underutilized because of the limited
availability of funds to identify and clean up contaminated sites. It
is difficult for counties to fund Brownfields projects without federal
support due to high remediation costs and associated regulatory issues.
Congress should increase the overall authorization level for the
Brownfields Program to allow more counties to address Brownfield sites.
Counties greatly appreciate the $1.5 billion provided for the
Brownfields Program by Congress in the bipartisan Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). However, the previous Brownfields
reauthorization legislation, the Brownfields Utilization, Investment,
and Local Development Act of 2018 authorized the Brownfields Program at
$200 million per fiscal year which is the same level of funding that
was authorized in 2002. While authorized funding has remained stagnant,
the cost of addressing and effectively remediating these sites has
grown significantly. NACo urges Congress to increase the funding
authorizations in Brownfields reauthorization legislation.
Additionally, counties recommend increasing the cleanup grant
ceiling to $1 million with the flexibility to award up to $2 million in
special circumstances in recognition of the complexity of the cleanup
process and provide greater certainty for long-term project financing,
as well as increased flexibility.
3) Increase the administrative cap on Brownfields Program grants
Congress should increase the cap on administrative costs in future
reauthorization legislation. This would allow counties to use a small
portion of their Brownfields funding to cover reasonable administrative
costs that are necessary for carrying out the functional purpose of the
grant. Many rural counties face difficulties in accessing federal funds
as they have limited staff, expertise and financial resources available
to complete complex grant applications or to comply with burdensome
reporting requirements. Counties support increasing this cap to provide
additional flexibility for administrative costs so that rural counties
can continue to take advantage of this critical program.
Conclusion
Chair Collins, Ranking Member Wilson and distinguished subcommittee
members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the positive
impact of the EPA's Brownfields Program on America's counties. I would
also like to thank U.S. Conference of Mayors and National League of
Cities, who have both been great partners in our joint efforts to
modernize and reauthorize the Brownfields Program.
Counties recognize the Brownfields Program as a vital component of
the intergovernmental partnership to drive economic development, create
good jobs, address environmental concerns, and protect public health.
The Brownfields Program has proven incredibly successful and will
continue to be successful if reauthorized and properly funded.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue. We urge you
to reauthorize the Brownfields Program and look forward to working
together.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Ms. Shook, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF LISA SHOOK, ASSISTANT CHIEF, DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE AND REMEDIATION, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Shook. Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member
Wilson, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to share Ohio's
perspective on the reauthorization of U.S. EPA's Brownfields
Program.
Across Ohio and the United States, thousands of former
industrial and commercial sites sit idle, tainted by
environmental contamination. These brownfields become urban
blights and contribute to economic decline, public health
risks, and neighborhood stagnation.
The Brownfields Program administered by U.S. EPA offers a
consistent and effective solution. The program facilitates the
identification, assessment, cleanup, and reuse of these
properties, revitalizing communities and stimulating economic
growth.
State and Tribal assistance grants are noncompetitive
grants authorized under section 128(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as
amended. These grants are the foundation of States' Brownfields
Programs.
U.S. EPA allows States flexibility to design their
Brownfields Programs to benefit each State's needs, while also
providing consistency by requiring that all grantees meet four
elements. The first is a survey and inventory of brownfield
sites. Second is oversight and enforcement authorities to
ensure that cleanups are protective of human health and the
environment. Third is mechanisms for meaningful public
participation, and fourth is mechanisms for approval of cleanup
plans and verification or certification that cleanup is
complete.
With these four elements, the section 128(a) funds have a
wide variety of uses, including providing funds to complete
environmental assessments to properties to meet all appropriate
inquiry or voluntary cleanup program requirements, phase 2
sampling, and asbestos and lead inspections.
Last Federal fiscal year, Ohio funded 20 assessments
through our standard allocation and 63 through our supplemental
allocation provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act.
The grant enables the State to incorporate local input into
redevelopment planning, including infrastructure evaluations
and site reuse assessments. This effort aims to help
communities reinvent their lake and riverfronts, main streets,
and industrial corridors, creating parks, housing, mixed-use
development, and commercial centers to stimulate job creation,
tourism, and tax revenues.
This community-driven approach ensures that redevelopment
serves the people most affected by these long neglected
properties. For example, in Shadyside, Ohio, we are working
with the community to develop a brownfield vision plan that
includes a brownfield inventory, market study, community
outreach and survey, brownfield site reuse renderings, and a
resource roadmap of how to move forward with the selected
projects.
We recently completed a brownfield vision plan in Bellaire,
Ohio, where we are now working on a reuse assessment to create
viable reuse scenarios for their downtown corridor.
Our program supports local officials in preparing grant
applications for the competitive brownfield grants by providing
workshops to further build their capacity to apply for and hold
Federal grants. And for the last round of grant applications,
we supported 14 communities in applying for their own
brownfield grants. These workshops also educate local
communities about the many brownfield issues and incentives
that are available at the State and Federal level.
We routinely meet with community officials and others to
assist them in working through the assessment and cleanup of
brownfield properties and provide much needed grant-funded
technical support and recommendations. Last Federal fiscal
year, Ohio brownfields staff met with 60 communities, gave 12
presentations on brownfield issues, and provided 18 communities
with grant-funded technical assistance.
The grant also supports the State's voluntary cleanup
programs which provide the foundation for setting cleanup goals
and implementing institutional controls. In Ohio, our voluntary
cleanup program was created in 1994. We call it the Voluntary
Action Program. To date, the Voluntary Action Program has
achieved cleanup at 750 sites, allowing over 17,000 acres to be
reused across Ohio. The grant allows us to fund long-term
oversight activities to ensure these sites remain protective of
human health and the environment.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided an
additional $50 million through a competitive communitywide
assessment grant for States and Tribes. In Federal fiscal year
2022, Ohio was awarded nearly $2 million to conduct additional
assessments. With these funds, Ohio's Brownfields Program has
completed another 62 assessments within the award period, for a
total of 145 assessments over our 3 grants.
Since 2023, Ohio's section 128(a) funds and communitywide
assessment grant have leveraged $54 million in additional
State-funded brownfield assessment and cleanup dollars, and
prior evaluations by U.S. EPA show that over $20 was leveraged
for each dollar of EPA brownfield funds spent on assessment and
cleanup activities.
The Brownfields Program is a great example of how
environmental cleanup and economic revitalization are not
competing priorities, but complementary goals that can help
build a stronger future for all Americans.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts today,
and I look forward to your questions.
[Ms. Shook's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa Shook, Assistant Chief, Division of
Environmental Response and Remediation, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and members
of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to share Ohio's perspective on the reauthorization of U.S. EPA's
Brownfield Program.
Across Ohio and the United States, thousands of former industrial
and commercial sites sit idle, tainted by environmental contamination.
These brownfields become urban blights and contribute to economic
decline, public health risks, and neighborhood stagnation.
The brownfield program administered by the U.S. EPA offers a
consistent and effective solution. The program facilitates the
identification, assessment, cleanup, and reuse of these properties,
revitalizing communities and stimulating economic growth.
State and tribal assistance grants are noncompetitive grants
authorized under Section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), as amended.
These grants are the foundation of states' brownfield programs. U.S.
EPA allows states flexibility to design their brownfield programs to
benefit each state's needs while also providing consistency by
requiring that all grantees meet four elements:
1. A survey and inventory of brownfield sites,
2. Oversight and enforcement authorities ensure that cleanups are
protective of human health and the environment,
3. Mechanisms for meaningful public participation, and,
4. Mechanisms for approval of cleanup plans, and verification or
certification that cleanup is complete.
Within these four elements, the 128(a) funds have a wide variety of
uses, including providing funds to complete environmental assessments
of properties to meet all appropriate inquiry or voluntary cleanup
program requirements, Phase II sampling, and asbestos and lead
inspections. Last federal fiscal year, Ohio funded 20 assessments
through our standard allocation and 63 through our supplemental
allocation provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The grant enables the state to incorporate local input into
redevelopment planning, including infrastructure evaluations and site
re-use assessments. This effort aims to help communities reinvent their
lake and riverfronts, main streets, and industrial corridors, creating
parks, housing, mixed-use development, and commercial centers to
stimulate job creation, tourism, and tax revenues. This community-
driven approach ensures that redevelopment serves the people most
affected by these long-neglected properties. For example, in Shadyside,
Ohio, we are working with the community to develop a Brownfield Vision
Plan that includes a brownfield inventory, market study, community
outreach, and survey, brownfield site reuse renderings, and a resource
roadmap of how to move forward with the selected projects. We recently
completed a brownfield vision plan in Bellaire, Ohio, and we are now
working on a downtown reuse assessment to create viable reuse scenarios
for their downtown corridor.
Our program also supports local officials in preparing grant
applications for the competitive brownfield grants providing workshops
to further build their capacity to apply for and hold federal grants.
For the last round of grant applications, Ohio's program supported 14
communities in applying for their own brownfield grants. These
workshops also educate local communities about the many brownfield
issues and the incentives that are available at the state and federal
level.
We routinely meet with community officials and others to assist
them in working through the assessment and cleanup of brownfield
properties and provide much-needed grant-funded technical support and
recommendations. Last federal fiscal year, Ohio brownfields staff met
with 60 communities, gave 12 presentations on brownfield issues, and
provided 18 communities with grant-funded technical assistance.
The grant also supports the state's Voluntary Cleanup Programs
(VCP), which provide the foundation for setting cleanup goals and
implementing institutional controls. In Ohio, our voluntary clean-up
program was created in 1994; we call it the Voluntary Action Program.
To date, the Voluntary Action Program has achieved clean-up at 750
sites, allowing over 17,000 acres to be reused across Ohio. The grant
allows us to fund long-term oversight activities to ensure these sites
remain protective of human health and the environment.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided an additional
$50 million through a competitive Community-Wide Assessment Grant for
States and Tribes. In federal fiscal year 2022, Ohio was awarded nearly
$2 million to conduct additional assessments. With these additional
funds, Ohio's brownfield program has completed another 62 assessments
within the award period, for a total of 145 assessments over our 3
grants.
Since 2023, Ohio's 128(a) funds and Community-Wide Assessment Grant
have leveraged $54 million in additional state-funded brownfield
assessment and cleanup dollars, and prior evaluations by U.S. EPA
showed that $20.13 was leveraged for each dollar of EPA brownfield
funds spent on assessment and cleanup activities.
The Brownfield program is a great example of how environmental
cleanup and economic revitalization are not competing priorities but
complementary goals that can help build a stronger future for all
Americans.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts today, and I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Larson for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF LANCE N. LARSON, ANALYST IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Mr. Larson. Thank you.
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Lance Larson. I am an analyst in
environmental policy with the Congressional Research Service.
Thank you for inviting me today to testify on behalf of CRS
regarding the Federal Brownfields Program.
In serving Congress on a nonpartisan and objective basis,
CRS takes no position on these issues. I have been asked by the
subcommittee today to provide a broad overview of the Federal
Brownfields Program, including a brief history of the program,
liability considerations, and other policy matters for
Congress.
Enacted in 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, otherwise known as
the Superfund Law, authorizes environmental cleanup and
enforcement actions to respond to actual or threatened releases
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the
environment.
Under CERCLA, the U.S. EPA, in coordination with the
States, prioritizes the cleanup of contaminated sites on non-
Federal lands under the Federal Superfund Program.
In 1993, EPA established a pilot initiative under the
Superfund Program to assist communities with the remediation of
certain lower risk contaminated sites to encourage or
facilitate economic redevelopment or reuse. EPA referred to
these properties as ``brownfields,'' to distinguish them from
both higher risk contaminated sites designated on the National
Priorities List under the Superfund Program and from other
sites where Federal response actions were taken to address
emergency situations.
In 2002, Congress amended CERCLA to authorize EPA to
administer a dedicated Brownfields Program separately from the
Superfund Program.
In 2018, Congress enacted the BUILD Act, which amended
CERCLA to reauthorize the Brownfields Program. The BUILD Act
extended the authorizations of appropriations through fiscal
year 2023, among other statutory changes to the program.
As it functions today, the Federal Brownfields Program
provides grant assistance to State, local, Tribal governments,
and nonprofit organizations for the assessment and cleanup of
potentially contaminated sites.
CERCLA defines eligible brownfield sites as ``real
property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may
be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.''
CERCLA generally excludes sites from brownfields grant
eligibility that are addressed under the Superfund Program or
under other related Federal cleanup programs and authorities.
Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Federal
Brownfields Program provides two types of grants: those that
EPA awards on a competitive basis for assessment and cleanup of
eligible brownfield sites, and those that are awarded on a
formula basis to assist States and Tribes in carrying out their
own cleanup programs.
Congress funds these grants annually through the
discretionary appropriations process.
The Brownfields Program statutory authorities do not have a
sunset date; however, authorization of appropriations for the
Brownfields Programs grants expired at the end of fiscal year
2023, and Congress has continued to appropriate funding
annually to implement the Brownfields Program. Annual
appropriations have been less than authorized amounts and have
remained relatively constant, in nominal terms, since fiscal
year 2003.
In addition to prior appropriations, Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act provided an additional total of $1.5
billion over a 5-year period through fiscal year 2026.
CERCLA provides a mechanism to compel potentially
responsible parties to pay for the cleanup of hazardous
substances. CERCLA established financial liability for those
parties, which may include current or former owners and
operators of a site; generators and parties that arrange for
the transport, disposal, and treatment of hazardous substances;
and transporters of hazardous substances to a facility.
These categories of parties are generally prohibited from
obtaining a brownfields grant. However, Congress amended CERCLA
to provide certain liability exemptions designed in tandem to
work with the Brownfields Program.
If Congress considers reauthorization in this session, as
it has done in the past, Congress may consider certain elements
of this Brownfields Program, such as the duration of
reauthorization, statutory caps on grant amounts, criteria for
assessing grant applications, and past and future expected
program outcomes.
This concludes my prepared statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today. I would be
happy to address any questions you may have.
[Mr. Larson's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lance N. Larson, Analyst in Environmental Policy,
Congressional Research Service
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Lance Larson. I am an Analyst in Environmental
Policy for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Thank you for
inviting me to testify on behalf of CRS regarding the federal
Brownfields program.
In serving Congress on a non-partisan and objective basis, CRS
takes no position on these issues. I have been asked by the
Subcommittee today to provide a broad overview of the federal
Brownfields program, including a brief history of the program, some
liability considerations, and other policy matters for Congress. CRS
remains available to assist the Subcommittee with these and related
issues.
History of Brownfields Program
Enacted in 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),\1\ otherwise known as the
``Superfund Law'', authorizes environmental cleanup and enforcement
actions to respond to actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the environment. Under
CERCLA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in coordination
with the states, prioritizes the cleanup of contaminated sites on non-
federal lands under the federal Superfund Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P.L. 96-510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1993, EPA established a pilot initiative under the Superfund
program to assist communities with the remediation of certain lower
risk contaminated sites to encourage or facilitate economic
redevelopment or reuse. EPA referred to these properties as
``brownfields'' to distinguish them from both higher-risk contaminated
sites designated on the National Priorities List under the Superfund
program and from other sites where federal response actions were taken
to address emergency situations. In 2002, Congress amended CERCLA to
authorize EPA to administer a dedicated Brownfields program separately
from the Superfund program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Title II of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act of 2002; P.L. 107-118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, Congress enacted the BUILD Act, which amended CERCLA to
reauthorize the Brownfields program.\3\ The BUILD Act extended the
authorizations of appropriations through FY2023, expanded the
eligibility criteria for non-profit organizations, and increased the
maximum dollar limit for individual remediation grants, among other
statutory changes to the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, P.L. 115-141; Division
N--``BUILD Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview of Brownfields Program
As it functions today, the federal Brownfields program provides
grant assistance to state, local, and tribal governments and non-profit
organizations for the assessment and cleanup of potentially
contaminated sites. CERCLA defines eligible brownfields sites as ``real
property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be
complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant.''
CERCLA generally excludes sites from Brownfields grant eligibility
that are addressed under the Superfund program or other related federal
cleanup programs or authorities. These exclusions generally are
intended to avoid potential overlap or duplication of cleanup
resources.
Subject to the availability of appropriations, the federal
Brownfields program provides two types of grants--those that EPA awards
on a competitive basis for the assessment and cleanup of eligible
brownfields sites and those that are noncompetitively awarded on a
formula basis to assist states and tribes in carrying out their own
cleanup programs. Congress funds these grants annually through the
discretionary appropriations process.
The Brownfields program's statutory authorities do not have a
sunset date. However, authorization of appropriations for the
Brownfields program grants expired at the end of FY2023, and Congress
has continued to appropriate funding annually to implement the
Brownfields program. From FY2019 to FY2024, annual appropriations were
generally less than the authorized amounts of $200 million for
competitive grants and $50 million for state and tribal formula grants.
Appropriations have remained relatively constant in nominal terms since
FY 2003. In addition to prior appropriations, the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act \4\ provided a total of $1.5 billion over a 5-
year period from FY2022 through FY2026. Of that amount, $1.2 billion
would be provided for the competitive grants and $300 million for state
and tribal formula grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ P.L. 117-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liability
CERCLA provides a mechanism to compel ``potentially responsibility
parties'' (PRPs) to perform or pay for a cleanup of hazardous
substances. CERCLA established financial liability for PRPs, which may
include the current or former owner or operator of a facility;
generators and parties that arranged for the transport, disposal, or
treatment of hazardous substances; and transporters of hazardous
substances to a facility. PRPs are generally prohibited from obtaining
a Brownfields grant in order to hold liable parties responsible for the
costs of cleanup and to minimize burden on the federal taxpayer.
In response to CERCLA liability concerns over acquiring and
redeveloping certain properties, Congress amended CERCLA to provide
certain liability exemptions designed to work in tandem with the
Brownfields program. For example, Congress provided a liability
exemption for ``bona fide'' prospective purchasers if the property is
acquired in a contaminated condition, the purchaser is not otherwise a
liable party at the site, and the purchaser conducted ``All Appropriate
Inquiries'' into the prior uses of the property prior to the
acquisition to determine whether contamination may be present.
Additionally, Congress clarified that state or local governments that
acquire a property involuntarily through bankruptcy, tax delinquency,
abandonment, or other circumstances are exempt from owner or operator
liability under CERCLA, so long as the state or local government did
not cause or contribute to the contamination.
Considerations for Congress
Congress may consider whether funds going towards the Brownfields
program have achieved the intended purpose of the program. If Congress
considers reauthorization in this session, as it has done in the past,
Congress may consider certain elements of the Brownfields program, such
as the duration of reauthorization, statutory caps on grant amounts,
criteria for assessing grant applications, and past and future expected
program outcomes.
This concludes my prepared statement. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before the Subcommittee today. I would be happy to address
any questions you may have.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Goldstein for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL R. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ., MANAGING PARTNER, THE
GOLDSTEIN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FIRM, P.A.
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you.
Good morning Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and
members of the committee. My name is Michael Goldstein. I am
the managing partner of The Goldstein Environmental Law Firm, a
principal of Goldstein Kite Environmental, a past president of
the Florida Brownfields Association, and past chair of the
National Brownfields Coalition's Public Policy Committee.
It is a distinct honor to participate in this hearing and
share suggestions on how to build on what has been the most
important, impactful, and results-producing Federal program in
my 33 years of practice.
While Congress and every State government in the Nation,
including the great State of Florida, have supported
brownfields work since the mid-1990s, the hundreds of thousands
of brownfields across the country require additional Federal
resources.
My remarks today are informed by over three decades of
assisting local governments, developers, growers,
manufacturers, schools, and capital providers navigate the
risks of cleaning up and redeveloping contaminated land. I also
invest in them personally and, accordingly, have a 360-degree
view of what aspects of the Federal Brownfields Program have
worked well and where opportunities remain to overcome
persistent challenges. The private sector wants to do more, but
we need more help from Congress.
I would like to speak first to Florida's Brownfields
Program, which was an early leader nationally in encouraging
environmental redevelopment.
Florida's program was enacted on July 1, 1997, and in the
ensuing 28 years, has sparked the creation of 90,000 indirect
and direct jobs and the investment of over $3.18 billion.
Through February of this year, local governments have
designated 613 brownfield areas, totaling 290,000 acres. Over
530 voluntary cleanup agreements have been executed. Over 235
brownfield sites have been cleaned up.
Florida has accomplished this outstanding result with a mix
of economic incentives, including tax credits and tax refunds,
a loan guarantee fund, liability protection at the State level,
and a streamlined regulatory review process.
It is with this model in mind that the following seven
specific recommendations are made.
First, as part of a forthcoming bipartisan tax bill, renew
the Federal brownfield tax incentive, which was passed in 1997
to allow parties who voluntarily investigate and remediate
contaminated properties to deduct all cleanup costs on their
Federal income tax return in the year they spend money on
cleanup.
Second, create a brownfields loan guarantee program. This
program would combine aspects of the Department of Energy Loan
Guarantee Program with a New Markets Tax Credit Program to
leverage billions of private-sector dollars for early-stage
bridge financing of redevelopment projects that are considered
too risky for conventional lenders.
Third, prioritize affordable housing built on brownfield
sites by amending section 42 of the IRS Code to increase the
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to 12 percent, the stepped-up
basis to 150 percent, and to create a new, one-time LIHTC in
the amount of 80 percent of the cost of land acquisition and
demolition.
Fourth, dramatically increase flexibility for EPA grant
program users by eliminating the match requirement, expanding
allowable expenses to include demolition and environmental
insurance, and for the first time ever, making all such grants
available to for-profit developers of affordable and workforce
housing. That would be a game changer.
Fifth, increase the maximum grant awards to local
governments and not-for-profit applicants to expand the amount
of work and magnitude of cleanup that each grant awardee can
accomplish.
Sixth, increase the CERCLA 128 grants to State Brownfields
Programs. Since inception of Florida's Brownfields Program, the
Department of Environmental Protection has been awarded $17.2
million in section 128(a) grant funds. The awarded moneys have
allowed DEP to conduct targeted assessment and remediation at
over 116 of the highest priority sites.
Speaking from personal experience as a section 128(a) grant
recipient, these grants are powerful, effective, and catalytic.
In our situation, Goldstein Kite Environmental partnered with
DEP to conduct assessment and remediation of chlorinated
solvents at a former chemical storage and distribution site
that impacted a public school.
Our investment in this ostensibly contaminated site, and
DEP and EPA's co-investment with $400,000 in section 128(a)
grant funds, is facilitating construction of 515 units of
affordable housing and a $217 million capital expenditure in
the Overtown neighborhood of Miami by one of the largest
builders in the country.
A final recommendation. PFAS is commonly referred to as
``the forever chemical.'' It is really ``the everywhere
chemical,'' and it is having a monumental impact on brownfields
development where the listing of PFAS as a CERCLA hazardous
substance raises the specter of possible EPA-led cleanups under
the National Contingency Plan over decades at a great expense.
Congress should consider a statutory exemption to CERCLA
where a party has voluntarily entered into a brownfield cleanup
agreement with a State agency to remediate PFAS contamination
under State law. The exemption would provide immunity from
CERCLA cost recovery and contribution claims, a hold on NPL
status, immunity from RCRA citizen suits, and express immunity
from lenders.
Thank you so much for this opportunity to present my
comments.
[Mr. Goldstein's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael R. Goldstein, Esq., Managing Partner, The
Goldstein Environmental Law Firm, P.A.
Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members
of the Committee. My name is Michael Goldstein. I'm the Managing
Partner of The Goldstein Environmental Law Firm, a principal of
Goldstein Kite Environmental, a past president of the Florida
Brownfields Association, and past Chair of the National Brownfields
Coalition's Public Policy and Redevelopment Incentives Committee.
It is a distinct honor, and career highlight, to participate in
this hearing and to help our Country's elected officials improve on
what has been the most important, impactful, and results-producing
federal program in my 33 years of practice. While Congress, U.S. EPA,
and every state government in the nation, including the great state of
Florida, have supported brownfields work since the mid-1990s, the
hundreds of thousands of brownfields across the country require
additional resources to tackle. And so do Superfund sites, let's not
forget about those either. They, too, present tremendous opportunities
for redevelopment. EPA's track record in both arenas--brownfield
redevelopment and Superfund redevelopment--is long and distinguished.
My remarks today are informed by over three decades of assisting
local governments, neighborhood groups, developers, farmers, growers,
manufacturers, energy companies, schools and school systems,
entrepreneurs, investors, lenders, and capital providers navigate the
complexities, risks, regulations, and expenses of cleaning up,
redeveloping, repurposing, and reusing contaminated land--from
Brownfields to Superfund Sites to all points in between. I also invest
in them personally and, accordingly, have a 360 degree view of what
aspects of the federal brownfields program have worked well and where
opportunities remain to overcome persistent challenges. Unlike my
fellow witnesses, all of whom are deeply credentialed, experienced, and
accomplished and who present necessary perspectives, the view I am
sharing today is a private sector view and one that is purposefully
intended to recommend to this Committee the specific steps Congress can
take during reauthorization to move many billions of additional dollars
in private capital off the sidelines and reverse decades of
disinvestment and despair. The private sector wants to do more--much
more--but we need more help from Congress.
First, though, I would like to speak to Florida's Brownfields
Program, which was an early leader nationally in encouraging, investing
in, and responsibly managing environmental redevelopment. Florida's
Brownfield Program was enacted on July 1, 1997, and in the ensuing 28
years has sparked the creation of approximately 90,000 projected direct
and indirect jobs and the projected investment of over $3.188 billion
in capital investment in designated brownfield areas. Through February
20, 2025, local governments, upon their own initiative or at the
request of developers or other applicants, have designated 613
Brownfield Areas totaling 292,865.41acres. Over 530 voluntary cleanup
agreements have been executed with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection or one of their amazing local partners, Miami-
Dade County DERM, Broward County RED, and Hillsborough County EPC. Over
235 brownfield sites have completed cleanup since inception of the
program. Florida has accomplished this outstanding result with a mix of
economic incentives, including tax credits and tax refunds, a loan
guarantee fund, liability protection at the state level, and a
streamlined processing for regulatory review and approvals with lots of
love and care from specially appointed brownfield coordinators at the
state and local level. The Florida model has resulted in a broad
portfolio of cleaned up and reused sites but, in my experience, there
has been a particular level of success in the category of affordable
and workforce housing. Florida has put its thumb on the scale, and
appropriately so, for builders of this segment of the market, which is
in crisis. I know that's true nationwide. And it's with this in my mind
that many of the following recommendations are made. I'm confident,
based on the Florida experience, that, if implemented, they will
accelerate construction of affordable housing across the country by
giving developers and communities the financial and regulatory tools
needed to safely and responsible cleanup and repurpose a sad, vast
landscape of abandoned, underutilized contaminated properties.
On the financial side, I recommend three new funding opportunities:
First, as part of a forthcoming tax bill, renew the Federal
Brownfield Tax Incentive, which was first passed in 1997 to allow
parties who voluntarily investigated and remediated contaminated
properties to deduct all cleanup costs on their federal income tax
return in the year they spent the money on cleanup. By allowing for
expensing rather than requiring remediation deductions to be spread out
over ten years, the tax incentive was a powerful driver of private
investment in environmental redevelopment. Before it expired in 2012,
this deduction was used more than 625 times in more than 40 states.
There is already bipartisan support for the restoration of this
incentive. The Brownfields Redevelopment Tax Incentive Reauthorization
Act of 2025, H.R. 815, was recently reintroduced by Rep. Sherrill (D-
NJ) and Rep. Turner (R-OH).
Second, I recommend the creation of a Brownfields Loan Guarantee
Program. This program would combine aspects of the DOE Loan Guarantee
Program with the New Markets Tax Credits Program to leverage many
billions of private sector dollars for early stage, bridge financing of
redevelopment projects that are considered too risky for conventional
lenders. In my professional experience, there are countless projects
that fail in the concept stage because they are caught in an unwinnable
position--they're not loan-worthy until the environmental risks are
cleared but the environmental risks can't be cleared until loan funding
becomes available.
Third, as I noted earlier in my testimony, the brownfields model is
a proven vehicle to incentivize and expand affordable housing. Congress
has many tools at its disposal to improve the model. To that end, we
would like to see:
an increase of the 4% and 9% Low Income Housing Tax
Credit under Sec. 42 of the IRS Code to 6% and 12% for affordable
housing built on brownfield sites;
a stepped-up basis under Sec. 42 of the IRS Code of
between 130% to 150% for affordable housing built on brownfield sites;
and
a new, one-time LIHTC in the amount of 80% of cost of the
land acquisition and demolition to develop affordable housing built on
brownfields.
As Congress seeks to reauthorize the federal brownfields program,
there are a handful of other key priorities to consider:
Meaningfully increase resources and ensure robust
staffing at EPA offices. Increasing resources allows what has been a
universally recognized and lauded program of success to reach more
communities and address more contaminated sites. Robust staffing at EPA
program offices and regional offices that keeps projects moving through
the remediation process. Delays cost time and money, and adequate
staffing helps improve timelines and makes more projects possible.
Increase maximum grant awards to local government and
non-profit applicants to expand the amount of work that each grant
award can be used to complete. Many sites require multiple streams of
financing to complete remediation, which slows down the timeline for
redevelopment. Higher maximum funding levels would allow for faster
remediation, and the faster sites can be closed out, the quicker
redevelopment can occur, sites can be made safer, more jobs can be
created, including in the construction sector, and more tax revenues
can be raised increasing services. It's a virtuous circle. Specific
grant funding recommendations consist of the following:
+ $500,000 for the Community Wide Assessment Grant
+ $1.5 million for the Coalition Assessment Grant
+ $1 million for the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
Grant
+ $1.5 million for the Multipurpose Grant
+ Assessment and Remediation Grants at increasing tiers from
$500,000 to $10 million
Vastly increase the CERCLA 128(a) grants to state
brownfield programs. Since the inception of Florida's Brownfields
Program in 1977, the Department of Environmental Protection has been
awarded $17.2 million in 128(a) grant funds. The awarded monies have
allowed the Department to continue to build and enhance the Brownfields
response program capabilities, as well as to conduct target assessment
and remediation work at over 116 sites. Speaking from personal
experience as a 128(a) grant recipient, these grants are powerful,
effective, and catalytic. In our situation, Goldstein Kite
Environmental partnered with FDEP to assess and conduct assessment and
remediation of chlorinated solvents contaminated soil and groundwater
at a former chemical storage and distribution site that had migrated
offsite and impacted a public school. Our investment in this risky
site, and FDEP and EPA's co-investment with $443,648.09 in 128(a) grant
funds, is facilitating construction of 515 units of affordable housing
and a $217 million capital expenditure in the southwest Overtown
neighborhood of Miami by one of the largest builders in the country,
Richman Group. Your state brownfields agencies know where the greatest
needs are and how to get the greatest bang for the buck for the
American people. They should be entrusted with more resources to do so.
Increasing flexibility for program users. Eliminating the
match requirement for these grants, expanding allowable expenses to
include demolition and environmental insurance, and for the first time
ever making all such grants available to developers of affordable and
workforce housing. That would be a game changer.
And two final recommendations today to contribute to the
deliberations in Congress on how to address the seemingly intractable
scourge of PFAS in the country's groundwater, drinking water, surface
water, soils, sediments, and air. PFAS is commonly referred to as the
forever chemical. It's really the everywhere chemical, and it's having
a monumental impact on brownfields development where the listing of
PFAS as a CERCLA hazardous substance raises the specter of possible EPA
led cleanups under the National Contingency Plan over decades at great
expense.
So, first, I would like to recommend that Congress consider a
statutory exemption to CERCLA where a party has voluntarily entered
into a brownfield cleanup agreement with a state agency. Such an
exemption could provide the assurances described below and, in doing
so, reduce the anxiety level that developers, investors, local
governments, and community stakeholders might otherwise have when
considering the voluntary acquisition, cleanup and redevelopment of a
PFAS impacted site:
(i) immunity from cost recovery claims under CERCLA;
(ii) immunity from contribution claims under CERCLA;
(iii) a hold on NPL status for sites being cleaned up under a
state brownfields program;
(iv) immunity from citizen suits under RCRA; and
(v) and express immunity for lenders who hold indicia of ownership
in, or have foreclosed on, a PFAS impacted facility.
Second, Congress should direct EPA to expand its strategic roadmap,
which is founded on key goals and objectives--Research, Restrict, and
Remediate--by adding a fourth key goal--Redevelop. Objectives within
this goal could consist of the following:
engaging brownfields stakeholders on redevelopment-
focused enforcement discretion policies;
brownfields planning, assessment, remediation, and job
creation and training grants specifically targeting PFAS impaired
sites;
administrative initiatives that further defer federal
enforcement authority to state environmental officials where
responsible parties have entered into binding, enforceable voluntary
cleanup agreements; and
cross-agency collaboration to encourage other federal
brownfield partners to allocate human and financial resources to
support cleanup and redevelopment of PFAS impaired sites, such as the
Department of Energy, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, and the Economic
Development Administration.
Thank you for your consideration of these remarks, and I look
forward to responding to any questions.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
And thank you all for providing your testimony. We will now
turn to questions for the panel. I recognize myself for 5
minutes for questions.
I kind of like to give you an idea of the way I look at
things, especially from a chairman's standpoint. And the way I
look at it, in November, the American people spoke loud and
clear. First of all, they need to save taxpayer dollars.
The second thing that we need to do up here, especially
from a chairman's standpoint, is make sure that the Federal
Government is very productive and efficient. And if we can do
that, then we will save taxpayer money.
You all had testimony, and as you were giving your
testimony, I started changing my questions as each one of you
went through. So some of this may be a little choppy.
But I want to make sure that whatever we do, if you think
of it, and what can we do to be more efficient, how do we save
money, and in this case, when we make an investment, what is
the return on the dollar for that investment, because a lot of
this I look at as an investment instead of just grant money.
So, Mr. Larson, I think this may be best for you. If it is
not, if somebody else wants to weigh in or not. The IIJA, $1.5
billion extra over 5 years, over the normal allocation, if I
have got that right--and if I am wrong, correct me--how was
that doled out among the States? Was that on a first come,
first served basis, large States got this, small States--or how
did that work?
Mr. Larson. So, thank you for the question. So, the IIJA
funding was divided. Of that total $1.5 billion, $1.2 billion
was allocated for the section 104 grants--the 104(k) grants, or
the competitive grants.
So, those grants were administered in the same/similar
fashion as in the similar criteria that EPA uses toward their
annual competitive grants. So, that's the grants that go to
eligible applicants through the normal process or that normal--
--
Mr. Collins [interrupting]. So, that money goes to the
States. So----
Mr. Larson [interrupting]. That is the money that goes
directly to the applicants.
Mr. Collins. Okay. So who actually primarily provides the
funding? Is it local, State, Fed, what?
Mr. Larson. So, there's the competitive grants, which are
appropriated to EPA, and the EPA administers that on a
competitive basis. So, there is a collection of eligible
entities all over the country that will put in various grant
applications for those grants.
And so, EPA will look at all the grant applications that
will come in, and based upon the criteria that is in statute,
they have this ranking prioritization process. And as part of
that, they will administer those grants to those eligible
entities.
Mr. Collins. Yes, I am just trying to figure out, if we
doubled the money essentially over 5 years, and I hear it
consistent that it is not funded at the level--and of course,
in my opening statement, I said just throwing money at a
problem is not going to solve the problem. We have always
figured that out. There is usually something else in there.
And, Honorable Wilbur, you said that--I think it was you.
Who is it that said ``burdensome reporting''?
Mr. Wilbur. Didn't hear you on that.
Mr. Collins. That said it was--burdensome reporting was one
of the problems.
Mr. Wilbur. Yes. So----
Mr. Collins [interrupting]. Is that on the Fed or the State
level or the local level? Where is that burdensome reporting?
Mr. Wilbur. We had that for the brownfields assessment
program that we had. That came from the Feds. And what it is,
is we just have a small staff. I mean, we have a small county
with under 1,000 employees, and we are actually, I would say,
probably one of the larger rural counties, if you will.
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Mr. Wilbur. And as you get smaller and smaller, there is
less staff to be able to put the time to devote to this.
Mr. Collins. And to me, I think that gets to the crux of
the problem--of a lot of the problems we hear up here,
especially with rural counties. A lot of my district is very
rural. They don't have stacks of accountants and lawyers
sitting around to apply for grants. They have to go out and pay
for the grant, which costs them, I don't know, 30, 40 percent
of the money, whatever they can get away with.
And so I have always been a bigger proponent of, we just
block grant money and get out of the way, and that is what I as
getting at. Is it a Federal issue on what--because a lot of
times, when the Feds give out money, they've got strings
attached. A lot of times they are around your neck.
So, if that is the case, then is there an issue with the
Feds getting in the way?
Mr. Wilbur. If I may, I would say that I think we have
proven it in Oswego County over the two rounds of grants that
we received, $900,000. Out of those two particular parcels that
I mentioned, that is a $30 million investment of basically
wasteland on an environmental protected area, meaning it was on
a river, in our downtown area is where it was at.
Mr. Collins. Right. And I want to bring that up real quick.
So that $30 million investment that the Fed--that taxpayers
made, what was the return on the dollar taxwise?
Mr. Wilbur. Let me just correct that. That wasn't a $30
million taxpayer investment.
Mr. Collins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilbur. That was a private investment.
Mr. Collins. Okay.
Mr. Wilbur. So we used the $900,000 to leverage the $30
million investment from private.
Mr. Collins. Okay. But there again--okay. So the $900,000.
What was the tax advantage--what did it do to generate
taxpayer--did you all look at that, how much more taxes it
generates? Obviously, it wasn't doing much of anything when it
was a brownfield.
Mr. Wilbur. Well, I don't have the exact figures on what
those buildings are assessed at right now, but we are
definitely--they are back on the tax rolls. Those properties
are----
Mr. Collins [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Wilbur [continuing]. Generating thousands in tax
revenue.
Mr. Collins. Yes. And that is the type of stories I like to
hear, is if we make an investment somehow, how long does it
take for us to get our return, and what has our return been.
Because anytime we can generate more taxpayers out there, then
it generates revenue to replace what we spent out.
All right. I am out of time. I yield back.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Wilson for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Ms. Shook, last Friday, the
Environmental Council of the States wrote a letter to EPA
Administrator Zeldin, that I would ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record. Enter into the record.
Mr. Collins. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter of May 3, 2025, from the Environmental Council of the States to
Hon. Lee Zeldin, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson
May 3, 2025.
The Honorable Lee Zeldin,
Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, WJC
Building North/South Room: 1448K, Washington, DC 20460.
Dear Administrator Zeldin,
Yesterday, the Office of Management of Budget (OMB) sent the White
House recommendations for discretionary funding to the United States
Senate for fiscal year (FY) 2026. In response, the Environmental
Council of the States (ECOS) Officers urgently request an in-person
meeting with you to discuss the fiscal implications of the FY2026
recommendations for states.
As we understand the recommendation, the White House recommended
elimination or cuts to categorical grant programs that will devastate
economic development, critical infrastructure, and environmental
protections across the nation.
States carry out more than 90% of the nation's federal
environmental programs in communities around the United States, and
states, state legislatures, and the business community depend on
Congress to fund our efforts through grants and partnerships with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Such dramatic budget cuts
to states will incapacitate state environmental programs while creating
significant uncertainty for state legislatures and businesses across
the United States. Further, the proposal to dramatically shrink the
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds will also hurt the
heretofore unified effort to address the nation's water infrastructure
needs, which is necessary not only to protect human health and the
environment, but also to grow the economy.
If Congress were to adopt the White House recommendation for
discretionary spending, states may be required to terminate primacy,
delegation, or authorization agreements and return full program
implementation to EPA. This would overwhelm EPA and have detrimental
impacts to economic development. In addition, state primacy,
delegation, or authorizations were approved by EPA and published in the
Federal Register following public notice and comment. Such primacy,
delegation, or authorization agreements are predicated on commitments
that include a federal and state cost share. A reduction or elimination
of the federal cost share will create implementation issues resulting
in legal liabilities that may contribute to a state's decision to
return a program to EPA for implementation within a state.
Pursuant to principles of cooperative federalism, EPA and states
working in partnership through regular discussions would greatly
benefit our organizations and we stand ready to have such discussions.
Thank you.
James Kenney,
New Mexico Environment Department, ECOS President.
Chris Wells,
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, ECOS Vice
President.
Leah Feldon,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, ECOS Secretary-
Treasurer.
Myra Reece,
South Carolina Department of Environmental Services, ECOS Past
President.
cc:
Region 1, Mark Sanborn.
Region 2, Mike Martucci.
Region 3, Amy Van Blarcom-Lackey.
Region 4, Kevin McOmber.
Region 5, Anne Vogel.
Region 6, Scott Mason.
Region 7, Jim Macy.
Region 8, Cyrus Western.
Region 9, Josh Cook.
Region 10, Emma Pokon.
Assistant Deputy Administrator, Travis Voyles.
Associate Administrator, Sarah Talmage.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. In this letter, the executive board
of State environmental leaders expressed deep concern with the
President's budget proposal to eliminate or drastically cut
most categorical grant programs within the Agency, including
the Clean Water State Revolving Trust.
The States warned that these cuts would hurt efforts to
reinvest in our Nation's infrastructure, damage our public and
environmental health, and threaten our economy.
While EPA's Brownfields Program was not specifically
mentioned in the President's budget, it is conceivable that
funding for this program is equally as targeted by the
administration for reduction or elimination.
Ms. Shook and then Mr. Goldstein, what would be the
consequences for the State of Ohio and the State of Florida if
all EPA brownfields grant funding were eliminated?
Ms. Shook.
Ms. Shook. Thank you----
Mr. Goldstein [interrupting]. Thank you, Congresswoman
Wilson, for the question.
In many instances--in most instances, EPA brownfields
funding is existential. Without that seed money, thousands of
environmental redevelopment and reuse projects all across the
country would come to a grinding halt, and those that are in
the planning process wouldn't even get out of the gate.
These are projects that help to accelerate remediation to
quickly reduce public health risks that result in a tremendous
amount of job creation, economic revitalization, and additional
tax revenues to local governments that can then provide more
services and also increase redevelopment in the surrounding
area. They turn engines of disinvestment into productive
engines of investment. And without continued funding, even
expanded funding through EPA, all of that work would come to a
halt.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Ms. Shook.
Ms. Shook. I would agree with Mr. Goldstein. It would
negatively impact almost every community in Ohio. Our State
funding supports a lot of our smallest and most rural
communities because they have the least capacity to hold their
own grants, whereas our larger communities use this as a
catalyst to get other Federal funds, other State dollars--Ohio
has a robust cleanup program themselves--to partner for
matching dollars for those funds, they use Federal funds, and
to incite additional private investment.
It is much easier. There is plenty of green space in Ohio
for companies to come in and to keep those investments in our
communities where the infrastructure already exists and to
preserve our farmland. It is nice to have a robust Brownfields
Program to keep that development in our more populated areas.
Thank you.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you.
Mr. Goldstein, our home county, Miami-Dade, has highlighted
the successes it has seen with the Brownfields Program. They
talked about the efforts at Thermo Fisher and how the
brownfield designation helped create new jobs. They also spoke
about the Poinciana Industrial Center effort and how a
brownfield pilot helped address remediation needs in the
community.
Can you discuss the importance of continued support for the
Brownfields Program and how this funding will help address
brownfield sites like the corner of Northwest 37th Avenue and
Northwest 183rd Street in Miami Gardens?
Mr. Goldstein. Yes, Ranking Member Wilson. That part of
Miami-Dade County has long been subject to disinvestment,
economic blight, and, unfortunately, historically civil unrest,
related to the lack of economic opportunity.
A significant component of that is driven by the
environmental uncertainty and risk associated with a long
history of industrial activities like pesticide distribution
plants that have left a significant amount of soil and
groundwater contamination that has, candidly, provided a
tremendous disincentive to lenders and other investors to
imagine what that area could be, which is surrounded by working
families who love their community and want an opportunity to
raise their families there and have good jobs.
With EPA's investment and the continued oversight of the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Miami-
Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management,
utilizing Federal resources, there is an opportunity for
developers to come in, create jobs, create affordable housing,
and turn that part of the community into a very vital portion
of Miami-Dade County that generates a tremendous amount of
economic activity.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein.
And thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time.
Mr. Collins. Yes, ma'am. Sorry I wasn't--I was wanting to--
I should have stopped then.
If you all get a chance, just please remember to cut your
mic off. When we had that noise that crept in, somebody--there
were two mics open. So if you will make sure it is off if you
are not talking, we won't have that.
The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the
subcommittee, Mr. Taylor from Ohio, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman Collins and Ranking Member
Wilson, for holding this hearing today. And thank you to our
witnesses for being here to share their insight and for the
sacrifices you made to be here.
I want to especially welcome Ms. Shook who is here to talk
about how Ohio has succeeded in turning contaminated land into
residential and economic growth.
Toxic materials such as asbestos and lead in old buildings
can cause significant harm to those exposed over long periods
of time. That is why the Brownfields Program exists, to turn
older toxic sites into productive and beneficial areas in the
community.
In southern Ohio, the main brownfield sites include
schools, children's homes, and other public buildings. It
should be obvious that small rural communities face massive
challenges when addressing brownfield sites in their region,
such as constrained local budgets, fewer people available to
manage brownfield projects, and limited access to technical
expertise.
Ms. Shook, can you elaborate on how the Ohio EPA has worked
with rural communities to alleviate these challenges?
Ms. Shook. Thank you. The State's program works
significantly with our smaller and more rural communities. As I
said earlier, they have less capacity to hold their own grants
and to be competitive in the 104(k) competitive rounds of
grants.
So we are often sort of the front door for them to the
brownfields space. They can use our funding for planning
purposes, as well as the initial assessments, and we can work
with them, and do work with them, very closely to help prepare
them to potentially apply for either another State grant or a
Federal grant as they get ready.
So we have done everything from helping them develop their
own brownfield inventories, to doing phase 1 environmental
assessments for them, to helping set up community meetings and
do community surveys on what they would like areas to look like
after a brownfield redevelopment is completed.
So that is a variety of ways we work with them, but they
are a primary customer of ours.
Mr. Taylor. Got you. Is there more that Congress could do
to remove barriers that create these challenges for rural
areas?
Ms. Shook. Yes. So the competition process is very
competitive. We have heard numbers around only about 30 percent
of applicants get approved for their grants. So finding ways to
provide more funds to more communities would make it easier for
them to hold.
Our regional brownfield staff that manage those assessment
grants do a very nice job of helping those communities follow
all the regulations and reporting requirements, as well as they
assist us in making sure we are aware of any new requirements
that we have to meet for our three grants that we hold.
So we have a great working relationship with region 5 staff
that help us with that, but there are always more tools in the
toolbox for small communities who don't have the staff to hold
grants, or allowing States to hold larger grants so that we can
do more work for them, and we bear the responsibility for the
reporting requirements.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. With Congress and President Trump
vowing to rein in Government spending, it is important that
Congress evaluates how we fund these existing programs.
Mr. Goldstein, in your testimony, you highlighted how
public-private partnerships benefited local communities in
cleaning up brownfield sites. Can you elaborate on the benefits
of public-private partnerships and how that speeds up
brownfield sites being cleaned up?
Mr. Goldstein. Absolutely. Many times--most times, local
governments and local government entities own contaminated
assets: old landfills, public utility facilities, wastewater
treatment plants. They are sitting on these assets. They cost a
tremendous amount of money to maintain, and the funds aren't
there to clean them up and repurpose them.
And so what they do is they reach out to the private sector
for a public-private partnership opportunity. The private
entities are beneficiaries of the EPA grants that come in, but
those dollars, while important, aren't always directly
available to the private-sector entities, and frequently, they
are not enough to complete the cleanup and put the site on a
level playing field with greenfield sites.
So, what would be most important is to, A, expand the grant
opportunities in terms of the dollars that are available. That
is number one.
Number two, make them available directly to the private
sector who are operating in areas that the Government wants to
see, like public-private partnerships, like affordable housing.
That is number two.
And number three, utilize some of the other tools that
Congress has available to it to increase the likelihood of
success of public-private partnerships, like creating more
liability exemption opportunities, for example, with respect to
PFAS, or providing this Federal income tax deduction to
private-sector entities which results in more dollars that can
go into the redevelopment side.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
And thank all of you for being here today.
And, Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of
the full committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am good with no
questions.
Mr. Collins. Sir?
Mr. Larsen of Washington. I am good with no questions.
Mr. Collins. Oh, okay.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Move on to the next Democrat.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from
Ohio, Mrs. Sykes, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Ranking
Member, for yielding your time for me to ask questions.
It is certainly Ohio week in the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. So good to see you, Ms. Shook. Thank
you for being here today. And thank you to the chair and
ranking member for holding this hearing.
Ohio has long been a leader in industrialization for
generations, and for many folks in my district, that has meant
investment in our communities and good-paying jobs. And my
hometown Akron is known as--or may be formerly known as the
rubber capital of the world.
But, unfortunately, it has also left our State and my
district with far too many derelict and dangerous sites,
especially in the absence of environmental regulations, and
industries have shifted over the years.
Following some of these, we have been fortunate to have the
identification and support around brownfield sites and the
properties' damage to the environment, and dangerous for
families, and clearly unsuitable for business, which makes some
of these properties unavailable for productive use.
There are more than 4,200 brownfield properties across the
State of Ohio, and every single one of our 88 counties have at
least 1 brownfield property. And my district is no exception.
There are 110 properties that have been identified as
brownfield sites in Ohio's 13th District alone.
Of these sites, one of them is the Landmark Building in
Akron, Ohio. It is right downtown. Actually, our district
office is almost directly across the street from it. It was a
significant part of our downtown skyline, previously the home
to Akron Savings and Loan, but this building has been
abandoned. But in 2011, the Department of Development received
a brownfield cleanup grant from the EPA and was able to
leverage some funding. And now fast-forward to 2025, it is a
productive property, Akron's new Bowery District development
and home to apartment buildings, restaurants, and productive
land use, which is exactly what we want these programs to do.
Additionally, Rolling Acres Mall, if you have ever seen
mall wastelands, Rolling Acres is one of those. It is now an
Amazon distribution site. Again, another way in which we have
been able to use brownfield development to encourage job growth
and development and economic opportunity in our communities.
Ms. Shook, in your testimony, you talked about you have
identified and worked with just under 100 communities and
brownfield sites across the State. I just mentioned that I have
110 in my district alone, so, obviously, that means that there
is a lot of demand and not enough support around it.
But the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law did provide a much
needed boost for remediating some of these sites. So if you
could talk a little bit more about what this investment and
increased investment could do across the State of Ohio,
specifically, and how this can increase and encourage economic
development and productive land use in our State.
Ms. Shook. Thank you. Yes, the standard allocation that we
were getting prior to the IIJA Act, we were able to complete
about 20 assessments per year, in addition to our planning
activities and the technical assistance and grant-funded
technical assistance we were providing throughout the cleanup
process.
With the additional funding we received, we were able to go
up to 145 assessments over those grants, so that is a
significant increase in actual assessment and some cleanup work
done in our communities. And it prepared them to apply for full
cleanup grants from both our State program and the Federal
program.
We have both the staff and the contractors available to do
more work. It is only a matter of how many dollars we get per
year. Our standard allocation has been dropping slightly every
year as more entities have been applying, and it was a great
benefit to the State.
The State program is very robust. There is about $125
million in State cleanup dollars awarded the last 4 years, I
believe, and it is oversubscribed every year. So there is a
significant need in the State, and our program is small in
comparison--the State EPA Brownfields Program is small in
comparison to our State development's Brownfields Program. But
we are there to help all the communities that need that extra
assistance, the ones that need to find a first step, need the
roadmap that helps them match dollar for dollar. And that is
where our program really shines is being kind of the matching
dollars for other programs.
Mrs. Sykes. Well, thank you very much for that.
And if I can help lift up some of the testimony I have
heard from all of you, this is not just about the environment
and cleaning up sites, which is very important, but this is
about economic development, putting people to work, making sure
that we are using our land productively, and giving people an
opportunity throughout our country, and particularly in Ohio's
13th and across the State. So thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Knott for 5 minutes.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To all the witnesses,
thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. Larson, I want to start with you. In regards to your
experience and observations, what is the greatest impediment to
having an efficient, I would say, remediation program for some
of these environmentally sensitive sites in the Brownfields
Program? Is it local bureaucracy, is it local permitting, is it
Federal bureaucracy, is it funding? If there is one thing you
could point to, what would that be?
Mr. Larson. So, regarding the cleanup duration or
complexities at any given site, it is going to be highly
dependent upon site-specific circumstances.
Mr. Knott. Sure.
Mr. Larson. So, I would say it is going to be very
challenging to point to a single factor, whereas there may be
multiple factors, including the ones that you have listed, even
from like a technical or scientific standpoint.
Many of these properties, the conditions may be unknown----
Mr. Knott [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Larson [continuing]. With respect to the environmental
contamination that may or may not be present. And so as this
process proceeds of investigating the contamination,
investigating the site, if it turns out to be the contamination
presents more of a risk than was originally envisioned, that
could present more complications with respect to both the
cleanup and what could be suitable reuses for the site. So,
there are various factors even as the process proceeds that can
complicate this.
Mr. Knott. Right. I mean, one of the concerns that I am
bringing to the table is, from North Carolina, there is a $2-
per-ton municipal waste disposal fee that really is aimed at
cleaning up these--they are called preregulatory landfills. I
don't know if you are familiar with that term.
Mr. Goldstein, you are shaking your head. But, basically,
it is a period of time where landfills were utilized and
anything went in there, and many of them have been deemed
hazardous. And the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality monitors these landfills, but I think there are 700 of
them, but only 1 has been cleaned up or 2 have been cleaned up
in the last 20 years, roughly. And that is a trend that I have
heard about throughout the country, that cleaning these up,
putting them back into the marketplace is a real problem.
Mr. Goldstein, I would defer to you in terms of, if there
is a way that we can efficiently identify, manage, and clean up
these, or cap them, remediate, however you want to phrase it,
is there a model that you have seen at a local and State level
that is efficient and provides the necessary certainty to move
these quickly?
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you, Representative Knott. That is a
great question. And I want to invoke a suggestion that the
chairman made, the concept of rethinking, reenvisioning the
grant program to provide community block grants, like community
block grants to State government so State governments can get
the money to where it needs to go more quickly.
If there is a single limiting factor that makes these
projects less efficient than they need to be, it is time. And
the time associated with waiting for the grant window to open
and to prepare and submit a grant application on a competitive
basis and then get the money, that time is too long. There is
too much delay.
If we were to have that money go to the States and have the
State agencies allocate those dollars to where they are needed,
where the greatest need is, those dollars would get to the
communities more quickly and they would be spent more
efficiently with less oversight and administrative bureaucracy.
Mr. Knott. Is there a way to incentivize local and State
government to move on these sites? Because, for instance, in
North Carolina, a lot of county and State operators are the
ones who polluted the sites. And so in some ways they are not
incentivized to, whether it is undertake cleanup costs or to
remediate, because that could expose them to further liability,
but is there a way to really expedite this process using the
Federal leverage at hand? I don't know if that makes sense or
not.
Mr. Goldstein. It absolutely makes sense. We have done
something like that in the State of Florida, which I know
Ranking Member Wilson is aware of. In Florida, recently, we
passed a law that essentially gives grace to local government
entities that may have caused contamination to a site, provided
that they bring it into productive reuse quickly and promptly
and that they find a public-private partnership opportunity to
invest private-sector dollars in the cleanup. That gives them,
as I mentioned, grace and a runway without exposure to
liability under the State's CERCLA analog.
Mr. Knott. Do you think that is replicable federally?
Mr. Goldstein. Absolutely, it could be replicable on the
Federal level. There could be an exemption under CERCLA for
exposure to costs under, for example, PFAS that arise out of
PFAS contamination, provided that the local government finds a
private-sector party to invest in redevelopment.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garamendi for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This program is a very good one. The recommendations that
have been made are very helpful and useful, and hopefully, we
will put forth a reauthorization this year. I think we have
done it at least once in the past 4 years, and perhaps we will
be successful this year on a reauthorization. The
recommendations that have been made by the witnesses are all
good, and so as we write this legislation, good for us.
However, I have a problem. No. We have a problem. All of
this runs through the EPA. And the President put forth a budget
proposal, which I would hope the Congress of the United States,
Senate and House, would thoroughly and completely reject, but
nonetheless, his proposal is to reduce the EPA budget to its
lowest level, which happened to be its first budget. Now, just
how is that going to work?
This committee has a very serious responsibility. This
program, and the CERCLA program also, are critically important
to our communities, to the health of the communities around it,
and in some cases, to the larger regional areas. However,
unless we have the courage--we have the courage to push back on
what the administration is proposing, this is an interesting
exercise, and we will undoubtedly write a good reauthorization
bill, and it will be of no consequence whatsoever.
Now, I wish all the committee members were here, and when I
talk to them individually, I am going to say, yes, it is nice,
we will do our work as we did before, we have a model, and we
will use that, and we will update it, given the suggestions of
the witnesses. It will be an interesting exercise of no purpose
whatsoever if the administration has its way to gut the EPA.
So, I would hope all of us would keep this in mind while we
work through this. Good for us.
However, unless we are willing to fight the fight to fund
the EPA at a level that would allow these programs and others
to proceed, I guess we will feel good about the work we have
done, but it will have no consequence, no utility, and,
actually, cause severe problems throughout the United States as
we attempt to deal with this particular set of issues and
dozens of others.
So, the fight is not here. The fight is on the proposals
being made by the administration to gut the EPA and to reduce
its funding to a level that is equal to what it was on its very
first day of existence.
Now, I happen to support the Brownfields Program. It is
useful. We have in the city of Vallejo a $600,000 EPA grant for
Mare Island, the first and oldest naval base on the west coast,
and you can kind of imagine the kind of contamination that has
existed there over the last century and a half. So, that is
useful in making progress. It also allows for the downtown
waterfront.
The city of San Pablo, another one, a rail yard that dates
back to the 1800s. Yes, there is a bit of a problem there, but
the cleanup of that will allow the city to bring in housing
into a historic area that has been--well, all of you know this.
We all have these; 435 of us have problems, and the Brownfields
Program helps our districts. So, each of us ought to be not
only working on the reauthorization legislation and whatever
changes are appropriate to improve it, but we are going to have
to fight the big fight. Otherwise, why bother?
I am going to let it go at that. I thank the witnesses for
their specific suggestions on how to improve the existing
authorization which now expired 2\1/2\ years ago. So, we have
work to do. But I don't want this committee and each and every
one of us to forget what is the principal battle at hand, and
that is in fact the existence of the EPA in a meaningful way.
So, with that, I am going to yield back, Mr. Chairman. And
I would hope to have your support in helping all of us or
making all of us aware of the problem that the administration
is creating with its proposed budget cut for the EPA and work
with all of us to restore the funding to an appropriate level
so this program and others can proceed. With that, I yield
back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burlison for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goldstein, am I correct in saying you have over three
decades of experience in helping local communities navigate the
process of these cleanups of brownfields?
Mr. Goldstein. Yes, sir, and I feel every single one of
those days.
Mr. Burlison. Given that experience, could you walk me
through the process that a local county or community goes
through when they are applying for assistance for a brownfield?
Mr. Goldstein. Sure. The process typically starts with a
developer or a not-for-profit who, either working on their own
or with a local government, identifies a site that would make a
wonderful redevelopment project for whatever their mandate is,
for whatever their constituents are telling them needs to be
done.
They will conduct some due diligence, that typically
doesn't take a lot of money, to have a consultant perform what
is called a phase 1 environmental site assessment audit, which
is a noninvasive study of the history of the site on the
regulatory status. And more often than not, whether you are in
a rural area or an urban area, you will identify a legacy of
chemical contamination, and all of the warning bells will go
off and the costs will be identified related to cleanup,
related to third-party liability, related to the incremental
things that you have to do to safely build on a contaminated
site. And then people will take a beat and say, well, how are
we going to pay for all of this.
And at that point, many projects simply expire because the
risk is too high and the costs are too uncertain. But in other
instances where they are aware of the Brownfields Program, they
work with the local government or a not-for-profit. For-profit
entities are not eligible for brownfield grants. And they get
in the queue to receive EPA funding. Sometimes it is for
assessment. Sometimes it is for assessment and cleanup.
Sometimes it is for cleanup only.
In many instances, those grants provide important seed
money but not enough to complete the job, because more often
than not, these problems, as mentioned by a number of your
colleagues, are very complex. They are not problems that can be
solved with $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 or $400,000 in
grant funding. Sometimes they take millions of dollars in grant
funding. And sometimes grant funding--all of the money in the
world wouldn't solve the problem. There need to be more
liability protection tools, more regulatory tools to expedite
cleanup, et cetera.
But from identification of an issue through award of grant
and the money becoming available, that window can take 9 to 12
to 18 months, and many projects don't have that time available
to them.
Mr. Burlison. Regarding the nonprofits, how does that
relationship work? Are there just nonprofits that exist that
this is their mission, they accept these grants, they work the
process, and then they kind of align with a business?
Mr. Goldstein. There are a variety of not-for-profits. Some
are involved in the arts, some are involved in affordable or
workforce housing, and some are involved in providing urban
farming opportunities. It really spans the gamut of what not-
for-profits are interested in, and we have seen it all in a
brownfields context going back to 1995. Many times they can't
go it alone, they don't have enough money, so they partner with
local governments and seek these grants.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Mr. Wilbur, this Congress, this committee plans to consider
reauthorization of the Brownfields Program. In the
reauthorization, we will have the opportunity to consider
whether the funds given to the Brownfields Program have
achieved their intended purposes of the program.
In your opinion, have the funds put towards this program
achieved the intended purposes and the goals of the program?
Mr. Wilbur. I believe that they have, taking what I have
seen in my county alone with the investment that was made. We
definitely have identified and assessed the brownfields that we
know are there.
Mr. Burlison. And given the funds that--we are spending
money, we are stewards of taxpayer dollars, are there examples
or are there any opportunities where we can make sure that
those dollars are used to their fullest extent? Are there any
opportunities that we can make it better?
Mr. Wilbur. Well----
Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. Make it more efficient with
the dollars we have?
Mr. Wilbur. Well, I would say that the administrative
aspect of it, the burdensome reporting and all of that has
definitely been an added chore for most rural counties. They
have a small staff, like the Chair noted before. I mean, we
have one county attorney to work on this, and we have one chief
accountant in the whole county. So, the work is a lot and the
staff is limited. So, the administrative duties are definitely
a little burdensome for us.
Mr. Burlison. Appreciate it. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton for 5
minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I strongly oppose the Trump administration's attack on the
Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency has suggested it
will return to staffing levels from the 1980s, and President
Trump's fiscal year 2026 budget would cut the Agency's budget
by 55 percent. These cuts to staffing and funding levels are
grave threats to human health and the environment.
I support the Brownfields Program. The program is a win-
win-win. It helps protect the environment and human health, and
spurs economic development.
Mr. Goldstein, how would reduction in funding for the
Brownfields Program affect environmental justice efforts?
Mr. Goldstein. Well, without brown--in Florida, they would
go away completely, because Florida doesn't have any funding
for environmental justice directly. The Florida Brownfields
Redevelopment Act mentions environmental justice, but there has
never been a funding mechanism.
I agree with you, Representative, the people at EPA are
dedicated. They are hard-working. They are exceedingly
efficient, both in the Brownfields Program, and we haven't
mentioned it, but the Superfund Redevelopment Program.
Brownfields and Superfund redevelopment pray in the same pew.
They are both important objectives and both tremendous
opportunities for economic revitalization, public health
protection, and environmental justice.
If we are going to take money out of the Brownfields
Program, all of these efforts are, as I mentioned earlier,
going to come to a grinding halt. But I do want to say this.
Brownfields has always been bipartisan. It has received a lot
of bipartisan love. The money that gets allocated by Congress
to Brownfields goes through EPA but doesn't stay in EPA. It
goes to the communities where that money is needed and where,
over the past 35 years, it has made all the difference in the
world.
If you look at the leveraging data published by EPA--and I
am sure that Mr. Larson has looked at this as well--every
dollar invested by Congress creates a return on investment of
$20 in private-sector investment. I have actually seen that
order of magnitude be 40 to 60 times. I mentioned a project in
Ranking Member Wilson's district where EPA allocated $400,000
in section 128(a) grant funding and the developer is putting in
$217 million.
But separate and apart from that, there are things that
Congress can do, that this subcommittee can do, in terms of
liability protection and process that will also make private
capital more likely to go into brownfield sites, even if the
level of brownfields funding isn't what it has historically
been, until it can come back. Create CERCLA liability exemption
for PFAS cleanups, for example, where the cleanup is being
conducted at the State level. Increase the amount of Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits available for affordable housing and pass
the Federal brownfield tax incentive as part of the tax bill.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Ms. Shook, based on the success of the Brownfields Program
in Ohio, how can cities best leverage partnerships among
governments, the private sector, and communities to maximize
the program's benefits?
Ms. Shook. Many of our communities do just that. They work
with both the State to get initial assessments done, leveraging
the funding we have with our State Brownfields Program, and
then they go on to apply for their own grants themselves,
relieving the burden of these cleanups.
We have a robust land bank program in Ohio, so our counties
take on a big lift in getting these cleanup dollars and getting
the cleanups done so that they can attract the businesses and
the private development. Sometimes they are working in
partnership with private developers. Sometimes they are ahead
of the game and are cleaning up these sites in advance of
having a known end user. So, they have all the work done, they
have done the environmental work, and then they can advertise
it and bring in new jobs to their communities with all of the
funds that they have leveraged over the years.
Ms. Norton. Finally, Mr. Larson, how would an extended
reauthorization of the Brownfields Program improve its
effectiveness?
Mr. Larson. Well, you have, to the extent that Congress
would decide to reauthorize the program, you potentially--you
can revisit some of the programmatic elements that were amended
in prior reauthorizations. So, it gives Congress the
opportunity to look at potentially revisiting or considering
certain legislative options to amend the program, to change or
modify how it is currently operating, or if they want to change
other aspects.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Appreciate the panelists today here. Thank you for weighing
in on this.
I want to go with Mr. Wilbur. Under the CERCLA policy, the
issue of strict liability, how much of a chilling effect does
that have on future owners, people that might want to come in
and make something out of one of these problem areas, one of
these brownfields, for something that they didn't do in the
past or heaven forbid that they bought something without
knowledge of it and then all of a sudden are left holding the
bag? Talk a little bit about what kind of chilling effect
that--to the extent that the liability goes these days for the
effort to develop and up the pace on cleanup of an area.
Mr. Wilbur. Well, to the extent of my experience with this
program, I haven't really been into the liability end of this.
I know Mr. Goldstein had a lot to say on that in the beginning.
When we administer these grant programs that have been
given to our county from the Federal Government, we go out and
we identify and assess the properties. We acknowledge that
those are the brownfield sites. And then at that point in time,
if we are successful in getting a phase 2 grant and we are able
to remediate, then it is basically, they go through the
assessment again and make sure that it is clear to be put back
on the market or be developed.
Mr. LaMalfa. What I am getting at, though, is overall the
way the strict liability is interpreted, is it too much of a
chilling effect on people wanting to do work other than just
leave it static? Or is there something--I guess let me ask,
should something be done legislatively to make a stronger
incentive and less of a negative on taking on one of these
projects, one of these areas?
Mr. Wilbur. Well, it is definitely----
Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. For development.
Mr. Wilbur. Yes. It is definitely a deterrent, I would say,
for developers in our area. And I honestly, I don't know too
much more, other than as a person that would be looking to
develop myself, I wouldn't want to be taking on some of the----
Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Can you think of any steps
Congress could do to make it better?
Mr. Wilbur. I couldn't hear that question, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. Can you think of any steps Congress could do
to make it better?
Mr. Wilbur. Off the top of my head, I cannot, but I can
talk to some of my people and submit after.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Thank you. All right.
Mr. Larson, how much success have we had on--if you have
these stats or an idea of--recovering brownfields and other
problem areas like that? We have got them in northern
California where certain activities went on in the sixties and
seventies and such, and there is a groundwater problem. But it
is an idle field right now and you hope the remediation is
making it work out as far as cleaning the water, cleaning the
land.
How much success have we had with the various Federal
programs since this has really become conscious in recovering
many across the country?
Mr. Larson. Yes. So, regarding kind of the success or
success metrics, as you have probably heard from a variety of
different points today, there are a variety of different
metrics that are commonly cited regarding both acreage under
the Brownfields Program that have been recovered or jobs
created. So, certainly in the Brownfields Program, when they
are talking about a success metric, it is something where it
has to do with recovered acres or completed sites.
Mr. LaMalfa. Can you cite--I don't expect you to have an
exact statistic, but have there been many successful recoveries
that these lands are now going from useless to something----
Mr. Larson [interrupting]. Regarding the Federal
brownfields grants, so the 104(k) competitive grants, to my
understanding, the most recent data that I was able to find for
fiscal year 2024, I believe it was somewhere around 12,000
properties that have been--or sites under that program
specifically that were recovered for reuse, and some are in the
ballpark of 40,000 site assessments performed with those
specific grant programs.
Certainly, the State programs may have different numbers or
different numbers for some of the sites that they have
assessed, but that is just talking about the Brownfields
Program and not other authorities like Superfund or other types
of cleanups.
Mr. LaMalfa. Is primarily the conversion from a useless
brownfield site, are they mostly going for industrial uses? Are
we finding that it is successful to not necessarily put housing
on that or obviously schools or hospitals or things, but are
they primarily going into industrial use that has a low
interaction with these possible problems with, like residents,
let's say?
Mr. Larson. Probably the most broadest way to answer the
question is to say that typically reuse decisions and land-use
decisions are largely up to local communities and local
governments responsible for zoning or if you have private
partnerships or private interests in those types of
redevelopment or certain types of industry. So, it could depend
upon the site, and it can depend on the condition of the site
and what those goals are for it.
Mr. LaMalfa. I need to yield. Thank you. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Pou for 5
minutes.
Ms. Pou. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Collins, and Ranking
Member Wilson, for holding this hearing today.
My home State of New Jersey shoulders a heavy burden of
industrial and hazardous waste. As a Member from the State with
the highest number of Superfund sites and a significant number
of brownfields, I know well the importance of environmental
remediation.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has
identified at least 45 brownfield sites in my district alone.
We must continue to support communities that transform
contaminated properties into usable spaces.
For example, the Paterson Great Falls National Historic
Park was tainted by centuries of industrial waste. The
Brownfields Program offered a lifeline to address the former
Allied Textile plant within that park and to promote public
health and a cleaner environment.
The EPA's environmental funding is essential, truly
essential for communities struggling with generating the tax
revenue needed to redevelop abandoned or blighted properties.
The program showcases the strength in a public-private
partnership that benefits everyone. Federal and State partners,
businesses, environmental communities, we really need to do
something, and we need to make sure to preserve these very,
very important communities.
New Jersey is experiencing a significant affordable housing
shortage. Mr. Goldstein, in your testimony, you cite Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit as one of the tools to facilitate affordable
housing construction on former brownfield sites. Can you please
elaborate on how smaller brownfield sites like those in densely
populated States like New Jersey can be redeveloped with these
particular tax credits, and if you would also share with us
what are some of the challenges that are associated with
brownfield developments in those particular urban areas?
Mr. Goldstein. Absolutely, and I am prepared to speak for
the next 3 or 4 hours on these questions.
Ms. Pou. Unfortunately, we don't have that kind of time,
but I am very eager to hear your response.
Mr. Goldstein. Yes, ma'am. I will be as brief as I can.
The first challenge is really making sure that the cleanups
are sufficient, that there is the proper amount of regulatory
oversight and transparency, because there historically has been
a lot of questions about the sufficiency of cleanups on
Superfund sites and brownfield sites that have been used for
housing, but many States do that well. Many local regulatory
agencies do that well, and certainly EPA can and has done that
well. That is number one. We want these sites to be cleaned up
to the standard that they need to be cleaned up to make them
safe for residential use. That is number one.
Number two, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program is
one of the most successful financing programs that underlie and
support affordable housing all across the country, but there is
not enough money in LIHTC to cover the incremental cost and
risk associated with environmental cleanup.
In order to perform sufficient cleanups, we need more money
to affordable housing developers. One way to do that outside of
the grant program is through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
program. In my written materials, I have some very specific
suggestions, but then within the context of the Brownfields
Program, make these grants available to private developers who
are engaged in the development of affordable and workforce
housing. Currently, grants are not available to that sector.
And then finally, referencing the question from one of your
colleagues, let's amend CERCLA to mitigate the harsh impact of
strict liability and joint several liability so that parties
who acquire contaminated sites for affordable housing
development and clean those sites up under a State Brownfields
Program have a complete defense against liability under CERCLA.
That is what we have in Florida, that type of liability bar.
But you have to do the cleanup. It is a quid pro quo. It is not
a get out of jail free card.
Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Onder for 5
minutes.
Dr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all
the witnesses being here today.
Mr. Goldstein, you have described Florida's Brownfields
Program as a national model, citing its use of State-level
incentives and liability protections, efficient permitting.
From your experience, do you believe the Federal Government
should play a role mostly by supporting and empowering States
to tailor solutions rather than expanding Washington's control
over brownfield projects?
Mr. Goldstein. Well, I think there remains a very vital
role for EPA to play. Number one, their mere presence in
connection with complicated cleanups engender a lot of public
confidence, so that is number one.
Number two, they bring a lot of expertise to the table and
they have a lot of experience, and all of that is valuable.
They also are very efficient, in my experience both in the
brownfields context and in the Superfund redevelopment context,
as acting as almost concierge consultants to help local
governments and neighborhood stakeholders and developers and
their lenders and capital providers understand how to navigate
all of the regulatory issues and where the bumps in the road
are from an environmental perspective and a public health
perspective.
And then in terms of actually bringing dollars to bear,
well, that is an important role as well. But they should be in
equal partnership with State regulators and local regulators.
Dr. Onder. You brought something up that I was wondering
about when it comes to lenders. Are lenders often hesitant to
loan money where there is a brownfield redevelopment?
Mr. Goldstein. That's correct. Even the slightest whisper
of a hint of a shadow, an environmental risk tends to send
conventional lenders fleeing, because they don't understand
these issues. They hear a lot about CERCLA and other Federal
programs and State liability programs. They hear the horror
stories, and it is much easier to lend on a clean site, and it
is much better for job security.
So, it is an existential issue, and it is a bit of a catch-
22 or catch-21, whatever the catch is, because projects need
financing in order to get over the environmental hurdle, but
they can't get the financing until they get over the
environmental hurdle.
Dr. Onder. Over the hurdle.
Mr. Goldstein. Which is why I have suggested a brownfields
loan guarantee fund as an opportunity.
Dr. Onder. Yes. Okay. Good. So, your support for
reauthorization of the brownfields tax incentive and new loan
guarantee program sounds very reasonable. But at this time of
$36 trillion debt, we want to ensure that we are not just
subsidizing risk or inflating costs. What accountability
measures do you support to ensure these incentives go to high-
performing, results-oriented sites and not less productive
projects?
Mr. Goldstein. Well, I'm a data hound, so I like data. I
like reporting and oversight and auditing. Those generate
important metrics, and they hold grantees' feet to the fire and
make sure that cleanups are efficient and cost effective. There
are other belt-and-suspenders we can add to that process,
including requiring multiple bids for any particular project.
Dr. Onder. Sure. And you advocate for increasing Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits for projects built on brownfield sites.
That may help with cleanup, but how do we ensure that we don't
end up seeing mission creep where the Brownfields Program has
just become another affordable housing vehicle as opposed to
sticking to the primary mission of cleaning up brownfield
sites?
Mr. Goldstein. Well, we have got a perfect storm of need in
this particular public policy arena. We have a lot of sites
that need to be cleaned up because they are engines of
disinvestment, and they are orphan in terms of responsible
parties who have money and the willingness to conduct cleanup,
and they provide a significant public health risk. So, that is
on the one hand. On the other hand, we have a tremendous
affordable housing crisis.
Dr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Goldstein. And so, from my perspective and my
experience, what I am seeing on the ground in Florida and in
Ranking Member Wilson's district is that there is almost an
endless ocean of need that you could pour dollars into and not
have mission creep.
Dr. Onder. Got it. Yes. I know back home in the St. Louis
metro area, I am aware of a number of brownfield sites that are
just prime, prime real estate for commercial development or for
housing, and they are just sitting vacant and at very low
prices because of these issues. So, thank you. Thank you for
your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms.
Friedman for 5 minutes.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Really appreciate all
of the witnesses being here today.
Listening to the conversation with the committee, it is
very heartening to hear a conversation where you can't really
tell what side of the aisle the committee members are. There
seems to be a lot of, certainly, support for this program and
an understanding of, I think, of the imperative to expand the
program to really help these communities that have been
suffering under the burden of polluted sites and to create the
housing that we need, and I hope that there is an openness to
expanding this program and putting the funding into it that we
need.
So, the IIJA provides a total of $1.5 billion for the
program, money that has directly benefited communities in the
L.A. region. In my area in Los Angeles in 2023, the city of
L.A. was selected for a brownfields cleanup grant provided by
the IIJA. The grant funds are going to be used to clean up a
site called Taylor Yard, which is an old railway line that sits
in the middle of Los Angeles that would provide wonderful
parkland for a very park-poor community.
Also in 2023, the L.A. County Sanitation District was
selected for a brownfield cleanup grant, also funded through
the IIJA, and these cleanups are vital to our communities. A
redevelopment of previously contaminated properties not only
protects the health of our communities, but stimulates our
local economies and creates jobs.
I want to talk more about the housing impact, because that
is the number one crisis in Los Angeles, particularly now after
the devastating fires where probably about 20,000 people at
least lost their homes, and that was on top of an existing
housing crisis. And I was really interested in your suggestions
about how to make this program stronger.
So, I am going to ask a couple of questions--because I am
already running out of time--whether there is anything that you
can anticipate that helps cities pay for the infrastructure
that they need, maybe water, sewer, that sort of thing, on top
of what the developers are putting in of their own money for
these sites if we want to create the housing that we need.
Sometimes we are going to have to upgrade the infrastructure
going into the sites.
Also, whether you support increasing the Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit under section 42 of the IRS Code to 6 percent and 12
percent for affordable housing on brownfield sites and whether
you think that would have an impact. And whether a new and one-
time Low-Income Housing Tax Credit of 80 percent of the cost of
land acquisition and demolition to develop affordable housing
would be beneficial, and just anything else that we can take
home with us to look at, because we do have this huge need to
create affordable housing, and we have this program, so, how do
we make it work better.
Mr. Goldstein, I think I will ask you.
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you. I don't want to take all of your
time, so I will try and be brief.
Yes to every recommendation you made with respect to the
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. At those levels, at those
percentages, that would be a tremendous incentive to the
private affordable housing development sector to invest in your
area and in other similar areas across the country.
Increasing Federal funding for infrastructure, water,
sewer, especially, and roads where brownfield sites and
Superfund sites will be reused safely for affordable housing,
that is number two with a bullet.
And number three with a bullet--and I am repeating myself--
is let's drain some of the risk and anxiety out of CERCLA
generally and the application of CERCLA to PFAS specifically
because that is a coming storm. By creating an exemption, a
blanket exemption under Federal law for developers and lenders,
provided that the developer and the local government are
cleaning up under a State Brownfields Program. That keeps all
of these sites out of the National Priorities List and the
National Contingency Plan and allows redevelopment to be more
certain.
Ms. Friedman. So, I don't know if you are familiar with
California's old redevelopment tax increment program that the
State clawed back in about 2010. I, when I was in the
California Legislature, reintroduced some tax increment
programs focusing on specific sites, particularly brownfields
and blight.
Is there anything that would be a similar scheme at the
Federal level? And I am asking this not knowing the answer,
because I have been looking for some way to help encourage more
of this redevelopment. Is there anything you can think of that
would work in a similar way?
Mr. Goldstein. Two things come to mind immediately. Number
one, Congress could expand the New Markets Tax Credit Program
to create carve-outs and expanded funded opportunities for
brownfields generally and affordable and workforce housing on
brownfields specifically. So that is number one, the New
Markets Tax Credit Program.
And number two, expand the Opportunity Zone program
specifically for brownfields and, as a subspecifically, for
housing on brownfields. But I will say this, not just housing
alone, because there is a mixed-use component that historically
has traveled with brownfields that gives you two bites at the
apple. One is housing for people who need it, and number two is
job creation opportunities. That is the mixed-use component
where you have commercial, retail, or industrial.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hurd for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Thank you very much, Chairman Collins
and Ranking Member Wilson, for holding this hearing on the
Brownfields Program.
I have the pleasure of serving as the chairman of the House
Natural Resources Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee, and
in that capacity as that subcommittee chair, I am interested in
learning how this program benefits our Tribal communities in
Indian Country. And the EPA's Brownfields Program has provided
important funding in Indian Country in remediating and revising
these environmental sites.
The Southern Ute Tribe in my district has used money to
redevelop a brownfield site, for example, for now office space.
That is one successful example of use of that program. But I
have also heard that Tribes can at times struggle to attract
non-Federal funding, particularly compared to counties or local
governments.
And so, Mr. Wilbur, I wanted to ask you, can you talk about
specific challenges that you can think of that Tribal
governments face when accessing brownfields funds, and how
might Congress better empower Tribal communities' efforts to
redevelop their sites?
Mr. Wilbur. Well, I will take a stab at it here.
Definitely, in county government, we have a lot more research
than some of our Tribal partners do. And I will first preface
by saying we can go back at NACo and we can reach out to some
of our Tribal communities and get you that information so you
will have accurate data on that as well.
But let's just go back to where I was starting that, yes,
there are significant challenges, whether it be staffing to
apply for these grants, and oftentimes, the reporting on those,
and then it is also trying to get developers to develop in
those areas, too. Some are very, very rural, more rural than my
area or other parts of the Midwest even.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Do you have any ideas how Tribal
communities might attract more non-Federal funding for these
projects as a way that we could facilitate that while maybe
respecting Tribal sovereignty? Any ideas there?
Mr. Wilbur. Off the top of my head, I would say no, but we
can definitely get you some answers back on that, sir.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Okay. Very good.
Mr. Goldstein, question for you. The inspector general
found that millions of dollars in brownfields revolving loan
fund dollars have sat idle across EPA regions. From the
private-sector perspective, what are the key barriers to
deploying that capital?
Mr. Goldstein. That is a great question. I have had
experience with this specifically in south Florida. What we
have seen is that, frankly, the RLF grantees, the revolving
loan fund grantees, tend to want to put that money out at too
high an interest rate. They are looking for too high of a
return, which to me goes against the public policy associated
with those grant funds. Purpose as I understand it, or as I
would like it to be, is to get those funds into the hands of
communities and developers as quickly as possible so those
funds can be put to work and those sites can be cleaned up and
repurposed.
Interestingly, the RLF, the revolving loan fund, grant that
goes to eligible entities not inclusive of private developers,
once those funds are received by the RLF grantees, they can be
loaned out to private developers. And we have used those, our
clients and my development company has used that funding, but
it has been slow going for most RLF grantees, typically because
they are asking for too much in terms of an interest rate.
So, what I would like to see, if I may, is a requirement
from Congress imposing a cap on the amount of interest that can
be charged. It is important that the money be paid back so that
the money can be put back out on the street. That is the whole
concept of revolving loan, but not at an interest factor that
makes it uncompetitive or punitive. We want to lower barriers
to redevelopment for private developers.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. What would you suggest how that cap
would be formulated, just out of curiosity?
Mr. Goldstein. I am sorry?
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. How would that cap be formulated? Any
ideas what that might look like?
Mr. Goldstein. I would like--best case scenario would be a
zero-percent interest loan. That money would fly out the door
and would be put immediately to use.
Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Okay. Very good. Thank you very much,
Mr. Goldstein.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Scholten for 5
minutes.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Chair Collins and Ranking Member
Wilson, and to our esteemed witnesses for joining us here today
and for your incredible work on this issue.
Michigan is the beating heart of this country's
manufacturing operations. And while that is an immense source
of pride for our State, unfortunately, careless disposal of
hazardous materials associated with that heavy manufacturing
has left my home State with nearly 24,000 contaminated sites,
all while being nestled right next to the largest freshwater
resource in the entire world.
The first source of attack, of course, should always be
holding bad actors accountable who have polluted and need to
clean up their messes. But when they are not, these properties
are thrust on the shoulders of taxpayers and local governments
to clean up and repurpose. Fortunately, the EPA's Brownfields
Program has provided communities with the resources necessary
to catalyze the redevelopment and safely address these
pollutants.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law built on this progress
directing $9 million in Federal grants funding to Michigan
alone has shown just how effective these programs can be. These
investments have remedied the wrongdoings of the past while
preparing the State to innovate and preserve its manufacturing
legacy.
My first question. In addition to encouraging environmental
stewardship, the Brownfields Program is also a key tool, as I
mentioned, to revitalize these communities. I share the
chairman's concerns about fiscal responsibility. In fact, I
stand on fiscal responsibility. It is essential that we spend
our taxpayer dollars in an effective manner.
Throughout Michigan, we have seen how fiscally responsible
investment in this program can be. Redeveloped properties have
ushered in new jobs, increased local tax bases, and stimulated
neighborhoods. These investments are an incredible use of
taxpayer dollars, reinvesting money right back into these
communities.
Ms. Shook, can you speak to how redevelopment of blighted
properties is an effective use of taxpayer dollars and how it
benefits local economies across the country?
Ms. Shook. Thank you. Investment in our communities really
can allow the locals to reinvent how their communities have
developed, whether it be built around a former auto
manufacturing site--which we also have many of in Ohio--to see
them think differently about how they want it to look in the
future, whether it be mixed-use and housing or a new commercial
development completely. They can change the health effects in
the community from having dangerous contaminants available for
exposure to their communities to a new productive use.
So, we have seen a variety of projects come through,
especially through our voluntary cleanup program, that have
created brandnew metro parks in areas that were otherwise
industrial histories. You will see that on the Lake Erie
waterfront and a few of our different communities.
To moving back the commercial developments a block away so
that you can keep your park space available and have all those
recreational and tourism aspects, and then you have new
commercial, vibrant businesses opening, new office spaces, new
restaurants that drive visitors to your communities. It can be
a true catalyst to getting people back into your neighborhoods.
Ms. Scholten. I think your testimony speaks for itself, and
it is essential to be asking as we look to these cuts, why? Why
are we saying we can't afford this right now, right. We have
choices to be made in this country, and while on the one hand
we are allowing massive tax breaks to major corporations, we
are saying we can't afford this incredibly fiscally responsible
investment back into our communities. To me it seems like we
can't afford not to.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. DeSaulnier. I'm sorry, I
butchered that.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Obviously, you took French in high school
because that was great.
Mr. Collins. There was a McDonald's; it was called french
fries.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I respond to anything close to it.
Well, thank you to all the witnesses.
Mr. Goldstein, I wanted to ask you a question. I represent
an area in the San Francisco Bay area, the county I have
represented for a long time at the local, State, and Federal
level. I was an air regulator, but worked closely with the
Regional Water Quality Board. We have the highest industrial
and hazardous material sites on the west coast by concentration
geographically in population because the bay area is very
populated. But because of the access to deepwater ports, it is
really crucial, particularly to the petroleum industry. There
are five refineries. They are mostly in Mr. Garamendi's
district, but have been in mine in my various service.
So, what's happening is--and also northern California is
transitioning very rapidly, mostly from market rate in terms of
renewable fuels and alternative energy cars.
So, we have got one refinery that just announced last week
or 2 weeks ago, the Valero Refinery in Benicia, California.
Now, these five refineries produce 25 percent of the CARB-
certified fuel in California and 50 percent of the diesel fuel,
so, the ripple effect. So there are Superfund sites, brownfield
sites.
Most of the property in the bay area doesn't get deserted.
We have had brownfield sites. But it is the interaction between
these that I am interested in, where the liability is when
venture capital companies decide to come in and buy a big
hazardous material site because it's not worth what it was 10
years ago. And as they see the transition happening, largely
because of the private sector, in spite of some of my
colleagues saying it's regulatory; there is regulatory
enforcement that I support as appropriate.
So, that's sort of my broad question is, in this case with
Valero, I think they are leveraging. The local city council has
been very demanding on them, but there is a lot of demand to
come in and buy the property. But in that transition, whether
it is brownfield, Superfund, public oversight at the State or
the local level, we have had a lot of problem with the Regional
Water Quality Board where the business model seems, to me, in
some of these places that have been bought now and are just
going--one plant that was bought, they said we bought it for
spare parts because we know there is a limited timeframe of
this refinery.
So, discharge petitions and what is going into the bay
delta, all of that sort of intersects with brownfields. Are
they going to leave the site? Prospectively they could.
So, I am just curious if you had any view--and I realize
this is a specific hearing, but it intersects with the larger
economic pressure where we are changing a lot of our use to
hazardous material sites in areas that have concentrations of
them. And it has a lot of impact on environmental justice as we
have switched in California to talk about the cumulative
effects.
So, back to this hearing, it is a small potential portion
of the overall conversation I am trying to have with you. But
if you have any thoughts in particular about this and where it
might be something that we have to think about of supporting
it.
And then lastly, region 9 where EPA is headquartered in the
west coast has been a target in the first administration where
it actually moves the Administrator out of the offices and has
pushed for early buyout. So we don't have the resources we used
to have in northern California and in the west coast because
region 9 is being abandoned, particularly the EPA.
Mr. Goldstein. So, for these types of sites where you have
a very significant history of use of acutely hazardous
materials that are likely widespread creating significant
public health risk and questions regarding the confidence that
the public will have in the completeness and thoroughness of
the cleanup, that illustrates the need for a very vital and
vibrant regulatory dimension to go hand in glove with all of
the economic incentives that will be necessary to encourage the
private sector to do most of the heavy lifting associated with
that magnitude of cleanup.
And so, if you are asking me what my view is of that type
of scenario, which has played out all over the country, it is
that the Brownfields Program is multidimensional. It is not
just about grants. It is not just about liability protection.
It is not just about private capital coming in or regulatory
oversight to protect public health. It is all of that. And so
there is not one particular box that this committee can or
should check and expect that the momentum that has been
achieved since the mid-1990s will be maintained.
Put another way to bring this answer in for a landing, we
need to continue to have strong regulatory oversight at the
Federal level when the issues are exceedingly complex and may
have a Federal component, a multistate component. Also, the
State and local regulatory oversight on the one hand, and then
all of the financial tools and the liability tools on the
other.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Chairman, it is really interesting to
see as these big, billion-dollar assets from private sector
become less of an asset and more of a liability from a
financial model and where it's appropriate for us in Congress
to be--and all of these refineries heretofore were very high
performing in their total portfolio partially because the
public demanded it.
Mr. Goldstein. One last point on your question, which is a
great question, and I think this may be what you are getting
at. As these billion-dollar assets transition to billion-dollar
liabilities, there are funds out there, very significantly
resourced funds, that will rush to fill that gap and make the
safe transition, but they need the right regulatory environment
in which to do that. And in that sense, while regulatory
oversight to protect public health is critical, we also need
the appropriate opportunities from a CERCLA perspective to, as
I mentioned earlier, drain the anxiety out of potential
enforcement.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I want to thank the chairman for indulging
this. But I will just close with this. The property itself is
worth a lot of money. There are developers who are interested
with all liabilities, so the existing value of that liability
still continues, and the local government has a lot of say
because they have the land-use jurisdiction. So, it's a
fascinating subject.
Thank you.
Mr. Collins. The gentleman yields back. You're fine. We are
actually--we are going to--I was going to open it up for a
second round of questioning right quick because, personally, I
had a few questions of my own that I wanted to ask. So, I am
going to yield myself 5 minutes for questioning.
I want to open up, Mr. Larson, can you give us the
difference in a Superfund and a brownfield, and can a
brownfield be a Superfund?
Mr. Larson. Sure. I am happy to address the question and
provide some points on that.
Like I mentioned in my opening statement, the Superfund
Program was established in 1980, largely in response to very
high-profile cases where you had a variety of hazardous waste
sites and communities that were acutely exposed to various
contamination along with other factors that led to that
enactment.
And so, as part of that, Congress under CERCLA established
a liability framework for potentially responsible parties who
were responsible for leasing those hazardous substances into
the environment. And so, when you are looking at the CERCLA
framework under Superfund Program, it is a cleanup program that
is responding to releases of hazardous substances and other
pollutants and contaminants into the environment.
So, you can think of it as, it's an enforcement-first
framework where EPA is looking to, under the Superfund Program,
they are looking to enforce liability first against potentially
responsible parties to make them pay for the cleanup of the
site, whereas there are--not that we have time to get into it--
but there are certain other mechanisms for sites that are
elevated at the National Priorities List. You have additional
Federal funding mechanisms through the Hazardous Substance
Superfund Trust Fund for those types of sites.
For the Brownfields Program, it was set up and it is
authorized within CERCLA, but it provides--it is primarily a
grant-based program for these eligible entities and these
eligible sites that is intended to both, as we have been
speaking about, provide some economic assistance or financial
assistance for these specific projects, but in addition to
that, to provide liability exemptions so that you have--we
talked about there are the current and former owners and
operators of the site. You also have strict liability and joint
and several retroactive to the time of release.
Mr. Collins. And I think that's where I want to pick up
from there, and it is a good segue into my next question with
Mr. Goldstein.
Can you quantify the loss of investment from private sector
just because of that liability problem that they perceive or
they may have?
Mr. Goldstein. I can't do it scientifically, Chairman, but
I can speak from experience. I can tell you what my--I have a
gut-based answer. And in Florida alone, we have probably seen
close to $1 billion in avoided transactions as a result of
potential exposure to CERCLA liability. That's just one
person's environmental practice over a 33-year timeframe. You
could probably multiply that by several orders of magnitude.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Ms. Shook, I was listening to someone else's testimony. Are
all sites to be cleaned to a residential use--or is there like
a commercial, and residential----
Ms. Shook [interrupting]. So most--we do not clean all
sites to a residential use. In our voluntary cleanup program,
we have standards for both commercial sites and for residential
sites.
Mr. Collins. Okay.
Ms. Shook. We allow the end user to determine which land
use they are interested in. Any site could be residential with
the right amount of funding.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. Thank you.
And one last question--I will open this up to everybody--
are we adding sites continually or has it stopped? I mean, at
some point, we should be able to hold people liable for messing
up the land like that. I mean, I can understand things years
and years ago, but are we still adding, or have we plateaued?
Ms. Shook. I can--I will take that. Yes, we are still
adding. As businesses go under, as they file for bankruptcy,
while we can try to hold them accountable, they are often
overwhelmed with their liabilities and can't complete a
cleanup. That is where the Brownfields Program is.
Many of our brownfields aren't massive sites. A lot of them
still are mom-and-pop gas stations, a dry cleaner, a former
mechanic shop. And in many of those cases, you are never going
to have an entity that can fund the cleanup that they were
responsible for.
Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. DeSaulnier, did you have additional questions?
Mr. DeSaulnier. Just wanted to follow up sort of, again, on
the same line. In looking at going forward, where we have such
a large part of potential brownfield sites in the country,
around energy transition, what could we do better so that we
could avoid these liability issues, to make sure that we
anticipate this huge transition--one-fifth of the economy, in
my view, is happening, and I just happened to be in a region
that needs it in many ways--what do you think, from your
experience, Mr. Goldstein, where we could sort of go upstream
and protect revenue for brownfield, but anticipate these huge
transitions we are going through on hazardous material sites
related to energy?
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you for the question. A few thoughts.
Number one, enforcement at the Federal level and at the State
level remains a critical public policy need, because without a
cop on the beat, people are going to do what people tend to do,
which is take shortcuts. Now, not everyone will do that, but
enough people will do that that we will continue to see the
volume of impacted sites increase. And sometimes things happen
not because people intend them to, but that is just the way it
goes in industry and business.
But to get ahead of the game, which is I think what you are
getting at, what Congress can do is a lot of what we talked
about today: improve the process, shorten the timeframe from
which a party applies for a grant and that money gets to where
it needs to go. That's number one.
And number two, put in place more statutory tools to create
broader exemptions from liability so that private capital will
feel more comfortable investing in these risky sites.
The best way to get ahead of the game is to incentivize
private parties to tackle these problems sooner than later, so
that we don't discover 10 years down the road that we could
have done something 10 years earlier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. And just a followup question. Having served
at every level of Government and having started as a
Republican--some of my colleagues are always shocked to hear
that, but parties change--is the inefficiency of sometimes--
speaking in California, although I love it, is the Federal
regulators, particularly vis-a-vis region 9 that used to work
closely with California and local government, what could we do
to coordinate that, knowing that the modeling shows that these
facilities, in places like I represent, are changing because of
the private sector?
So, the coordination of the regulatory agencies is a
frustration for me. They all do a good job, but their
coordination is not very effective.
Mr. Goldstein. Well, in terms of environmental
redevelopment, there is a model at the Federal level that is
somewhat dormant. The Federal Brownfields Partnership, in
theory, a number of the Federal agencies are supposed to be
coordinating all of their brownfield resources--the Army Corps
of Engineers, Housing and Urban Development, Department of
Energy, Department of Commerce, and so on. That rarely happens,
unfortunately.
Going forward, it would be wonderful to have that type of
coordination, not just among the Federal partners, but among
State partners as well to identify some of these larger
transitional projects so that all of the agency stakeholders
can collaborate with local government officials and the
developers who are bringing the capital to the table.
Mr. DeSaulnier. And as far as the modeling goes, just
getting DOE and Department of Transportation, EPA, resources
all to have communication, at least in region 9 they were
pretty good, but they still--just working across sister
agencies at the Federal level, and then working with the State
and the regional agencies and the local agencies, was always
pretty inefficient and largely stovepiped. So, for the private
sector, it was not very efficient.
So, to the degree, if there is anyone on the other side of
the aisle who would like to work with someone like myself on
this, I think it could be very helpful. And then we wouldn't
have to use brownfield moneys because we would get far enough
ahead of it that we could stop people from having a liability
and walking away.
Thank you----
Mr. Goldstein [interrupting]. I think brownfields money--
brownfields grants will always have an important role to play,
at least at the very inception of a project.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
witnesses.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Are there any further questions from any other Members?
Not seeing anyone in here, that's going to conclude our
hearing for today. I would like to thank each of the witnesses
for your testimony.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson, for holding
this hearing on the Brownfields Program.
The EPA's Brownfields Program is one of the most effective tools we
have for turning the legacy of pollution into opportunities for
progress.
Since its inception, this program has returned over 10,800 sites to
productive reuse, leveraging more than $40.4 billion in redevelopment
funding and supporting over 270,000 jobs.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law delivered $1.5 billion over five
years to support assessment, cleanup, job training and technical
assistance for communities across the country.
These are smart, targeted investments that turn blighted properties
into engines of economic growth and environmental justice. They help
build parks, revitalize neighborhoods, expand tax bases and protect
public health--all while creating jobs.
In Washington's Second District, the Brownfields Program has helped
transform the historic Northern State Hospital in Sedro-Woolley--once a
contaminated and abandoned facility--into a thriving hub for
innovation, known today as the SWIFT Center.
This 225-acre site is being repurposed into a mixed-use campus
focused on technology, job creation, historic preservation, and public
recreation through partnerships with the Port of Skagit and local and
state agencies.
Contaminants like arsenic and chlorinated solvents have been
identified and addressed through EPA and state-supported grants--nearly
$600,000 in federal funding alone.
Thanks to the Brownfields Program, the SWIFT Center now supports
local employment and protects sensitive habitat like Hansen Creek while
still honoring the legacy of Northern State Hospital.
However, the continued success of the Brownfields Program is now at
risk. The Trump Administration's ``skinny budget'' has proposed cutting
EPA funding by 55 percent--the largest rollback in the agency's
history.
These reckless cuts would devastate the Brownfields Program and
undermine communities still living with the consequences of past
industrial pollution.
These cuts will also disproportionately impact rural, disadvantaged
communities and working-class neighborhoods--those who can least afford
the loss of targeted federal assistance.
We must continue to invest in these projects. Every dollar spent
cleaning up a brownfield site is a dollar spent creating jobs,
restoring communities, and building a healthier future for all
Americans.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can
protect and expand this vital work.
[all]