By Virak Kchao
March 10, 2008

The House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on February 14 held a hearing to discuss the reauthorization of the Brownfield’s program. The Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 5336) was introduced by Representatives Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX) and James Oberstar (MN). It is a reauthorization of the current law — the Small Business Liability and Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 2002 with some minor revisions including raising the authorized appropriations from $250 million to $350 million annually through Fiscal Year 2012. The program has never been funded at more than $163 million since its inception. Another component that is being enhanced is job training for brownfields redevelopment.

Members of the subcommittee all agreed that the EPA Brownfields program had a great result and positive effect on its communities. Witnesses at the hearing outlined the many successes of the brownfields program in recent years and outlined suggested changes to improve the program.

Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator at Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response for the U.S. EPA, said that “Through calendar year 2007, EPA’s Brownfields Program has assessed more than 11,500 properties, made more than 3,600 acres ready for reuse, generated more than 47,000 jobs, and leveraged more than $10.3 billion in economic redevelopment.”

Members also expressed concern that if the program was expanded further that would there be enough funding to adequately support each grantee. Since there might be too many applicants in upcoming years without there being sufficient funding. Witnesses stated that there still would be sufficient funding for the grantees to conduct brownfields remediation even with more grants awarded. One concern raised by Congressman John Boozman (AR) was the lack of conversion of brownfields to brightfields. Susan Bodine stated that it could be done more often but didn’t want to subject applicants to too specific criteria so it could allow for different sites which could leverage the best benefits. The EPA would like to expand its qualification criteria to promote for more diverse range of brownfield applicants.

Congresswoman Laura Richardson (CA) questioned how criteria were used to select certain projects such as brownfields in downtown parts of a city versus ones located in smaller more impoverished neighborhoods. She asked that more grantees selected be ones located in smaller, more impoverished neighborhoods and to also provide criteria so that more increment funding is awarded to these disadvantaged neighborhoods. Witnesses said that they would like to promote more coalitions and partnerships be formed in order to help the grantees located in smaller, rural places. Nancey Green Leigh, an architecture professor from the Georgia Institute of Technology, also suggested that demographics should be included to the criteria when grantees are reviewed to maximize standard. This would allow target increment funds to people located in the unhealthiest places of the grants awarded.

Subcommittee members invited witnesses to suggest changes that would help improve the brownfields program when reauthorizing of the funding. One of the main issues discussed by the witnesses was liability. Further clarity and protection from liability was needed in the legislation so that more interest would be gained in developing brownfields. The issue of ownership proved a big concern in distinguishing who legally was able to help with remediation of a contaminated site and the funding of remediation work. Ownership issues held back participation from organizations and private companies from assisting others in remediation of brownfield sites. Witnesses expressed that more flexibility in the spending of grant money was needed to improve the brownfields program. Since over the time of when grants are awarded and in process of conducting a brownfields remediation project many things are subject to change and unknown risks. Limited time constraints and inflexibility makes the brownfield remediation at times difficult for grantees to complete. Funding was also requested to be raised for the program due to great success. Expressing that if funding were increased, even greater results would be achieved.