"Cleaning Up the Past, Building the Future: The Brownfields Program"

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                    CLEANING UP THE PAST, BUILDING THE FUTURE:5                            THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM67=======================================================================89                                (119-19)1011                                HEARING1213                               BEFORE THE1415                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON16                    WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT1718                                 OF THE1920                              COMMITTEE ON21                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE22                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2324                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2526                             FIRST SESSION2728                               __________2930                              MAY 7, 20253132                               __________3334                       Printed for the use of the35             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure3637[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3839     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-40     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/41                             transportation4243                                __________4445                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4660-917 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254748-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4950            COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE5152  		Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman53 	       Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member5455Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,56  District of Columbia               Arkansas,57Jerrold Nadler, New York               Vice Chairman58Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Daniel Webster, Florida59John Garamendi, California           Thomas Massie, Kentucky60Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaott Perry, Pennsylvania61Andre Carson, Indiana                Brian Babin, Texas62Dina Titus, Nevada                   David Rouzer, North Carolina63Jared Huffman, California            Mike Bost, Illinois64Julia Brownley, California           Doug LaMalfa, California65Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bruce Westerman, Arkansas66Mark DeSaulnier, California          Brian J. Mast, Florida67Salud O. Carbajal, California        Pete Stauber, Minnesota68Greg Stanton, Arizona                Tim Burchett, Tennessee69Sharice Davids, Kansas               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota70Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey71Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Troy E. Nehls, Texas72Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Tracey Mann, Kansas73Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Burgess Owens, Utah74Patrick Ryan, New York               Eric Burlison, Missouri75Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Mike Collins, Georgia76Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,           Mike Ezell, Mississippi77  Vice Ranking Member                Kevin Kiley, California78Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Vince Fong, California79Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Tony Wied, Wisconsin80Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan81Robert Garcia, California            Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska82Nellie Pou, New Jersey               Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,83Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan     Pennsylvania84Laura Friedman, California           Jeff Hurd, Colorado85Laura Gillen, New York               Jefferson Shreve, Indiana86Shomari Figures, Alabama             Addison P. McDowell, North87                                     Carolina88                                     David J. Taylor, Ohio89                                     Brad Knott, North Carolina90                                     Kimberlyn King-Hinds,91                                       Northern Mariana Islands92                                     Mike Kennedy, Utah93                                     Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri94                                     Jimmy Patronis, Florida9596            Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment9798  Mike Collins, Georgia, Chairman99  Frederica S. Wilson, Florida,100          Ranking Member101John Garamendi, California           Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,102Jared Huffman, California            Arkansas103Patrick Ryan, New York               Thomas Massie, Kentucky104Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Brian Babin, Texas105Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Mike Bost, Illinois106Laura Friedman, California           Doug LaMalfa, California107Shomari Figures, Alabama             Bruce Westerman, Arkansas108Julia Brownley, California           Brian J. Mast, Florida109Mark DeSaulnier, California          Tracey Mann, Kansas110Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Eric Burlison, Missouri111Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan,       Kevin Kiley, California112  Vice Ranking Member                Vince Fong, California113Nellie Pou, New Jersey               Tony Wied, Wisconsin114Laura Gillen, New York               Jeff Hurd, Colorado115Eleanor Holmes Norton,               David J. Taylor, Ohio, Vice116  District of Columbia               Chairman117Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Brad Knott, North Carolina118                                     Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri119                                     Jimmy Patronis, Florida120                                     Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)121122                                CONTENTS123124                                                                   Page125126Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii127128                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE129130Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State of131  Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and132  Environment, opening statement.................................     1133    Prepared statement...........................................     2134Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the135  State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water136  Resources and Environment, opening statement...................     3137    Prepared statement...........................................     4138Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of139  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and140  Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................    53141142                               WITNESSES143144Hon. Terry M. Wilbur, Clerk, Oswego County, New York, on behalf145  of the National Association of Counties, oral statement........     6146    Prepared statement...........................................     8147Lisa Shook, Assistant Chief, Division of Environmental Response148  and Remediation, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, oral149  statement......................................................    11150    Prepared statement...........................................    13151Lance N. Larson, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Congressional152  Research Service, oral statement...............................    14153    Prepared statement...........................................    16154Michael R. Goldstein, Esq., Managing Partner, The Goldstein155  Environmental Law Firm, P.A., oral statement...................    18156    Prepared statement...........................................    20157158                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD159160Letter of May 3, 2025, from the Environmental Council of the161  States to Hon. Lee Zeldin, Administrator, U.S. Environmental162  Protection Agency, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Frederica163  S. Wilson......................................................    25164165[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]166167                              May 2, 2025168169    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER170171    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Water Resources and172Environment173    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and174Environment175    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Cleaning Up the Past,176Building the Future: The Brownfields Program''177_______________________________________________________________________178179                               I. PURPOSE180181    The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the182Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on183Wednesday, May 7, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 Rayburn House184Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing entitled,185``Cleaning Up the Past, Building the Future: The Brownfields186Program.'' The hearing will provide Members with an opportunity187to hear local and National perspectives on the Environmental188Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields program.189    At the hearing, Members will receive testimony from190witnesses representing the National Association of Counties,191the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the Congressional192Research Service, and the Goldstein Environmental Law Firm.193194II. COMPRHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABIITY ACT195                                (CERCLA)196197    CERCLA, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency198(EPA), is the Federal Government's principal law for addressing199the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances,200pollutants, or contaminants, through immediate removal or long-201term remedial actions.\1\ CERCLA establishes a framework for202the EPA to seek out and compel potentially responsible parties203(PRPs) to clean up contaminated sites or recover cleanup costs204from PRPs.\2\205---------------------------------------------------------------------------206    \1\ David M. Bearden, Cong. Rsch Serv. (R41039), Comprehensive207Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of208Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, (June20914, 2012), available at https://www.crs.gov/reports/pdf/R41039/210R41039.pdf [hereinafter CRS Report R41039].211    \2\ Id.212---------------------------------------------------------------------------213    Liability for PRPs under CERCLA is triggered if there has214been an actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance215that causes the incurrence of response costs.\3\ Section 107 of216CERCLA identifies four categories of PRPs: (1) any current217owner or operator of a contaminated facility; (2) any past218owner or operator of a contaminated facility; (3) any person219who arranged for the disposal or treatment of a hazardous220substance, and; (4) any person who transported hazardous221substances for disposal or treatment.\4\ There are liability222protections provided under the statute for individuals in223certain circumstances, such as innocent landowners,\5\224contiguous property owners,\6\ persons who contributed only225very small qualities of waste to a site,\7\ or bona fide226prospective purchasers, which are individuals who knowingly227acquire contaminated property and adhere to certain statutory228criteria.\8\229---------------------------------------------------------------------------230    \3\ 40 C.F.R. Sec.  302.4 (2025).231    \4\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  9607.232    \5\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  9607(b)(3).233    \6\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  9607(q).234    \7\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  9607(o).235    \8\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  9601(40).236---------------------------------------------------------------------------237    Courts have consistently interpreted liability under CERCLA238to be retroactive, strict, and joint and several in nature.\9\239Specifically:240---------------------------------------------------------------------------241    \9\ See, e.g., CRS Report R41039, supra note 1.242243     LRetroactive Liability: Courts have held that244CERCLA liability applies to the release or disposal of245hazardous substances occurring prior to the statute's enactment246on December 11, 1980.\10\247---------------------------------------------------------------------------248    \10\ See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical249Co. (NEPACCO), 810 F.2d 726 (8th Cir. 1986).250---------------------------------------------------------------------------251     LStrict Liability: Courts have attached strict252liability regardless of fault; a party may be liable under253CERCLA even if it exercised due care and did not act254negligently.\11\255---------------------------------------------------------------------------256    \11\ See United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) (CERCLA257imposes strict liability on ``covered persons'' without a requirement258to prove negligence or intent).259---------------------------------------------------------------------------260     LJoint and Several Liability: Courts have imposed261joint and several liability where the harm caused by hazardous262substances cannot be reasonably divided among multiple263parties.\12\264---------------------------------------------------------------------------265    \12\ United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp., 572 F. Supp. 802 (S.D. Ohio2661983).267268    If PRPs can be identified and are able to finance a269cleanup, the Federal Government can enforce liability through270CERCLA in several ways, by: (1) a judicial or administrative271order; (2) cost-recovery actions through administrative or272judicial proceedings; or (3) voluntary settlement273agreements.\13\ Alternatively, EPA may clean up ``orphan274sites'' when PRPs are not identified, or when they fail to275act.\14\ These Federal response actions are generally funded by276the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund.\15\277---------------------------------------------------------------------------278    \13\ EPA, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and279Liability Act (CERCLA) and Federal Facilities, available at https://280www.epa.gov/enforcement/comprehensive-environmental-response-281compensation-and-liability-act-cercla-and-federal.282    \14\ E.g., CRS Report R41039, supra note 1.283    \15\ Id.284---------------------------------------------------------------------------285286                      III. EPA BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM287288BACKGROUND289290    A brownfield site is defined as ``real property, the291expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated292by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance,293pollutant, or contaminant.'' \16\ Brownfields are properties294that are typically abandoned, underutilized, or idle with295either known or suspected contamination. The possibility of296contamination is often a deterrent for many prospective297investors and developers because of potential CERCLA298liability.\17\299---------------------------------------------------------------------------300    \16\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  9601(39).301    \17\ CRS Report R41039, supra note 1.302---------------------------------------------------------------------------303    Types of brownfields can include inactive factories, gas304stations, salvage or scrap yards, or abandoned warehouses.\18\305However, many other commercial, industrial, and agricultural,306and even some residential areas may be contaminated due to307current or past uses at the site.\19\ Brownfield sites are308generally less contaminated than those listed on the National309Priorities List,\20\ but still may require remediation work to310make them suitable for reuse and redevelopment.\21\ For311example, according to EPA, lead, asbestos, volatile organic312compounds, petroleum, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,313arsenic, and other heavy metals are the most reported314contaminants found at brownfield sites.\22\315---------------------------------------------------------------------------316    \18\ EPA, What is a Brownfield?, available at bf-101.1-with-317voiceover-what-are-brownfields.pptx.318    \19\ EPA, Environmental Contamination at Brownfield Sites,319available at https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/environmental-320contamination-brownfield-sites. [hereinafter Environmental321Contamination].322    \20\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  9605 (requires the EPA to list National323priorities for Superfund sites based on the Hazard Ranking System324(HRS). This list, known as the National Priorities List (NPL),325identifies sites that warrant further investigation and potential326remediation under CERCLA).327    \21\ CRS Report R41039, supra note 1.328    \22\ Environmental Contamination, supra note 15.329---------------------------------------------------------------------------330    Brownfield sites drive down property values, provide little331or no tax revenue to the local area, and contribute to332community blight.\23\ EPA reports that an estimated 450,000 to333one million brownfields sites exist within the United334States.\24\ The EPA Brownfields Program aims to support states,335Tribal Nations, local communities, and other stakeholders in336their efforts to prevent, assess, remediate, and reuse337brownfield sites.\25\ The cleanup and redevelopment of these338abandoned sites and blighted properties can increase local tax339bases, promote economic development, revitalize neighborhoods,340facilitate job growth, enable the creation of public parks and341open space, or preserve existing properties.\26\342---------------------------------------------------------------------------343    \23\ Id.344    \24\ See, EPA, Brownfields--About, available at https://345www.epa.gov/brownfields/about.346    \25\ Id.347    \26\ Id.348---------------------------------------------------------------------------349    EPA's Brownfields program supports land revitalization by350providing grants and technical assistance to help communities351identify, clean up, and develop brownfield sites. The program352distributes funds that are appropriated annually by Congress353through technical assistance, competitive grants, and non-354competitive funding.\27\ Specifically, the program offers the355following types of funding assistance:356---------------------------------------------------------------------------357    \27\ EPA, Brownfields Program Grants, available at https://358www.epa.gov/resilient-investments/brownfields-program-grants.359[hereinafter Brownfields Program Grants].360361     LBrownfields Assessment Grants: which provide362funding for brownfield inventories, planning, environmental363assessments, and community outreach. There are several364different types of assessment grants available.\28\365---------------------------------------------------------------------------366    \28\ EPA, Brownfields Assessment Grants, available at https://367www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfields-assessment-grants.368369     LBrownfields Cleanup Grants: which provide funding370to carry out cleanup activities at brownfields sites owned by371the applicant. An applicant may request funding to address372either a single brownfield site or multiple sites within the373same application.\29\374---------------------------------------------------------------------------375    \29\ EPA, EPA Brownfields Cleanup Grants: Interested in Applying376for Funding?, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/3772022-08/Program%20Overview_Cleanup.pdf.378379     LBrownfields Multipurpose Grants: which allow380communities that have identified a geographic area with one or381more brownfield sites to carry out a variety of eligible382assessment and cleanup activities in the area, such as383inventorying brownfields sites, conducting environmental384assessments, and developing an overall plan for385revitalization.\30\386---------------------------------------------------------------------------387    \30\ EPA, EPA Brownfields Multipurpose Grants: Interested in388Applying for Funding?, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/389documents/2022-08/Program%20Overview_Cleanup.pdf.390391     LBrownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grants:392which allow eligible entities (as defined in section 104(k)(1)393of CERCLA) to capitalize revolving funds for the remediation of394brownfields, subject to the same funding limitations as direct395grants.\31\396---------------------------------------------------------------------------397    \31\ EPA, Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund RLF Grants, available at398https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfields-revolving-loan-fund-rlf-399grants.400401     LBrownfields Job Training Grants: which provide402funding to nonprofits, local governments, and other eligible403organizations to provide training for residents impacted by404brownfield sites in their communities. Students develop skills405needed to secure employment in the hazardous and solid waste406management field.\32\407---------------------------------------------------------------------------408    \32\ EPA, EPA Brownfields Job Training Grants: Interested in409Applying for Funding?, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/410documents/2024-01/bfjt-program-overview.pdf.411412     LState and Tribal Response Program: which provides413non-competitive funding through cooperative agreements to414states and Tribes to establish or enhance their non-Federal415environmental response programs.\33\ States, Territories, and416Tribes are responsible for developing brownfields cleanup417standards and policy and conducting or overseeing the418assessment, cleanup, and reuse of brownfield sites within their419jurisdictions.\34\ EPA supports these state and Tribal programs420through this funding.421---------------------------------------------------------------------------422    \33\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  9628.423    \34\ EPA, EPA Brownfields and Land Revitalization CERCLA Section424128(a) State and Tribal Response Program Funding, available at https://425www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-09/426updated_128a_fact_sheet_final_080422.pdf427428    A wide range of eligible entities can apply for the429competitive grants, including local government, quasi-430governmental entities, redevelopment agencies, states,431Federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Regional432Corporations, nonprofit organizations and certain limited433liability corporations and partnerships with nonprofit434affiliations.\35\ For-profit organizations, individual entities435and nonprofit organizations exempt from taxation under section436501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that lobby are not437eligible to receive grants through the Brownfields program.\36\438---------------------------------------------------------------------------439    \35\ Brownfields Program Grants, supra note 23.440    \36\ Id.441---------------------------------------------------------------------------442443LEGISLATIVE AND FUNDING HISTORY444445    Using existing CERCLA authorities, EPA originally446established a program in 1993 to provide federal assistance to447support the cleanup of brownfields properties.\37\ In 2002, the448Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization449Act (P.L. 107-118) amended CERCLA to provide explicit statutory450authority for the EPA to provide Federal grants to assist in451the cleanup of brownfields properties. It also established452new--and clarified existing--targeted CERCLA liability453protections. Because CERCLA has far-reaching liability454implications, these protections play an important role in455facilitating the redevelopment of brownfields by clarifying and456reducing potential liabilities for property owners and457developers.458---------------------------------------------------------------------------459    \37\ CRS Report R41039, supra note 1.460---------------------------------------------------------------------------461    In 2018, Congress further amended the program through the462Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development463(BUILD) Act, enacted as Division N of the Consolidated464Appropriations Act, 2018.\38\ The BUILD Act reauthorized the465Brownfields program through fiscal year (FY) 2023 and made466several changes to the program, including increasing certain467per-project funding limits, providing new granting authorities,468and modifying the definition of a ``bona fide prospective469purchaser.'' \39\470---------------------------------------------------------------------------471    \38\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. Law No. 115-141,472132 Stat. 350.473    \39\ Id.474---------------------------------------------------------------------------475    In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)476provided a total of $1.5 billion for the program from FY 2022477through FY 2026.\40\ EPA has reported that of the $1.5 billion478provided by IIJA, $1.2 billion is allocated for direct grants479and technical assistance to communities and $300 million is480allocated for state and Tribal Response programs.\41\481---------------------------------------------------------------------------482    \40\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58,483135 Stat 1169.484    \41\ Id.485---------------------------------------------------------------------------486    For FY 2024, the Brownfields program received a total of487$170 million.\42\ This included $25.7 million for program488administration, $98 million for state and Tribal Response489programs, and $46.3 million for categorical grants (which490includes funding for assessment, cleanup, multipurpose, RLF,491technical assistance, and job training grants).\43\492---------------------------------------------------------------------------493    \42\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Pub. Law No. 118-42,494138 Stat. 252.495    \43\ Id.496---------------------------------------------------------------------------497498PROGRAM SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES499500    The Brownfields program has been generally well received by501EPA, states, communities, investors, and developers. According502to EPA, since its inception, the program has made over 10,800503sites ready for productive reuse, leveraged more than $40.4504billion in additional cleanup and redevelopment funding, and505helped to create or leverage more than 270,000 jobs.\44\506---------------------------------------------------------------------------507    \44\ EPA, Fiscal Year 2025 Justification of Appropriation Estimate508for the Committee on Appropriations Tab 05: Environmental Programs and509Management (Mar. 2024) available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/510documents/2024-04/fy25-cj-05-epm.pdf.511---------------------------------------------------------------------------512    The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) completed two513reports on the Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grant514program in August 2017 \45\ and March 2022.\46\ These reports515focused on EPA's monitoring of the program income of RLF516grants. The OIG found in the 2017 report that--of the 20 RLF517agreements that were reviewed--approximately $10.9 million in518Federal funding was sitting idle instead of being revolved back519into other brownfields projects. This is contrary to the goal520of RLF grants, which are intended to provide an ongoing source521of capital within a community for brownfields projects. The5222017 report also identified several inconsistencies in program523application across the different EPA regions and RLF grant524recipients.525---------------------------------------------------------------------------526    \45\ EPA Office of Inspector General, Improved Management of527Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Program Is Required To Maximize528Cleanups (Aug. 23, 2017) available at https://www.epaoig.gov/sites/529default/files/2017-08/documents/_epaoig_20170823-17-p-0368.pdf.530[hereinafter OIG Report 17-P-0368].531    \46\ EPA Office of Inspector General, Brownfields Program-Income532Monitoring Deficiencies Persist Because EPA Did Not Complete All533Certified Corrective Actions (Mar. 31, 2022) available at https://534www.epaoig.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/_epaoig_20220331-53522-p-0033.pdf.536---------------------------------------------------------------------------537    The 2022 report found that of the 17 recommendations538addressed to the Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization539(OBLR) in the 2017 report, OBLR did not fully complete the540agreed-to corrective actions for five recommendations, despite541certifying that those actions were completed.\47\ EPA recently542reported to the Committee that OBLR has committed to nine of543the corrective actions in response to six recommendations544outline in the 2022 OIG report.\48\545---------------------------------------------------------------------------546    \47\ Id.547    \48\ EPA to Staff, H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, (Apr. 22548at 6:32p.m.) (on file with Comm.).549---------------------------------------------------------------------------550551                             IV. WITNESSES552553     LHon. Terry M. Wilbur, Clerk, Oswego County, New554York, on behalf of the National Association of Counties555     LMs. Lisa Shook, Assistant Chief, Division of556Environmental Response and Remediation, Ohio Environmental557Protection Agency558     LMr. Lance Larson, Analyst in Environmental559Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division,560Congressional Research Service561     LMr. Michael R. Goldstein, Esq., Managing Partner,562Goldstein Environmental Law Firm, P.A.563564   CLEANING UP THE PAST, BUILDING THE FUTURE: THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM565566                              ----------567568                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2025569570                  House of Representatives,571   Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,572            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,573                                                    Washington, DC.574    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in575Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Collins576(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.577    Mr. Collins. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and578Environment will come to order.579    I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to580declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without581objection, so ordered.582    I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the583subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at584today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so585ordered.586    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into587the record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.588    I now recognize myself for the purpose of an opening589statement for 5 minutes.590591 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COLLINS OF GEORGIA, CHAIRMAN,592        SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT593594    Mr. Collins. I want to first thank the witnesses for595joining us this morning to discuss EPA's Brownfields Program.596As we review the program, last authorized in 2018, I am looking597forward to learning from our witnesses about their experiences598with the program, suggestions for program improvements, as well599as the tangible impacts it has had on the ground.600    All of us here throughout our travels have seen abandoned601warehouses, dilapidated gas stations, or vacant factories.602Often, these blighted properties, which are eyesores in our603communities, are considered brownfields. Brownfields are604properties that are abandoned or underused due to concerns605about environmental contamination, and the EPA has estimated606that there are more than 450,000 brownfield sites across the607United States. Their redevelopment and reuse can help increase608local tax bases, create jobs, and encourage additional609development.610    According to EPA, since its inception, the program has made611over 10,800 sites ready for productive reuse, leveraged more612than $40.4 billion in additional cleanup and redevelopment613funding, and helped to create or leverage more than 270,000614jobs. However, property owners and developers are often615hesitant to finance the redevelopment of these sites because of616possible liability under CERCLA.617    CERCLA liability is no joke. CERCLA has extremely stringent618liability standards that could result in a current property619owner being held responsible for cleanup costs at a site, even620if there was no negligence on their part or if other parties621had previously caused the contamination.622    This program provides commonsense liability relief to folks623who want to improve a degraded site. The EPA Brownfields624Program helps communities assess and evaluate contamination at625these sites and provides funding to help clean up and promote626their redevelopment.627    For example, in my district in Georgia, the program628assisted the city of Greensboro in addressing contamination in629an old cotton mill. As part of this project, approximately6302,600 tons of contaminated soil were removed from the property,631and the mill was ultimately redeveloped and converted into a63271-unit apartment complex.633    Federal funding through the Brownfields Program helped634attract other non-Federal project funding for assessment,635remediation, and redevelopment efforts. But we know that just636throwing hard-earned taxpayer money at problems doesn't make637them go away. That is why I also want to underscore the638importance of programmatic efficiencies and regulatory relief639when it comes to redevelopment and timely project completions.640    For far too long, the EPA has placed unattainable641regulatory and bureaucratic burdens on hard-working Americans642that cost them time and money. That is why I am working with my643colleagues here in Congress and with the Trump administration644on efforts to reduce redtape and streamline the permitting645processes.646    At the end of the day, these types of improvements will647help important projects get done more efficiently, whether it's648redeveloping brownfield sites or constructing an Army Corps649project. And that benefits all Americans.650    [Mr. Collins' prepared statement follows:]651652 Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress653    from the State of Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water654                       Resources and Environment655    I want to first thank our witnesses for joining us this morning to656discuss EPA's Brownfields Program. As we review the program, last657authorized in 2018, I'm looking forward to learning from our witnesses658about their experiences with the program, suggestions for program659improvements, as well as the tangible impact it's had on the ground.660    All of us here, throughout our travels, have seen abandoned661warehouses, dilapidated gas stations, or vacant factories. Often, these662blighted properties, which are eyesores in our communities, are663considered brownfields. Brownfields are properties that are abandoned664or underused due to concerns about environmental contamination. EPA has665estimated that there are more than 450,000 brownfield sites across the666United States. Their redevelopment and reuse can help increase local667tax bases, create jobs, and encourage additional development.668    According to EPA, since its inception, the program has made over66910,800 sites ready for productive reuse, leveraged more than $40.4670billion in additional cleanup and redevelopment funding, and helped to671create or leverage more than 270,000 jobs.672    However, property owners and developers are often hesitant to673finance the redevelopment of these sites because of possible liability674under CERCLA.675    CERCLA liability is no joke. CERCLA has extremely stringent676liability standards that could result in a current property owner being677held responsible for cleanup costs at a site, even if there was no678negligence on their part or if other parties had previously caused the679contamination.680    This program provides commonsense liability relief to folks who681want to improve a degraded site. The EPA Brownfields Program helps682communities assess and evaluate contamination at these sites and683provides funding to help clean up and promote their redevelopment.684    For example, in my district in Georgia, the program assisted the685city of Greensboro in addressing contamination at an old cotton mill.686As part of this project, approximately 2,600 tons of contaminated soil687were removed from the property, and the mill was ultimately redeveloped688and converted into a 71-unit apartment complex.689    Federal funding through the Brownfields Program helps attract other690non-federal project funding for assessment, remediation, and691redevelopment efforts. But we know that just throwing hard-earned692taxpayer money at problems doesn't make them go away.693    That's why I also want to underscore the importance of programmatic694efficiencies and regulatory relief when it comes to redevelopment and695timely project completions.696    For far too long, the EPA has placed untenable regulatory and697bureaucratic burdens on hard-working Americans that cost them time and698money. That's why I am working with my colleagues here in Congress and699with the Trump Administration on efforts to reduce red tape and700streamline permitting processes.701    At the end of the day, these types of improvements will help702important projects get done more efficiently--whether it's redeveloping703Brownfields sites or constructing an Army Corps project. And that704benefits all Americans.705706    Mr. Collins. I now recognize Ranking Member Wilson for 5707minutes for an opening statement.708709   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FREDERICA S. WILSON OF FLORIDA,710RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT711712    Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you.713    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting today's discussion on714how Federal brownfields investments help to revitalize our715communities.716    EPA's Brownfields Program has, on most accounts, been717successful in redeveloping abandoned or underutilized718properties throughout the Nation. According to EPA, roughly719half of the U.S. population lives within 3 miles of a720brownfields site that receives EPA funding, which includes721sites in rural, Tribal, and economically disadvantaged722communities.723    As of December 2023, EPA brownfields grants have prepared724over 10,800 properties for productive use and leveraged over725270,000 jobs and over $40.4 billion in private investment.726    I have heard questions on whether all communities have727equally benefited from this critical redevelopment investment728or whether this investment has actually benefited those who729have had to suffer with legacy contamination for decades. But730those questions do not undermine the fact that the program is731making a difference in revitalizing neighborhoods.732    Many States and local governments, such as my home State of733Florida and Miami-Dade County, have been leaders in the734implementation of the Brownfields Law.735    In its brief history as a State-delegated Brownfields736Program, Miami-Dade County has successfully assessed and737remediated 31 brownfields sites, with an additional 74 sites738under active review.739    I hope to learn more about these efforts from our witness,740Mr. Goldstein--welcome, Mr. Goldstein--who worked on projects741at contaminated sites in over 90 jurisdictions across the State742of Florida.743    Continued success in brownfields redevelopment depends on744continued Federal partnerships with, and funding for, States,745local governments, redevelopment interests, and community746leaders. Yet, this success is undermined by the chaos that the747President and his Republican allies in Congress continue to748create with their management of the Government and the economy.749This economic chaos created by the President and rubberstamped750by Republicans in Congress continues to push up inflation and751the cost of groceries and other commodities, and push down752consumer confidence.753    In just over 100 days, American families are paying more754and getting less, and this trend continues.755    States have already testified that the President's756disruption in water infrastructure financing was having an757impact on local redevelopment projects, resulting in project758delays, increased costs, and the potential abandonment of local759projects.760    This uncertainty is equally felt within the brownfields761community and made worse by the President's proposal to cut the762Environmental Protection Agency's investment by a minimum of 65763percent. This Republican economic chaos threatens the jobs of764laborers, manufacturers, and brownfields redevelopers, and765threatens to decimate our national, regional, and local766economies.767    Our communities cannot withstand further setbacks caused by768the Republicans' efforts to drive our economy into the ground.769We cannot allow the President and his allies to hurt American770families and increase costs and public health risks.771    I stand with our communities who are trying to affordably772meet their local needs and keep our families safe, healthy, and773prosperous.774    I yield back the balance of my time.775    [Ms. Wilson of Florida's prepared statement follows:]776777  Prepared Statement of Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in778Congress from the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on779                    Water Resources and Environment780    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting today's discussion on how781federal brownfields investments help to revitalize our communities.782    EPA's Brownfields Program has, on most accounts, been successful in783redeveloping abandoned or under-utilized properties throughout the784nation.785    According to EPA, roughly half of the U.S. population lives within786three miles of a brownfields site that receives EPA funding--which787includes sites in rural, Tribal, and economically-disadvantaged788communities.789    As of December 2023, EPA brownfields grants have prepared over79010,800 properties for productive use and leveraged over 270 thousand791jobs and over $40.4 billion in private investment.792    I have heard questions whether all communities have equally793benefited from this critical redevelopment investment or whether this794investment has actually benefited those who have had to suffer with795legacy contamination for decades.796    But those questions do not undermine the fact that the program is797making a difference in revitalizing neighborhoods.798    Many States and local governments, such as my home state of Florida799and Miami-Dade County, have been leaders in the implementation of the800brownfields law.801    In its brief history as a state-delegated Brownfields Program,802Miami-Dade County has successfully assessed and remediated 31803brownfields sites, with an additional 74 sites under active review.804    I hope to learn more about these efforts from our witness, Mr.805Goldstein, who worked on projects at contaminated sites in over 90806jurisdictions across the state of Florida.807    Continued success in brownfields redevelopment depends on continued808federal partnerships with, and funding for, states, local governments,809redevelopment interests and community leaders.810    Yet, this success is undermined by the chaos that the President,811and his Republican allies in Congress, continue to create with their812management of the government and the economy.813    This economic chaos created by the President, and rubber stamped by814Republicans in Congress, continues to push up inflation and the costs815of groceries and other commodities, and push down consumer confidence.816    In just over 100 days, American families are paying more and817getting less--and this trend continues.818    States have already testified that the President's disruption in819water infrastructure financing was having an impact on local820redevelopment projects--resulting in project delays, increased costs821and the potential abandonment of local projects.822    This uncertainty is equally felt within the brownfields community823and made worse by the President's proposal to zero out EPA investments824in brownfields and other critical grant programs.825    The President's indifference to the needs of everyday Americans is826striking. The economic chaos he creates, and that my Republican827colleagues' silence seems to encourage, threatens the jobs of laborers,828manufacturers and brownfields redevelopers and threatens to decimate829our national, regional and local economies.830    Our communities cannot withstand further setbacks caused by the831Republicans' vainglorious efforts to drive our economy into the ground.832    We cannot allow the President and his allies to burden American833families with increased costs and public health risks.834    I stand with our communities who are trying to affordably meet835their local needs and keep our families safe, healthy and prosperous.836    I yield back the balance of my time.837838    Mr. Collins. Thank you.839    I would now like to welcome our witnesses, and thank you840for being here today. We have the Honorable Terry Wilbur from841Oswego County, as the Oswego County clerk, on behalf of the842National Association of Counties.843    There, I didn't butcher it.844    Mr. Wilbur. You did good.845    Mr. Collins. We also have Ms. Lisa Shook, assistant chief846of the Environmental Response and Remediation Division of the847Ohio EPA; Mr. Lance Larson, analyst in environmental policy at848the Congressional Research Service; and Mr. Michael Goldstein,849managing partner at The Goldstein Environmental Law Firm.850    Briefly, I am going to take just a moment to explain our851lighting system. As you know, there are three lights there, the852green is when you begin to talk. The yellow will light up as it853gets near the end of the time, and of course if it turns red,854then go ahead and please wrap up so that we don't have to bang855the gavel on you.856    I also ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full857statements be included in the record. Without objection, so858ordered.859    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing860remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided861answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in862writing. Without objection, so ordered.863    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open864for 15 days for any additional comments and information865submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record866of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.867    As your written testimony has been made part of the record,868the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5869minutes.870    With that, Mr. Wilbur, you are recognized for 5 minutes for871your testimony.872873 TESTIMONY OF HON. TERRY M. WILBUR, CLERK, OSWEGO COUNTY, NEW874 YORK, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; LISA875SHOOK, ASSISTANT CHIEF, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE AND876  REMEDIATION, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; LANCE N.877LARSON, ANALYST IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH878SERVICE; AND MICHAEL R. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ., MANAGING PARTNER, THE879             GOLDSTEIN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FIRM, P.A.880881 TESTIMONY OF HON. TERRY M. WILBUR, CLERK, OSWEGO COUNTY, NEW882    YORK, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES883884    Mr. Wilbur. Thank you, Chair.885    Chair Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished886members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity887today. My name is Terry Wilbur, and I serve as the county clerk888for Oswego County, New York. Today, I am here on behalf of the889National Association of Counties, which represents all 3,069890counties, parishes, and boroughs throughout the country,891including all 62 in my home State of New York.892    Today's hearing is of great importance to counties as we893are responsible for protecting the environment, ensuring public894health, and strengthening the economic vitality of our895communities. The EPA Brownfields Program is a highly effective896Federal program that helps counties redevelop underutilized,897contaminated sites to reinvigorate communities and their898economies, as well.899    There are over 450,000 brownfield sites, and 63 percent of900counties have at least 1 brownfield site. However, many901counties have more than 1 brownfield site, including my county,902Oswego County, where we have 125 sites.903    As many of you know, a brownfield site is an abandoned or904vacant property that has been exposed to hazardous substances905or contaminants. Brownfield sites range from former industrial906complexes to older public buildings and even smaller properties907such as former gas stations.908    While the presence of brownfield sites can present land-use909challenges and negatively impact property values, redevelopment910can spur economic growth and revitalize the surrounding911environment.912    Oswego County is a rural county located in upstate New York913that borders Lake Ontario, with a population of 118,000914residents. Oswego County has received two brownfields915assessment grants, one in 2004 and another in 2022. This916funding has been used to identify the 125 brownfield sites that917we have and conduct the environmental assessments necessary for918redevelopment at several sites.919    Some completed brownfield assessments and projects in920Oswego County include two housing developments on the Oswego921riverfront--the Stevedore Lofts and Harbor View Apartments--922that together created 108 housing units and 5 commercial923leasing spaces, with a total investment of $30 million.924    We were also able to leverage brownfield assessment funding925to receive grant funding from the State to restore the historic926Oswego Lighthouse, which is now open for public tours in the927heart of our major city.928    The Federal investment from the Brownfields Program is929crucial for both urban and rural counties. In Oswego County, we930would not have been able to complete this work without the931brownfields funding we received.932    To that end, counties have the following recommendations933for the committee. Our first recommendation is to reauthorize934the Brownfields Program. Congress should reauthorize the935Brownfields Program to ensure that this critical source of936Federal funding remains available to counties for brownfields937assessments, cleanup, and redevelopment, as well as providing938incentives for private investment in our communities.939    Our second recommendation is to increase funding levels for940the Brownfields Program. Congress should increase the overall941authorization level for the Brownfields Program to allow more942counties to address brownfield sites. In many States, counties943are severely constrained in our ability to both raise and944collect tax revenues. However, counties must still deliver945essential services to our residents and visitors despite these946limitations.947    Counties are very grateful for the additional funds948provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for the949Brownfields Program. However, there is still a clear need for950increased funding as thousands of sites are still waiting to be951redeveloped.952    Additionally, NACo recommends increasing the cleanup grant953ceiling to $1 million and the flexibility to award up to $2954million due to complexity of the cleanup process and to allow955communities to clean up more sites.956    Our third and final recommendation is to increase the957administrative cap on Brownfields Program grants. Congress958should allow counties to use a small portion of their959brownfield funding to cover reasonable administrative costs.960Many rural counties face difficulties in accessing Federal961funds as they have limited staff, expertise, and financial962resources available to complete these complex grant963applications or to comply with the burdensome reporting.964    In conclusion, counties recognize the Brownfields Program965is a vital component of the intergovernmental partnership to966drive economic development, address environmental concerns, and967protect public health.968    I would also like to thank the U.S. Conference of Mayors969and National League of Cities who have been great partners in970our joint efforts to reauthorize the Brownfields Program.971    Thank you for your attention to this critical issue, and I972urge your support for reauthorization of the Brownfields973Program. And I want to thank you again for the opportunity to974testify today. I look forward to answering any questions you975may have. Thank you.976    [Mr. Wilbur's prepared statement follows:]977978 Prepared Statement of Hon. Terry M. Wilbur, Clerk, Oswego County, New979        York, on behalf of the National Association of Counties980                              Introduction981    Chair Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished members of982the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the983Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Brownfields Program. I also984want to thank Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen for their985leadership and support of the Brownfields Program at the full committee986level.987    My name is Terry Wilbur, and I serve as the County Clerk for Oswego988County, New York. Today I am here on behalf of the National Association989of Counties (NACo), which represents all 3,069 counties, parishes and990boroughs throughout the country, including the 62 counties in my home991state of New York.992    Today's hearing is of great importance to both urban and rural993counties as we are responsible for protecting the environment, ensuring994public health and strengthening the economic vitality of our995communities. The EPA Brownfields Program is a highly successful and996effective federal program that helps counties redevelop underutilized,997contaminated sites to reinvigorate entire communities and their998economies.999    As many of you know, a Brownfields site is an abandoned or vacant1000property that has been exposed to hazardous substances or contaminants.1001Brownfields sites range from former industrial complexes to older1002public buildings and even smaller properties such as former gas1003stations. EPA estimates there are over 450,000 brownfield sites1004throughout the country and 63 percent of counties have at least one1005Brownfield site in their boundaries. However, many counties have more1006than one Brownfield site, including Oswego County, with 125 identified1007sites. While the presence of Brownfield sites can present land use1008challenges and negatively impact property values, redevelopment can1009spur economic growth and revitalize the surrounding environment.1010                               About NACo1011    Founded in 1935, NACo is the only national organization that1012represents county governments in the United States and brings together1013county officials to advocate with a collective voice on national1014policy, exchange ideas, build new leadership skills, pursue1015transformational county solutions, enrich the public's understanding of1016county government and exercise exemplary leadership in public service.1017                        About America's Counties1018    Counties employ more than 3.6 million Americans who support 1,9001019local public health departments, 900 hospitals, 700 long-term care1020facilities, 750 behavioral health centers and 91 percent of local1021jails. Counties also maintain 44 percent of America's roads, 38 percent1022of bridges, a third of airports and 40 percent of the nation's public1023transit systems. We are responsible for emergency operations, 9111024services, public safety and protective services for vulnerable1025populations. Counties are also environmental stewards responsible for1026protecting local water, air and land resources. Annually, counties1027invest nearly $743 billion in our communities, including more than $1461028billion in public infrastructure and facilities.1029    Counties are highly diverse and vary immensely in natural1030resources, social and political systems, cultural, economic and1031structural circumstances, and public health and environmental1032responsibilities. Counties range in area from 26 square miles1033(Arlington County, Virginia) to 87,860 square miles (North Slope1034Borough, Alaska). The population of counties varies from Loving County,1035Texas, with just under 100 residents, to Los Angeles County,1036California, which is home to nearly ten million people. Of the nation's10373,069 counties, approximately 70 percent are considered ``rural,'' with1038populations less than 50,000, and 50 percent of these have populations1039below 25,000. At the same time, there are more than 120 major urban1040counties, which collectively provide essential services to more than1041130 million people every day.1042    Many of our responsibilities are mandated by federal and state1043governments. Although counties cover a wide range of responsibilities,1044most states require counties to carry out a range of critical services1045and support for our residents. These responsibilities include1046construction and maintenance of roads, bridges and other1047infrastructure, assessment of property taxes, record keeping,1048administering elections and overseeing jails, court systems and public1049hospitals. Land use planning, environmental protection and local and1050regional economic development are critical components of these1051responsibilities and often converge around the reuse of Brownfields.1052                          About Oswego County1053    Oswego County is a rural county located in upstate New York that1054borders Lake Ontario. The total population of the county is 118,0001055people, most of which is concentrated in the cities of Oswego and1056Fulton that border the Oswego River. Oswego County has 125 Brownfield1057sites, many of which are former industrial facilities. Between 1980-10582010 the county's industrial base declined as major companies such as1059Nestle, Hammermill and Miller Brewing closed their doors. Many of these1060once prosperous facilities with prime waterfront locations became1061vacant properties contaminated with hazardous substances.1062    Oswego County is also home to the Port of Oswego, the first U.S.1063port of call and deepwater port on the Great Lakes from the St.1064Lawrence Seaway. Located on Lake Ontario on route to the interior of1065North America, we are accessible from any international port in the1066world. The historical port is also home to Oswego Marina, Goble Marina,1067the H. Lee White Marine Museum, and historic maritime district. The1068Port of Oswego's strategic location at the crossroads of the1069Northeastern North American shipping market, puts us less than 3501070miles from 60 million people. Extend that to 750 miles and we reach1071half of the United States and Canadian population, and half of their1072business and manufacturing facilities. The Port of Oswego is New York1073State's only Grain Export Center on Lake Ontario and home to 141074companies that utilize the Port for both their domestic and1075international operations. A 2023 U.S./Canadian research study shows1076that the Port of Oswego Authority makes a $513 million impact on the1077local and regional economy and supports 2,229 jobs by its maritime1078activity.1079    Oswego County has received two Brownfields Assessment grants,1080$400,000 in 2004 and $500,000 in 2022. This funding has been used to1081identify the 125 Brownfield sites and conduct the environmental site1082assessments necessary for redevelopment at several sites. The1083Brownfields assessment grants are critical to our ability to repurpose1084Brownfield sites and turn these once blighted properties into tax1085revenue generators for the county. We would not be able to do this work1086without the assessment grants we have received.1087    Some completed Brownfields assessment and redevelopment projects in1088Oswego County include:10891090      The Stevedore Lofts--a multi-use historic building1091located on the Oswego River featuring apartments, office, and retail1092space ideal for commuters to and from Syracuse and convenient access to1093SUNY Oswego.10941095      The Harborview apartments--a vacant lot that now hosts an1096apartment complex of four buildings. The former blighted condition and1097underutilization of the property negatively impacted downtown, the1098waterfront, and the gateway to the waterfront. The redevelopment of the1099site plays an integral role in the creation of the waterfront corridor1100by connecting the downtown business district to the western waterfront1101district. Together these two housing developments have added 1081102housing units and 5 commercial leasing spaces with a total investment1103of $30 million.11041105      The Oswego West Pierhead Lighthouse--the Brownfield1106assessment grant funded a Phase I assessment which allowed the State to1107ultimately provide grant funding for the exterior restoration of this1108historic site. As a result, this ultimately saved this historic gem1109which is iconic to the historic landscape of the port city. Now there1110are historic tours that are offered, and the site is saved for future1111generations.11121113      Former Columbia Mills Superfund site--this site is1114located in the city of Minetto on the Oswego River. The Phase I1115assessment for this site was recently completed and we are currently in1116talks with a potential developer for up to 96 housing units.11171118      Lake Ontario Industrial Park--a 50 acre facility within1119an Oswego Opportunity Zone located one mile from the Port of Oswego and112012 miles from the Oswego County Airport, is prime for future expansion1121for commercial purposes or housing. The Phase I assessment is completed1122and a Phase 2 assessment is needed to continue working toward the1123future of this property.11241125      Former Nestle Building--a Phase I assessment has been1126completed, and we are working on a Phase II assessment to work toward1127the safest way to remove the hazardous chemicals that are still present1128on the property.11291130    As you can see from these examples, the Brownfields Program has1131been very successful in Oswego County. However, with 125 brownfield1132sites throughout the county there is still much work to be done.1133                   Impact of Brownfields on Counties1134    While the presence of Brownfields sites can negatively impact1135county governments from both an economic and environmental perspective,1136there are multiple benefits associated with redeveloping these sites.1137By providing funding for redevelopment, the EPA Brownfields Program1138benefits counties by both spurring economic growth and protecting1139public health and the environment.1140    Economic development is important for counties because it helps to1141retain and grow jobs and investment within a community. The tax base1142that is created through this growth and investment is used by counties1143to provide essential services such as police and fire, road and bridge1144construction, transit operations, senior services, parks and1145recreation, library services and more. In many states, counties are1146severely constrained in their ability to raise and collect tax revenue.1147Forty-two states limit county property tax authority, and restrictions1148have expanded extensively in recent decades. In New York counties are1149subject to an annual statewide property tax growth cap of 2 percent and1150must receive permission from the State to levy a sales tax greater than11513 percent. Despite limitations and unfunded mandates placed on counties1152from both federal and state governments, counties must still deliver1153essential services to our residents and visitors.1154    The EPA Brownfields Program is a critical tool for counties to1155bolster our economic development by providing support for cleaning up1156and reusing Brownfields sites which, in turn, strengthens the local1157economy, creates new jobs and increases the tax base. Brownfields1158redevelopment has been an indispensable component of our economic1159development in Oswego County. Any changes to the federal program and1160its requirements would directly affect our residents and our local1161economy.1162    County governments play a critical role in addressing environmental1163and public health concerns at Brownfield sites. While these sites are1164generally not considered ``highly contaminated,'' the types and levels1165of contaminants present can vary and may directly or indirectly impact1166groundwater and the surrounding land and buildings. Types of1167contaminants include lead, asbestos, petroleum products, treated wood,1168industrial chemicals and diesel fuel. To fully protect human health,1169safeguard the environment and foster economic development, cleanup and1170redevelopment of these sites are necessary. The EPA Brownfields Program1171helps counties achieve these goals.1172 Recommendations for the reauthorization of the EPA Brownfields Program1173    The federal investment from the Brownfields Program is crucial for1174both urban and rural counties by providing funds needed for the cleanup1175and redevelopment of contaminated sites, which helps to attract new1176business and provide new economic development opportunities for our1177communities. The Brownfields Program has historically been a highly1178successful federal program and should be reauthorized and properly1179funded by Congress.1180    Counties offer the following recommendations to Congress regarding1181the Brownfields Program:11821) Reauthorize the Brownfields Program1183    Congress should reauthorize the Brownfields Program to ensure that1184this critical source of federal funding remains available to counties1185for Brownfields assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment, as well as1186providing incentives for private investment in our communities.1187Brownfields exist in rural as well as urban and suburban counties and1188redevelopment of these abandoned or underutilized sites is vital in1189stimulating economic revitalization in these areas in counties across1190the United States.1191    It is essential that federal resources remain available for1192counties. As such, NACo urges Congress to reauthorize the EPA1193Brownfields Program.11942) Increase funding levels for the Brownfields Program1195    Many Brownfield sites remain underutilized because of the limited1196availability of funds to identify and clean up contaminated sites. It1197is difficult for counties to fund Brownfields projects without federal1198support due to high remediation costs and associated regulatory issues.1199    Congress should increase the overall authorization level for the1200Brownfields Program to allow more counties to address Brownfield sites.1201Counties greatly appreciate the $1.5 billion provided for the1202Brownfields Program by Congress in the bipartisan Infrastructure1203Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). However, the previous Brownfields1204reauthorization legislation, the Brownfields Utilization, Investment,1205and Local Development Act of 2018 authorized the Brownfields Program at1206$200 million per fiscal year which is the same level of funding that1207was authorized in 2002. While authorized funding has remained stagnant,1208the cost of addressing and effectively remediating these sites has1209grown significantly. NACo urges Congress to increase the funding1210authorizations in Brownfields reauthorization legislation.1211    Additionally, counties recommend increasing the cleanup grant1212ceiling to $1 million with the flexibility to award up to $2 million in1213special circumstances in recognition of the complexity of the cleanup1214process and provide greater certainty for long-term project financing,1215as well as increased flexibility.12163) Increase the administrative cap on Brownfields Program grants1217    Congress should increase the cap on administrative costs in future1218reauthorization legislation. This would allow counties to use a small1219portion of their Brownfields funding to cover reasonable administrative1220costs that are necessary for carrying out the functional purpose of the1221grant. Many rural counties face difficulties in accessing federal funds1222as they have limited staff, expertise and financial resources available1223to complete complex grant applications or to comply with burdensome1224reporting requirements. Counties support increasing this cap to provide1225additional flexibility for administrative costs so that rural counties1226can continue to take advantage of this critical program.1227                               Conclusion1228    Chair Collins, Ranking Member Wilson and distinguished subcommittee1229members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the positive1230impact of the EPA's Brownfields Program on America's counties. I would1231also like to thank U.S. Conference of Mayors and National League of1232Cities, who have both been great partners in our joint efforts to1233modernize and reauthorize the Brownfields Program.1234    Counties recognize the Brownfields Program as a vital component of1235the intergovernmental partnership to drive economic development, create1236good jobs, address environmental concerns, and protect public health.1237The Brownfields Program has proven incredibly successful and will1238continue to be successful if reauthorized and properly funded.1239    Thank you for your attention to this important issue. We urge you1240to reauthorize the Brownfields Program and look forward to working1241together.12421243    Mr. Collins. Thank you.1244    Ms. Shook, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your1245testimony.12461247     TESTIMONY OF LISA SHOOK, ASSISTANT CHIEF, DIVISION OF1248  ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE AND REMEDIATION, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL1249                       PROTECTION AGENCY12501251    Ms. Shook. Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member1252Wilson, and members of the committee. Thank you for the1253opportunity to appear before you today to share Ohio's1254perspective on the reauthorization of U.S. EPA's Brownfields1255Program.1256    Across Ohio and the United States, thousands of former1257industrial and commercial sites sit idle, tainted by1258environmental contamination. These brownfields become urban1259blights and contribute to economic decline, public health1260risks, and neighborhood stagnation.1261    The Brownfields Program administered by U.S. EPA offers a1262consistent and effective solution. The program facilitates the1263identification, assessment, cleanup, and reuse of these1264properties, revitalizing communities and stimulating economic1265growth.1266    State and Tribal assistance grants are noncompetitive1267grants authorized under section 128(a) of the Comprehensive1268Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as1269amended. These grants are the foundation of States' Brownfields1270Programs.1271    U.S. EPA allows States flexibility to design their1272Brownfields Programs to benefit each State's needs, while also1273providing consistency by requiring that all grantees meet four1274elements. The first is a survey and inventory of brownfield1275sites. Second is oversight and enforcement authorities to1276ensure that cleanups are protective of human health and the1277environment. Third is mechanisms for meaningful public1278participation, and fourth is mechanisms for approval of cleanup1279plans and verification or certification that cleanup is1280complete.1281    With these four elements, the section 128(a) funds have a1282wide variety of uses, including providing funds to complete1283environmental assessments to properties to meet all appropriate1284inquiry or voluntary cleanup program requirements, phase 21285sampling, and asbestos and lead inspections.1286    Last Federal fiscal year, Ohio funded 20 assessments1287through our standard allocation and 63 through our supplemental1288allocation provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs1289Act.1290    The grant enables the State to incorporate local input into1291redevelopment planning, including infrastructure evaluations1292and site reuse assessments. This effort aims to help1293communities reinvent their lake and riverfronts, main streets,1294and industrial corridors, creating parks, housing, mixed-use1295development, and commercial centers to stimulate job creation,1296tourism, and tax revenues.1297    This community-driven approach ensures that redevelopment1298serves the people most affected by these long neglected1299properties. For example, in Shadyside, Ohio, we are working1300with the community to develop a brownfield vision plan that1301includes a brownfield inventory, market study, community1302outreach and survey, brownfield site reuse renderings, and a1303resource roadmap of how to move forward with the selected1304projects.1305    We recently completed a brownfield vision plan in Bellaire,1306Ohio, where we are now working on a reuse assessment to create1307viable reuse scenarios for their downtown corridor.1308    Our program supports local officials in preparing grant1309applications for the competitive brownfield grants by providing1310workshops to further build their capacity to apply for and hold1311Federal grants. And for the last round of grant applications,1312we supported 14 communities in applying for their own1313brownfield grants. These workshops also educate local1314communities about the many brownfield issues and incentives1315that are available at the State and Federal level.1316    We routinely meet with community officials and others to1317assist them in working through the assessment and cleanup of1318brownfield properties and provide much needed grant-funded1319technical support and recommendations. Last Federal fiscal1320year, Ohio brownfields staff met with 60 communities, gave 121321presentations on brownfield issues, and provided 18 communities1322with grant-funded technical assistance.1323    The grant also supports the State's voluntary cleanup1324programs which provide the foundation for setting cleanup goals1325and implementing institutional controls. In Ohio, our voluntary1326cleanup program was created in 1994. We call it the Voluntary1327Action Program. To date, the Voluntary Action Program has1328achieved cleanup at 750 sites, allowing over 17,000 acres to be1329reused across Ohio. The grant allows us to fund long-term1330oversight activities to ensure these sites remain protective of1331human health and the environment.1332    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided an1333additional $50 million through a competitive communitywide1334assessment grant for States and Tribes. In Federal fiscal year13352022, Ohio was awarded nearly $2 million to conduct additional1336assessments. With these funds, Ohio's Brownfields Program has1337completed another 62 assessments within the award period, for a1338total of 145 assessments over our 3 grants.1339    Since 2023, Ohio's section 128(a) funds and communitywide1340assessment grant have leveraged $54 million in additional1341State-funded brownfield assessment and cleanup dollars, and1342prior evaluations by U.S. EPA show that over $20 was leveraged1343for each dollar of EPA brownfield funds spent on assessment and1344cleanup activities.1345    The Brownfields Program is a great example of how1346environmental cleanup and economic revitalization are not1347competing priorities, but complementary goals that can help1348build a stronger future for all Americans.1349    Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts today,1350and I look forward to your questions.1351    [Ms. Shook's prepared statement follows:]13521353    Prepared Statement of Lisa Shook, Assistant Chief, Division of1354 Environmental Response and Remediation, Ohio Environmental Protection1355                                 Agency1356    Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and members1357of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you1358today to share Ohio's perspective on the reauthorization of U.S. EPA's1359Brownfield Program.1360    Across Ohio and the United States, thousands of former industrial1361and commercial sites sit idle, tainted by environmental contamination.1362These brownfields become urban blights and contribute to economic1363decline, public health risks, and neighborhood stagnation.1364    The brownfield program administered by the U.S. EPA offers a1365consistent and effective solution. The program facilitates the1366identification, assessment, cleanup, and reuse of these properties,1367revitalizing communities and stimulating economic growth.1368    State and tribal assistance grants are noncompetitive grants1369authorized under Section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental1370Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), as amended.1371These grants are the foundation of states' brownfield programs. U.S.1372EPA allows states flexibility to design their brownfield programs to1373benefit each state's needs while also providing consistency by1374requiring that all grantees meet four elements:1375    1.  A survey and inventory of brownfield sites,1376    2.  Oversight and enforcement authorities ensure that cleanups are1377protective of human health and the environment,1378    3.  Mechanisms for meaningful public participation, and,1379    4.  Mechanisms for approval of cleanup plans, and verification or1380certification that cleanup is complete.13811382    Within these four elements, the 128(a) funds have a wide variety of1383uses, including providing funds to complete environmental assessments1384of properties to meet all appropriate inquiry or voluntary cleanup1385program requirements, Phase II sampling, and asbestos and lead1386inspections. Last federal fiscal year, Ohio funded 20 assessments1387through our standard allocation and 63 through our supplemental1388allocation provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.1389    The grant enables the state to incorporate local input into1390redevelopment planning, including infrastructure evaluations and site1391re-use assessments. This effort aims to help communities reinvent their1392lake and riverfronts, main streets, and industrial corridors, creating1393parks, housing, mixed-use development, and commercial centers to1394stimulate job creation, tourism, and tax revenues. This community-1395driven approach ensures that redevelopment serves the people most1396affected by these long-neglected properties. For example, in Shadyside,1397Ohio, we are working with the community to develop a Brownfield Vision1398Plan that includes a brownfield inventory, market study, community1399outreach, and survey, brownfield site reuse renderings, and a resource1400roadmap of how to move forward with the selected projects. We recently1401completed a brownfield vision plan in Bellaire, Ohio, and we are now1402working on a downtown reuse assessment to create viable reuse scenarios1403for their downtown corridor.1404    Our program also supports local officials in preparing grant1405applications for the competitive brownfield grants providing workshops1406to further build their capacity to apply for and hold federal grants.1407For the last round of grant applications, Ohio's program supported 141408communities in applying for their own brownfield grants. These1409workshops also educate local communities about the many brownfield1410issues and the incentives that are available at the state and federal1411level.1412    We routinely meet with community officials and others to assist1413them in working through the assessment and cleanup of brownfield1414properties and provide much-needed grant-funded technical support and1415recommendations. Last federal fiscal year, Ohio brownfields staff met1416with 60 communities, gave 12 presentations on brownfield issues, and1417provided 18 communities with grant-funded technical assistance.1418    The grant also supports the state's Voluntary Cleanup Programs1419(VCP), which provide the foundation for setting cleanup goals and1420implementing institutional controls. In Ohio, our voluntary clean-up1421program was created in 1994; we call it the Voluntary Action Program.1422To date, the Voluntary Action Program has achieved clean-up at 7501423sites, allowing over 17,000 acres to be reused across Ohio. The grant1424allows us to fund long-term oversight activities to ensure these sites1425remain protective of human health and the environment.1426    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided an additional1427$50 million through a competitive Community-Wide Assessment Grant for1428States and Tribes. In federal fiscal year 2022, Ohio was awarded nearly1429$2 million to conduct additional assessments. With these additional1430funds, Ohio's brownfield program has completed another 62 assessments1431within the award period, for a total of 145 assessments over our 31432grants.1433    Since 2023, Ohio's 128(a) funds and Community-Wide Assessment Grant1434have leveraged $54 million in additional state-funded brownfield1435assessment and cleanup dollars, and prior evaluations by U.S. EPA1436showed that $20.13 was leveraged for each dollar of EPA brownfield1437funds spent on assessment and cleanup activities.1438    The Brownfield program is a great example of how environmental1439cleanup and economic revitalization are not competing priorities but1440complementary goals that can help build a stronger future for all1441Americans.1442    Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts today, and I1443look forward to your questions.14441445    Mr. Collins. Thank you.1446    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Larson for 5 minutes for your1447testimony.14481449TESTIMONY OF LANCE N. LARSON, ANALYST IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY,1450                 CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE14511452    Mr. Larson. Thank you.1453    Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and members of the1454subcommittee, my name is Lance Larson. I am an analyst in1455environmental policy with the Congressional Research Service.1456Thank you for inviting me today to testify on behalf of CRS1457regarding the Federal Brownfields Program.1458    In serving Congress on a nonpartisan and objective basis,1459CRS takes no position on these issues. I have been asked by the1460subcommittee today to provide a broad overview of the Federal1461Brownfields Program, including a brief history of the program,1462liability considerations, and other policy matters for1463Congress.1464    Enacted in 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,1465Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, otherwise known as1466the Superfund Law, authorizes environmental cleanup and1467enforcement actions to respond to actual or threatened releases1468of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the1469environment.1470    Under CERCLA, the U.S. EPA, in coordination with the1471States, prioritizes the cleanup of contaminated sites on non-1472Federal lands under the Federal Superfund Program.1473    In 1993, EPA established a pilot initiative under the1474Superfund Program to assist communities with the remediation of1475certain lower risk contaminated sites to encourage or1476facilitate economic redevelopment or reuse. EPA referred to1477these properties as ``brownfields,'' to distinguish them from1478both higher risk contaminated sites designated on the National1479Priorities List under the Superfund Program and from other1480sites where Federal response actions were taken to address1481emergency situations.1482    In 2002, Congress amended CERCLA to authorize EPA to1483administer a dedicated Brownfields Program separately from the1484Superfund Program.1485    In 2018, Congress enacted the BUILD Act, which amended1486CERCLA to reauthorize the Brownfields Program. The BUILD Act1487extended the authorizations of appropriations through fiscal1488year 2023, among other statutory changes to the program.1489    As it functions today, the Federal Brownfields Program1490provides grant assistance to State, local, Tribal governments,1491and nonprofit organizations for the assessment and cleanup of1492potentially contaminated sites.1493    CERCLA defines eligible brownfield sites as ``real1494property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may1495be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a1496hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.''1497    CERCLA generally excludes sites from brownfields grant1498eligibility that are addressed under the Superfund Program or1499under other related Federal cleanup programs and authorities.1500    Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Federal1501Brownfields Program provides two types of grants: those that1502EPA awards on a competitive basis for assessment and cleanup of1503eligible brownfield sites, and those that are awarded on a1504formula basis to assist States and Tribes in carrying out their1505own cleanup programs.1506    Congress funds these grants annually through the1507discretionary appropriations process.1508    The Brownfields Program statutory authorities do not have a1509sunset date; however, authorization of appropriations for the1510Brownfields Programs grants expired at the end of fiscal year15112023, and Congress has continued to appropriate funding1512annually to implement the Brownfields Program. Annual1513appropriations have been less than authorized amounts and have1514remained relatively constant, in nominal terms, since fiscal1515year 2003.1516    In addition to prior appropriations, Infrastructure1517Investment and Jobs Act provided an additional total of $1.51518billion over a 5-year period through fiscal year 2026.1519    CERCLA provides a mechanism to compel potentially1520responsible parties to pay for the cleanup of hazardous1521substances. CERCLA established financial liability for those1522parties, which may include current or former owners and1523operators of a site; generators and parties that arrange for1524the transport, disposal, and treatment of hazardous substances;1525and transporters of hazardous substances to a facility.1526    These categories of parties are generally prohibited from1527obtaining a brownfields grant. However, Congress amended CERCLA1528to provide certain liability exemptions designed in tandem to1529work with the Brownfields Program.1530    If Congress considers reauthorization in this session, as1531it has done in the past, Congress may consider certain elements1532of this Brownfields Program, such as the duration of1533reauthorization, statutory caps on grant amounts, criteria for1534assessing grant applications, and past and future expected1535program outcomes.1536    This concludes my prepared statement. Thank you for the1537opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today. I would be1538happy to address any questions you may have.1539    [Mr. Larson's prepared statement follows:]15401541Prepared Statement of Lance N. Larson, Analyst in Environmental Policy,1542                     Congressional Research Service1543    Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members of the1544Subcommittee, my name is Lance Larson. I am an Analyst in Environmental1545Policy for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Thank you for1546inviting me to testify on behalf of CRS regarding the federal1547Brownfields program.1548    In serving Congress on a non-partisan and objective basis, CRS1549takes no position on these issues. I have been asked by the1550Subcommittee today to provide a broad overview of the federal1551Brownfields program, including a brief history of the program, some1552liability considerations, and other policy matters for Congress. CRS1553remains available to assist the Subcommittee with these and related1554issues.1555                     History of Brownfields Program1556    Enacted in 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,1557Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),\1\ otherwise known as the1558``Superfund Law'', authorizes environmental cleanup and enforcement1559actions to respond to actual or threatened releases of hazardous1560substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the environment. Under1561CERCLA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in coordination1562with the states, prioritizes the cleanup of contaminated sites on non-1563federal lands under the federal Superfund Program.1564---------------------------------------------------------------------------1565    \1\ P.L. 96-510.1566---------------------------------------------------------------------------1567    In 1993, EPA established a pilot initiative under the Superfund1568program to assist communities with the remediation of certain lower1569risk contaminated sites to encourage or facilitate economic1570redevelopment or reuse. EPA referred to these properties as1571``brownfields'' to distinguish them from both higher-risk contaminated1572sites designated on the National Priorities List under the Superfund1573program and from other sites where federal response actions were taken1574to address emergency situations. In 2002, Congress amended CERCLA to1575authorize EPA to administer a dedicated Brownfields program separately1576from the Superfund program.\2\1577---------------------------------------------------------------------------1578    \2\ Title II of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields1579Revitalization Act of 2002; P.L. 107-118.1580---------------------------------------------------------------------------1581    In 2018, Congress enacted the BUILD Act, which amended CERCLA to1582reauthorize the Brownfields program.\3\ The BUILD Act extended the1583authorizations of appropriations through FY2023, expanded the1584eligibility criteria for non-profit organizations, and increased the1585maximum dollar limit for individual remediation grants, among other1586statutory changes to the program.1587---------------------------------------------------------------------------1588    \3\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, P.L. 115-141; Division1589N--``BUILD Act.''1590---------------------------------------------------------------------------1591                    Overview of Brownfields Program1592    As it functions today, the federal Brownfields program provides1593grant assistance to state, local, and tribal governments and non-profit1594organizations for the assessment and cleanup of potentially1595contaminated sites. CERCLA defines eligible brownfields sites as ``real1596property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be1597complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous1598substance, pollutant, or contaminant.''1599    CERCLA generally excludes sites from Brownfields grant eligibility1600that are addressed under the Superfund program or other related federal1601cleanup programs or authorities. These exclusions generally are1602intended to avoid potential overlap or duplication of cleanup1603resources.1604    Subject to the availability of appropriations, the federal1605Brownfields program provides two types of grants--those that EPA awards1606on a competitive basis for the assessment and cleanup of eligible1607brownfields sites and those that are noncompetitively awarded on a1608formula basis to assist states and tribes in carrying out their own1609cleanup programs. Congress funds these grants annually through the1610discretionary appropriations process.1611    The Brownfields program's statutory authorities do not have a1612sunset date. However, authorization of appropriations for the1613Brownfields program grants expired at the end of FY2023, and Congress1614has continued to appropriate funding annually to implement the1615Brownfields program. From FY2019 to FY2024, annual appropriations were1616generally less than the authorized amounts of $200 million for1617competitive grants and $50 million for state and tribal formula grants.1618Appropriations have remained relatively constant in nominal terms since1619FY 2003. In addition to prior appropriations, the Infrastructure1620Investment and Jobs Act \4\ provided a total of $1.5 billion over a 5-1621year period from FY2022 through FY2026. Of that amount, $1.2 billion1622would be provided for the competitive grants and $300 million for state1623and tribal formula grants.1624---------------------------------------------------------------------------1625    \4\ P.L. 117-58.1626---------------------------------------------------------------------------1627                               Liability1628    CERCLA provides a mechanism to compel ``potentially responsibility1629parties'' (PRPs) to perform or pay for a cleanup of hazardous1630substances. CERCLA established financial liability for PRPs, which may1631include the current or former owner or operator of a facility;1632generators and parties that arranged for the transport, disposal, or1633treatment of hazardous substances; and transporters of hazardous1634substances to a facility. PRPs are generally prohibited from obtaining1635a Brownfields grant in order to hold liable parties responsible for the1636costs of cleanup and to minimize burden on the federal taxpayer.1637    In response to CERCLA liability concerns over acquiring and1638redeveloping certain properties, Congress amended CERCLA to provide1639certain liability exemptions designed to work in tandem with the1640Brownfields program. For example, Congress provided a liability1641exemption for ``bona fide'' prospective purchasers if the property is1642acquired in a contaminated condition, the purchaser is not otherwise a1643liable party at the site, and the purchaser conducted ``All Appropriate1644Inquiries'' into the prior uses of the property prior to the1645acquisition to determine whether contamination may be present.1646Additionally, Congress clarified that state or local governments that1647acquire a property involuntarily through bankruptcy, tax delinquency,1648abandonment, or other circumstances are exempt from owner or operator1649liability under CERCLA, so long as the state or local government did1650not cause or contribute to the contamination.1651                      Considerations for Congress1652    Congress may consider whether funds going towards the Brownfields1653program have achieved the intended purpose of the program. If Congress1654considers reauthorization in this session, as it has done in the past,1655Congress may consider certain elements of the Brownfields program, such1656as the duration of reauthorization, statutory caps on grant amounts,1657criteria for assessing grant applications, and past and future expected1658program outcomes.1659    This concludes my prepared statement. Thank you for the opportunity1660to appear before the Subcommittee today. I would be happy to address1661any questions you may have.16621663    Mr. Collins. Thank you.1664    I now recognize Mr. Goldstein for 5 minutes for your1665testimony.16661667TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL R. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ., MANAGING PARTNER, THE1668             GOLDSTEIN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FIRM, P.A.16691670    Mr. Goldstein. Thank you.1671    Good morning Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and1672members of the committee. My name is Michael Goldstein. I am1673the managing partner of The Goldstein Environmental Law Firm, a1674principal of Goldstein Kite Environmental, a past president of1675the Florida Brownfields Association, and past chair of the1676National Brownfields Coalition's Public Policy Committee.1677    It is a distinct honor to participate in this hearing and1678share suggestions on how to build on what has been the most1679important, impactful, and results-producing Federal program in1680my 33 years of practice.1681    While Congress and every State government in the Nation,1682including the great State of Florida, have supported1683brownfields work since the mid-1990s, the hundreds of thousands1684of brownfields across the country require additional Federal1685resources.1686    My remarks today are informed by over three decades of1687assisting local governments, developers, growers,1688manufacturers, schools, and capital providers navigate the1689risks of cleaning up and redeveloping contaminated land. I also1690invest in them personally and, accordingly, have a 360-degree1691view of what aspects of the Federal Brownfields Program have1692worked well and where opportunities remain to overcome1693persistent challenges. The private sector wants to do more, but1694we need more help from Congress.1695    I would like to speak first to Florida's Brownfields1696Program, which was an early leader nationally in encouraging1697environmental redevelopment.1698    Florida's program was enacted on July 1, 1997, and in the1699ensuing 28 years, has sparked the creation of 90,000 indirect1700and direct jobs and the investment of over $3.18 billion.1701Through February of this year, local governments have1702designated 613 brownfield areas, totaling 290,000 acres. Over1703530 voluntary cleanup agreements have been executed. Over 2351704brownfield sites have been cleaned up.1705    Florida has accomplished this outstanding result with a mix1706of economic incentives, including tax credits and tax refunds,1707a loan guarantee fund, liability protection at the State level,1708and a streamlined regulatory review process.1709    It is with this model in mind that the following seven1710specific recommendations are made.1711    First, as part of a forthcoming bipartisan tax bill, renew1712the Federal brownfield tax incentive, which was passed in 19971713to allow parties who voluntarily investigate and remediate1714contaminated properties to deduct all cleanup costs on their1715Federal income tax return in the year they spend money on1716cleanup.1717    Second, create a brownfields loan guarantee program. This1718program would combine aspects of the Department of Energy Loan1719Guarantee Program with a New Markets Tax Credit Program to1720leverage billions of private-sector dollars for early-stage1721bridge financing of redevelopment projects that are considered1722too risky for conventional lenders.1723    Third, prioritize affordable housing built on brownfield1724sites by amending section 42 of the IRS Code to increase the1725Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to 12 percent, the stepped-up1726basis to 150 percent, and to create a new, one-time LIHTC in1727the amount of 80 percent of the cost of land acquisition and1728demolition.1729    Fourth, dramatically increase flexibility for EPA grant1730program users by eliminating the match requirement, expanding1731allowable expenses to include demolition and environmental1732insurance, and for the first time ever, making all such grants1733available to for-profit developers of affordable and workforce1734housing. That would be a game changer.1735    Fifth, increase the maximum grant awards to local1736governments and not-for-profit applicants to expand the amount1737of work and magnitude of cleanup that each grant awardee can1738accomplish.1739    Sixth, increase the CERCLA 128 grants to State Brownfields1740Programs. Since inception of Florida's Brownfields Program, the1741Department of Environmental Protection has been awarded $17.21742million in section 128(a) grant funds. The awarded moneys have1743allowed DEP to conduct targeted assessment and remediation at1744over 116 of the highest priority sites.1745    Speaking from personal experience as a section 128(a) grant1746recipient, these grants are powerful, effective, and catalytic.1747In our situation, Goldstein Kite Environmental partnered with1748DEP to conduct assessment and remediation of chlorinated1749solvents at a former chemical storage and distribution site1750that impacted a public school.1751    Our investment in this ostensibly contaminated site, and1752DEP and EPA's co-investment with $400,000 in section 128(a)1753grant funds, is facilitating construction of 515 units of1754affordable housing and a $217 million capital expenditure in1755the Overtown neighborhood of Miami by one of the largest1756builders in the country.1757    A final recommendation. PFAS is commonly referred to as1758``the forever chemical.'' It is really ``the everywhere1759chemical,'' and it is having a monumental impact on brownfields1760development where the listing of PFAS as a CERCLA hazardous1761substance raises the specter of possible EPA-led cleanups under1762the National Contingency Plan over decades at a great expense.1763    Congress should consider a statutory exemption to CERCLA1764where a party has voluntarily entered into a brownfield cleanup1765agreement with a State agency to remediate PFAS contamination1766under State law. The exemption would provide immunity from1767CERCLA cost recovery and contribution claims, a hold on NPL1768status, immunity from RCRA citizen suits, and express immunity1769from lenders.1770    Thank you so much for this opportunity to present my1771comments.1772    [Mr. Goldstein's prepared statement follows:]17731774Prepared Statement of Michael R. Goldstein, Esq., Managing Partner, The1775                 Goldstein Environmental Law Firm, P.A.1776    Good morning, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members1777of the Committee. My name is Michael Goldstein. I'm the Managing1778Partner of The Goldstein Environmental Law Firm, a principal of1779Goldstein Kite Environmental, a past president of the Florida1780Brownfields Association, and past Chair of the National Brownfields1781Coalition's Public Policy and Redevelopment Incentives Committee.1782    It is a distinct honor, and career highlight, to participate in1783this hearing and to help our Country's elected officials improve on1784what has been the most important, impactful, and results-producing1785federal program in my 33 years of practice. While Congress, U.S. EPA,1786and every state government in the nation, including the great state of1787Florida, have supported brownfields work since the mid-1990s, the1788hundreds of thousands of brownfields across the country require1789additional resources to tackle. And so do Superfund sites, let's not1790forget about those either. They, too, present tremendous opportunities1791for redevelopment. EPA's track record in both arenas--brownfield1792redevelopment and Superfund redevelopment--is long and distinguished.1793    My remarks today are informed by over three decades of assisting1794local governments, neighborhood groups, developers, farmers, growers,1795manufacturers, energy companies, schools and school systems,1796entrepreneurs, investors, lenders, and capital providers navigate the1797complexities, risks, regulations, and expenses of cleaning up,1798redeveloping, repurposing, and reusing contaminated land--from1799Brownfields to Superfund Sites to all points in between. I also invest1800in them personally and, accordingly, have a 360 degree view of what1801aspects of the federal brownfields program have worked well and where1802opportunities remain to overcome persistent challenges. Unlike my1803fellow witnesses, all of whom are deeply credentialed, experienced, and1804accomplished and who present necessary perspectives, the view I am1805sharing today is a private sector view and one that is purposefully1806intended to recommend to this Committee the specific steps Congress can1807take during reauthorization to move many billions of additional dollars1808in private capital off the sidelines and reverse decades of1809disinvestment and despair. The private sector wants to do more--much1810more--but we need more help from Congress.1811    First, though, I would like to speak to Florida's Brownfields1812Program, which was an early leader nationally in encouraging, investing1813in, and responsibly managing environmental redevelopment. Florida's1814Brownfield Program was enacted on July 1, 1997, and in the ensuing 281815years has sparked the creation of approximately 90,000 projected direct1816and indirect jobs and the projected investment of over $3.188 billion1817in capital investment in designated brownfield areas. Through February181820, 2025, local governments, upon their own initiative or at the1819request of developers or other applicants, have designated 6131820Brownfield Areas totaling 292,865.41acres. Over 530 voluntary cleanup1821agreements have been executed with the Florida Department of1822Environmental Protection or one of their amazing local partners, Miami-1823Dade County DERM, Broward County RED, and Hillsborough County EPC. Over1824235 brownfield sites have completed cleanup since inception of the1825program. Florida has accomplished this outstanding result with a mix of1826economic incentives, including tax credits and tax refunds, a loan1827guarantee fund, liability protection at the state level, and a1828streamlined processing for regulatory review and approvals with lots of1829love and care from specially appointed brownfield coordinators at the1830state and local level. The Florida model has resulted in a broad1831portfolio of cleaned up and reused sites but, in my experience, there1832has been a particular level of success in the category of affordable1833and workforce housing. Florida has put its thumb on the scale, and1834appropriately so, for builders of this segment of the market, which is1835in crisis. I know that's true nationwide. And it's with this in my mind1836that many of the following recommendations are made. I'm confident,1837based on the Florida experience, that, if implemented, they will1838accelerate construction of affordable housing across the country by1839giving developers and communities the financial and regulatory tools1840needed to safely and responsible cleanup and repurpose a sad, vast1841landscape of abandoned, underutilized contaminated properties.1842    On the financial side, I recommend three new funding opportunities:1843    First, as part of a forthcoming tax bill, renew the Federal1844Brownfield Tax Incentive, which was first passed in 1997 to allow1845parties who voluntarily investigated and remediated contaminated1846properties to deduct all cleanup costs on their federal income tax1847return in the year they spent the money on cleanup. By allowing for1848expensing rather than requiring remediation deductions to be spread out1849over ten years, the tax incentive was a powerful driver of private1850investment in environmental redevelopment. Before it expired in 2012,1851this deduction was used more than 625 times in more than 40 states.1852There is already bipartisan support for the restoration of this1853incentive. The Brownfields Redevelopment Tax Incentive Reauthorization1854Act of 2025, H.R. 815, was recently reintroduced by Rep. Sherrill (D-1855NJ) and Rep. Turner (R-OH).1856    Second, I recommend the creation of a Brownfields Loan Guarantee1857Program. This program would combine aspects of the DOE Loan Guarantee1858Program with the New Markets Tax Credits Program to leverage many1859billions of private sector dollars for early stage, bridge financing of1860redevelopment projects that are considered too risky for conventional1861lenders. In my professional experience, there are countless projects1862that fail in the concept stage because they are caught in an unwinnable1863position--they're not loan-worthy until the environmental risks are1864cleared but the environmental risks can't be cleared until loan funding1865becomes available.1866    Third, as I noted earlier in my testimony, the brownfields model is1867a proven vehicle to incentivize and expand affordable housing. Congress1868has many tools at its disposal to improve the model. To that end, we1869would like to see:1870      an increase of the 4% and 9% Low Income Housing Tax1871Credit under Sec.  42 of the IRS Code to 6% and 12% for affordable1872housing built on brownfield sites;1873      a stepped-up basis under Sec.  42 of the IRS Code of1874between 130% to 150% for affordable housing built on brownfield sites;1875and1876      a new, one-time LIHTC in the amount of 80% of cost of the1877land acquisition and demolition to develop affordable housing built on1878brownfields.18791880    As Congress seeks to reauthorize the federal brownfields program,1881there are a handful of other key priorities to consider:1882      Meaningfully increase resources and ensure robust1883staffing at EPA offices. Increasing resources allows what has been a1884universally recognized and lauded program of success to reach more1885communities and address more contaminated sites. Robust staffing at EPA1886program offices and regional offices that keeps projects moving through1887the remediation process. Delays cost time and money, and adequate1888staffing helps improve timelines and makes more projects possible.18891890      Increase maximum grant awards to local government and1891non-profit applicants to expand the amount of work that each grant1892award can be used to complete. Many sites require multiple streams of1893financing to complete remediation, which slows down the timeline for1894redevelopment. Higher maximum funding levels would allow for faster1895remediation, and the faster sites can be closed out, the quicker1896redevelopment can occur, sites can be made safer, more jobs can be1897created, including in the construction sector, and more tax revenues1898can be raised increasing services. It's a virtuous circle. Specific1899grant funding recommendations consist of the following:1900      +  $500,000 for the Community Wide Assessment Grant1901      +  $1.5 million for the Coalition Assessment Grant1902      +  $1 million for the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund1903Grant1904      +  $1.5 million for the Multipurpose Grant1905      +  Assessment and Remediation Grants at increasing tiers from1906$500,000 to $10 million19071908      Vastly increase the CERCLA 128(a) grants to state1909brownfield programs. Since the inception of Florida's Brownfields1910Program in 1977, the Department of Environmental Protection has been1911awarded $17.2 million in 128(a) grant funds. The awarded monies have1912allowed the Department to continue to build and enhance the Brownfields1913response program capabilities, as well as to conduct target assessment1914and remediation work at over 116 sites. Speaking from personal1915experience as a 128(a) grant recipient, these grants are powerful,1916effective, and catalytic. In our situation, Goldstein Kite1917Environmental partnered with FDEP to assess and conduct assessment and1918remediation of chlorinated solvents contaminated soil and groundwater1919at a former chemical storage and distribution site that had migrated1920offsite and impacted a public school. Our investment in this risky1921site, and FDEP and EPA's co-investment with $443,648.09 in 128(a) grant1922funds, is facilitating construction of 515 units of affordable housing1923and a $217 million capital expenditure in the southwest Overtown1924neighborhood of Miami by one of the largest builders in the country,1925Richman Group. Your state brownfields agencies know where the greatest1926needs are and how to get the greatest bang for the buck for the1927American people. They should be entrusted with more resources to do so.19281929      Increasing flexibility for program users. Eliminating the1930match requirement for these grants, expanding allowable expenses to1931include demolition and environmental insurance, and for the first time1932ever making all such grants available to developers of affordable and1933workforce housing. That would be a game changer.19341935    And two final recommendations today to contribute to the1936deliberations in Congress on how to address the seemingly intractable1937scourge of PFAS in the country's groundwater, drinking water, surface1938water, soils, sediments, and air. PFAS is commonly referred to as the1939forever chemical. It's really the everywhere chemical, and it's having1940a monumental impact on brownfields development where the listing of1941PFAS as a CERCLA hazardous substance raises the specter of possible EPA1942led cleanups under the National Contingency Plan over decades at great1943expense.1944    So, first, I would like to recommend that Congress consider a1945statutory exemption to CERCLA where a party has voluntarily entered1946into a brownfield cleanup agreement with a state agency. Such an1947exemption could provide the assurances described below and, in doing1948so, reduce the anxiety level that developers, investors, local1949governments, and community stakeholders might otherwise have when1950considering the voluntary acquisition, cleanup and redevelopment of a1951PFAS impacted site:1952    (i)  immunity from cost recovery claims under CERCLA;1953    (ii)  immunity from contribution claims under CERCLA;1954    (iii)  a hold on NPL status for sites being cleaned up under a1955state brownfields program;1956    (iv)  immunity from citizen suits under RCRA; and1957    (v)  and express immunity for lenders who hold indicia of ownership1958in, or have foreclosed on, a PFAS impacted facility.19591960    Second, Congress should direct EPA to expand its strategic roadmap,1961which is founded on key goals and objectives--Research, Restrict, and1962Remediate--by adding a fourth key goal--Redevelop. Objectives within1963this goal could consist of the following:1964      engaging brownfields stakeholders on redevelopment-1965focused enforcement discretion policies;1966      brownfields planning, assessment, remediation, and job1967creation and training grants specifically targeting PFAS impaired1968sites;1969      administrative initiatives that further defer federal1970enforcement authority to state environmental officials where1971responsible parties have entered into binding, enforceable voluntary1972cleanup agreements; and1973      cross-agency collaboration to encourage other federal1974brownfield partners to allocate human and financial resources to1975support cleanup and redevelopment of PFAS impaired sites, such as the1976Department of Energy, Department of Housing and Urban Development,1977Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, and the Economic1978Development Administration.19791980    Thank you for your consideration of these remarks, and I look1981forward to responding to any questions.19821983    Mr. Collins. Thank you.1984    And thank you all for providing your testimony. We will now1985turn to questions for the panel. I recognize myself for 51986minutes for questions.1987    I kind of like to give you an idea of the way I look at1988things, especially from a chairman's standpoint. And the way I1989look at it, in November, the American people spoke loud and1990clear. First of all, they need to save taxpayer dollars.1991    The second thing that we need to do up here, especially1992from a chairman's standpoint, is make sure that the Federal1993Government is very productive and efficient. And if we can do1994that, then we will save taxpayer money.1995    You all had testimony, and as you were giving your1996testimony, I started changing my questions as each one of you1997went through. So some of this may be a little choppy.1998    But I want to make sure that whatever we do, if you think1999of it, and what can we do to be more efficient, how do we save2000money, and in this case, when we make an investment, what is2001the return on the dollar for that investment, because a lot of2002this I look at as an investment instead of just grant money.2003    So, Mr. Larson, I think this may be best for you. If it is2004not, if somebody else wants to weigh in or not. The IIJA, $1.52005billion extra over 5 years, over the normal allocation, if I2006have got that right--and if I am wrong, correct me--how was2007that doled out among the States? Was that on a first come,2008first served basis, large States got this, small States--or how2009did that work?2010    Mr. Larson. So, thank you for the question. So, the IIJA2011funding was divided. Of that total $1.5 billion, $1.2 billion2012was allocated for the section 104 grants--the 104(k) grants, or2013the competitive grants.2014    So, those grants were administered in the same/similar2015fashion as in the similar criteria that EPA uses toward their2016annual competitive grants. So, that's the grants that go to2017eligible applicants through the normal process or that normal--2018--2019    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. So, that money goes to the2020States. So----2021    Mr. Larson [interrupting]. That is the money that goes2022directly to the applicants.2023    Mr. Collins. Okay. So who actually primarily provides the2024funding? Is it local, State, Fed, what?2025    Mr. Larson. So, there's the competitive grants, which are2026appropriated to EPA, and the EPA administers that on a2027competitive basis. So, there is a collection of eligible2028entities all over the country that will put in various grant2029applications for those grants.2030    And so, EPA will look at all the grant applications that2031will come in, and based upon the criteria that is in statute,2032they have this ranking prioritization process. And as part of2033that, they will administer those grants to those eligible2034entities.2035    Mr. Collins. Yes, I am just trying to figure out, if we2036doubled the money essentially over 5 years, and I hear it2037consistent that it is not funded at the level--and of course,2038in my opening statement, I said just throwing money at a2039problem is not going to solve the problem. We have always2040figured that out. There is usually something else in there.2041    And, Honorable Wilbur, you said that--I think it was you.2042Who is it that said ``burdensome reporting''?2043    Mr. Wilbur. Didn't hear you on that.2044    Mr. Collins. That said it was--burdensome reporting was one2045of the problems.2046    Mr. Wilbur. Yes. So----2047    Mr. Collins [interrupting]. Is that on the Fed or the State2048level or the local level? Where is that burdensome reporting?2049    Mr. Wilbur. We had that for the brownfields assessment2050program that we had. That came from the Feds. And what it is,2051is we just have a small staff. I mean, we have a small county2052with under 1,000 employees, and we are actually, I would say,2053probably one of the larger rural counties, if you will.2054    Mr. Collins. Yes.2055    Mr. Wilbur. And as you get smaller and smaller, there is2056less staff to be able to put the time to devote to this.2057    Mr. Collins. And to me, I think that gets to the crux of2058the problem--of a lot of the problems we hear up here,2059especially with rural counties. A lot of my district is very2060rural. They don't have stacks of accountants and lawyers2061sitting around to apply for grants. They have to go out and pay2062for the grant, which costs them, I don't know, 30, 40 percent2063of the money, whatever they can get away with.2064    And so I have always been a bigger proponent of, we just2065block grant money and get out of the way, and that is what I as2066getting at. Is it a Federal issue on what--because a lot of2067times, when the Feds give out money, they've got strings2068attached. A lot of times they are around your neck.2069    So, if that is the case, then is there an issue with the2070Feds getting in the way?2071    Mr. Wilbur. If I may, I would say that I think we have2072proven it in Oswego County over the two rounds of grants that2073we received, $900,000. Out of those two particular parcels that2074I mentioned, that is a $30 million investment of basically2075wasteland on an environmental protected area, meaning it was on2076a river, in our downtown area is where it was at.2077    Mr. Collins. Right. And I want to bring that up real quick.2078So that $30 million investment that the Fed--that taxpayers2079made, what was the return on the dollar taxwise?2080    Mr. Wilbur. Let me just correct that. That wasn't a $302081million taxpayer investment.2082    Mr. Collins. Yes, sir.2083    Mr. Wilbur. That was a private investment.2084    Mr. Collins. Okay.2085    Mr. Wilbur. So we used the $900,000 to leverage the $302086million investment from private.2087    Mr. Collins. Okay. But there again--okay. So the $900,000.2088What was the tax advantage--what did it do to generate2089taxpayer--did you all look at that, how much more taxes it2090generates? Obviously, it wasn't doing much of anything when it2091was a brownfield.2092    Mr. Wilbur. Well, I don't have the exact figures on what2093those buildings are assessed at right now, but we are2094definitely--they are back on the tax rolls. Those properties2095are----2096    Mr. Collins [interposing]. Yes.2097    Mr. Wilbur [continuing]. Generating thousands in tax2098revenue.2099    Mr. Collins. Yes. And that is the type of stories I like to2100hear, is if we make an investment somehow, how long does it2101take for us to get our return, and what has our return been.2102Because anytime we can generate more taxpayers out there, then2103it generates revenue to replace what we spent out.2104    All right. I am out of time. I yield back.2105    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Wilson for 5 minutes.2106    Ms. Wilson of Florida. Ms. Shook, last Friday, the2107Environmental Council of the States wrote a letter to EPA2108Administrator Zeldin, that I would ask unanimous consent to2109enter into the record. Enter into the record.2110    Mr. Collins. Without objection, so ordered.2111    [The information follows:]21122113Letter of May 3, 2025, from the Environmental Council of the States to2114 Hon. Lee Zeldin, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,2115          Submitted for the Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson2116                                                       May 3, 2025.2117The Honorable Lee Zeldin,2118Administrator,2119U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, WJC2120        Building North/South Room: 1448K, Washington, DC 20460.2121    Dear Administrator Zeldin,2122    Yesterday, the Office of Management of Budget (OMB) sent the White2123House recommendations for discretionary funding to the United States2124Senate for fiscal year (FY) 2026. In response, the Environmental2125Council of the States (ECOS) Officers urgently request an in-person2126meeting with you to discuss the fiscal implications of the FY20262127recommendations for states.2128    As we understand the recommendation, the White House recommended2129elimination or cuts to categorical grant programs that will devastate2130economic development, critical infrastructure, and environmental2131protections across the nation.2132    States carry out more than 90% of the nation's federal2133environmental programs in communities around the United States, and2134states, state legislatures, and the business community depend on2135Congress to fund our efforts through grants and partnerships with the2136U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Such dramatic budget cuts2137to states will incapacitate state environmental programs while creating2138significant uncertainty for state legislatures and businesses across2139the United States. Further, the proposal to dramatically shrink the2140Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds will also hurt the2141heretofore unified effort to address the nation's water infrastructure2142needs, which is necessary not only to protect human health and the2143environment, but also to grow the economy.2144    If Congress were to adopt the White House recommendation for2145discretionary spending, states may be required to terminate primacy,2146delegation, or authorization agreements and return full program2147implementation to EPA. This would overwhelm EPA and have detrimental2148impacts to economic development. In addition, state primacy,2149delegation, or authorizations were approved by EPA and published in the2150Federal Register following public notice and comment. Such primacy,2151delegation, or authorization agreements are predicated on commitments2152that include a federal and state cost share. A reduction or elimination2153of the federal cost share will create implementation issues resulting2154in legal liabilities that may contribute to a state's decision to2155return a program to EPA for implementation within a state.2156    Pursuant to principles of cooperative federalism, EPA and states2157working in partnership through regular discussions would greatly2158benefit our organizations and we stand ready to have such discussions.2159    Thank you.2160                                              James Kenney,2161                 New Mexico Environment Department, ECOS President.2162                                               Chris Wells,2163        Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, ECOS Vice2164                                                         President.2165                                               Leah Feldon,2166        Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, ECOS Secretary-2167                                                         Treasurer.2168                                                Myra Reece,2169    South Carolina Department of Environmental Services, ECOS Past2170                                                         President.21712172cc:2173Region 1, Mark Sanborn.2174Region 2, Mike Martucci.2175Region 3, Amy Van Blarcom-Lackey.2176Region 4, Kevin McOmber.2177Region 5, Anne Vogel.2178Region 6, Scott Mason.2179Region 7, Jim Macy.2180Region 8, Cyrus Western.2181Region 9, Josh Cook.2182Region 10, Emma Pokon.2183Assistant Deputy Administrator, Travis Voyles.2184Associate Administrator, Sarah Talmage.2185    Ms. Wilson of Florida. In this letter, the executive board2186of State environmental leaders expressed deep concern with the2187President's budget proposal to eliminate or drastically cut2188most categorical grant programs within the Agency, including2189the Clean Water State Revolving Trust.2190    The States warned that these cuts would hurt efforts to2191reinvest in our Nation's infrastructure, damage our public and2192environmental health, and threaten our economy.2193    While EPA's Brownfields Program was not specifically2194mentioned in the President's budget, it is conceivable that2195funding for this program is equally as targeted by the2196administration for reduction or elimination.2197    Ms. Shook and then Mr. Goldstein, what would be the2198consequences for the State of Ohio and the State of Florida if2199all EPA brownfields grant funding were eliminated?2200    Ms. Shook.2201    Ms. Shook. Thank you----2202    Mr. Goldstein [interrupting]. Thank you, Congresswoman2203Wilson, for the question.2204    In many instances--in most instances, EPA brownfields2205funding is existential. Without that seed money, thousands of2206environmental redevelopment and reuse projects all across the2207country would come to a grinding halt, and those that are in2208the planning process wouldn't even get out of the gate.2209    These are projects that help to accelerate remediation to2210quickly reduce public health risks that result in a tremendous2211amount of job creation, economic revitalization, and additional2212tax revenues to local governments that can then provide more2213services and also increase redevelopment in the surrounding2214area. They turn engines of disinvestment into productive2215engines of investment. And without continued funding, even2216expanded funding through EPA, all of that work would come to a2217halt.2218    Ms. Wilson of Florida. Ms. Shook.2219    Ms. Shook. I would agree with Mr. Goldstein. It would2220negatively impact almost every community in Ohio. Our State2221funding supports a lot of our smallest and most rural2222communities because they have the least capacity to hold their2223own grants, whereas our larger communities use this as a2224catalyst to get other Federal funds, other State dollars--Ohio2225has a robust cleanup program themselves--to partner for2226matching dollars for those funds, they use Federal funds, and2227to incite additional private investment.2228    It is much easier. There is plenty of green space in Ohio2229for companies to come in and to keep those investments in our2230communities where the infrastructure already exists and to2231preserve our farmland. It is nice to have a robust Brownfields2232Program to keep that development in our more populated areas.2233    Thank you.2234    Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you.2235    Mr. Goldstein, our home county, Miami-Dade, has highlighted2236the successes it has seen with the Brownfields Program. They2237talked about the efforts at Thermo Fisher and how the2238brownfield designation helped create new jobs. They also spoke2239about the Poinciana Industrial Center effort and how a2240brownfield pilot helped address remediation needs in the2241community.2242    Can you discuss the importance of continued support for the2243Brownfields Program and how this funding will help address2244brownfield sites like the corner of Northwest 37th Avenue and2245Northwest 183rd Street in Miami Gardens?2246    Mr. Goldstein. Yes, Ranking Member Wilson. That part of2247Miami-Dade County has long been subject to disinvestment,2248economic blight, and, unfortunately, historically civil unrest,2249related to the lack of economic opportunity.2250    A significant component of that is driven by the2251environmental uncertainty and risk associated with a long2252history of industrial activities like pesticide distribution2253plants that have left a significant amount of soil and2254groundwater contamination that has, candidly, provided a2255tremendous disincentive to lenders and other investors to2256imagine what that area could be, which is surrounded by working2257families who love their community and want an opportunity to2258raise their families there and have good jobs.2259    With EPA's investment and the continued oversight of the2260Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Miami-2261Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management,2262utilizing Federal resources, there is an opportunity for2263developers to come in, create jobs, create affordable housing,2264and turn that part of the community into a very vital portion2265of Miami-Dade County that generates a tremendous amount of2266economic activity.2267    Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein.2268    And thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time.2269    Mr. Collins. Yes, ma'am. Sorry I wasn't--I was wanting to--2270I should have stopped then.2271    If you all get a chance, just please remember to cut your2272mic off. When we had that noise that crept in, somebody--there2273were two mics open. So if you will make sure it is off if you2274are not talking, we won't have that.2275    The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the2276subcommittee, Mr. Taylor from Ohio, for 5 minutes.2277    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman Collins and Ranking Member2278Wilson, for holding this hearing today. And thank you to our2279witnesses for being here to share their insight and for the2280sacrifices you made to be here.2281    I want to especially welcome Ms. Shook who is here to talk2282about how Ohio has succeeded in turning contaminated land into2283residential and economic growth.2284    Toxic materials such as asbestos and lead in old buildings2285can cause significant harm to those exposed over long periods2286of time. That is why the Brownfields Program exists, to turn2287older toxic sites into productive and beneficial areas in the2288community.2289    In southern Ohio, the main brownfield sites include2290schools, children's homes, and other public buildings. It2291should be obvious that small rural communities face massive2292challenges when addressing brownfield sites in their region,2293such as constrained local budgets, fewer people available to2294manage brownfield projects, and limited access to technical2295expertise.2296    Ms. Shook, can you elaborate on how the Ohio EPA has worked2297with rural communities to alleviate these challenges?2298    Ms. Shook. Thank you. The State's program works2299significantly with our smaller and more rural communities. As I2300said earlier, they have less capacity to hold their own grants2301and to be competitive in the 104(k) competitive rounds of2302grants.2303    So we are often sort of the front door for them to the2304brownfields space. They can use our funding for planning2305purposes, as well as the initial assessments, and we can work2306with them, and do work with them, very closely to help prepare2307them to potentially apply for either another State grant or a2308Federal grant as they get ready.2309    So we have done everything from helping them develop their2310own brownfield inventories, to doing phase 1 environmental2311assessments for them, to helping set up community meetings and2312do community surveys on what they would like areas to look like2313after a brownfield redevelopment is completed.2314    So that is a variety of ways we work with them, but they2315are a primary customer of ours.2316    Mr. Taylor. Got you. Is there more that Congress could do2317to remove barriers that create these challenges for rural2318areas?2319    Ms. Shook. Yes. So the competition process is very2320competitive. We have heard numbers around only about 30 percent2321of applicants get approved for their grants. So finding ways to2322provide more funds to more communities would make it easier for2323them to hold.2324    Our regional brownfield staff that manage those assessment2325grants do a very nice job of helping those communities follow2326all the regulations and reporting requirements, as well as they2327assist us in making sure we are aware of any new requirements2328that we have to meet for our three grants that we hold.2329    So we have a great working relationship with region 5 staff2330that help us with that, but there are always more tools in the2331toolbox for small communities who don't have the staff to hold2332grants, or allowing States to hold larger grants so that we can2333do more work for them, and we bear the responsibility for the2334reporting requirements.2335    Mr. Taylor. Thank you. With Congress and President Trump2336vowing to rein in Government spending, it is important that2337Congress evaluates how we fund these existing programs.2338    Mr. Goldstein, in your testimony, you highlighted how2339public-private partnerships benefited local communities in2340cleaning up brownfield sites. Can you elaborate on the benefits2341of public-private partnerships and how that speeds up2342brownfield sites being cleaned up?2343    Mr. Goldstein. Absolutely. Many times--most times, local2344governments and local government entities own contaminated2345assets: old landfills, public utility facilities, wastewater2346treatment plants. They are sitting on these assets. They cost a2347tremendous amount of money to maintain, and the funds aren't2348there to clean them up and repurpose them.2349    And so what they do is they reach out to the private sector2350for a public-private partnership opportunity. The private2351entities are beneficiaries of the EPA grants that come in, but2352those dollars, while important, aren't always directly2353available to the private-sector entities, and frequently, they2354are not enough to complete the cleanup and put the site on a2355level playing field with greenfield sites.2356    So, what would be most important is to, A, expand the grant2357opportunities in terms of the dollars that are available. That2358is number one.2359    Number two, make them available directly to the private2360sector who are operating in areas that the Government wants to2361see, like public-private partnerships, like affordable housing.2362That is number two.2363    And number three, utilize some of the other tools that2364Congress has available to it to increase the likelihood of2365success of public-private partnerships, like creating more2366liability exemption opportunities, for example, with respect to2367PFAS, or providing this Federal income tax deduction to2368private-sector entities which results in more dollars that can2369go into the redevelopment side.2370    Mr. Taylor. Thank you.2371    And thank all of you for being here today.2372    And, Chairman, I yield back.2373    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of2374the full committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes.2375    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am good with no2376questions.2377    Mr. Collins. Sir?2378    Mr. Larsen of Washington. I am good with no questions.2379    Mr. Collins. Oh, okay.2380    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Move on to the next Democrat.2381    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from2382Ohio, Mrs. Sykes, for 5 minutes.2383    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Ranking2384Member, for yielding your time for me to ask questions.2385    It is certainly Ohio week in the Transportation and2386Infrastructure Committee. So good to see you, Ms. Shook. Thank2387you for being here today. And thank you to the chair and2388ranking member for holding this hearing.2389    Ohio has long been a leader in industrialization for2390generations, and for many folks in my district, that has meant2391investment in our communities and good-paying jobs. And my2392hometown Akron is known as--or may be formerly known as the2393rubber capital of the world.2394    But, unfortunately, it has also left our State and my2395district with far too many derelict and dangerous sites,2396especially in the absence of environmental regulations, and2397industries have shifted over the years.2398    Following some of these, we have been fortunate to have the2399identification and support around brownfield sites and the2400properties' damage to the environment, and dangerous for2401families, and clearly unsuitable for business, which makes some2402of these properties unavailable for productive use.2403    There are more than 4,200 brownfield properties across the2404State of Ohio, and every single one of our 88 counties have at2405least 1 brownfield property. And my district is no exception.2406There are 110 properties that have been identified as2407brownfield sites in Ohio's 13th District alone.2408    Of these sites, one of them is the Landmark Building in2409Akron, Ohio. It is right downtown. Actually, our district2410office is almost directly across the street from it. It was a2411significant part of our downtown skyline, previously the home2412to Akron Savings and Loan, but this building has been2413abandoned. But in 2011, the Department of Development received2414a brownfield cleanup grant from the EPA and was able to2415leverage some funding. And now fast-forward to 2025, it is a2416productive property, Akron's new Bowery District development2417and home to apartment buildings, restaurants, and productive2418land use, which is exactly what we want these programs to do.2419    Additionally, Rolling Acres Mall, if you have ever seen2420mall wastelands, Rolling Acres is one of those. It is now an2421Amazon distribution site. Again, another way in which we have2422been able to use brownfield development to encourage job growth2423and development and economic opportunity in our communities.2424    Ms. Shook, in your testimony, you talked about you have2425identified and worked with just under 100 communities and2426brownfield sites across the State. I just mentioned that I have2427110 in my district alone, so, obviously, that means that there2428is a lot of demand and not enough support around it.2429    But the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law did provide a much2430needed boost for remediating some of these sites. So if you2431could talk a little bit more about what this investment and2432increased investment could do across the State of Ohio,2433specifically, and how this can increase and encourage economic2434development and productive land use in our State.2435    Ms. Shook. Thank you. Yes, the standard allocation that we2436were getting prior to the IIJA Act, we were able to complete2437about 20 assessments per year, in addition to our planning2438activities and the technical assistance and grant-funded2439technical assistance we were providing throughout the cleanup2440process.2441    With the additional funding we received, we were able to go2442up to 145 assessments over those grants, so that is a2443significant increase in actual assessment and some cleanup work2444done in our communities. And it prepared them to apply for full2445cleanup grants from both our State program and the Federal2446program.2447    We have both the staff and the contractors available to do2448more work. It is only a matter of how many dollars we get per2449year. Our standard allocation has been dropping slightly every2450year as more entities have been applying, and it was a great2451benefit to the State.2452    The State program is very robust. There is about $1252453million in State cleanup dollars awarded the last 4 years, I2454believe, and it is oversubscribed every year. So there is a2455significant need in the State, and our program is small in2456comparison--the State EPA Brownfields Program is small in2457comparison to our State development's Brownfields Program. But2458we are there to help all the communities that need that extra2459assistance, the ones that need to find a first step, need the2460roadmap that helps them match dollar for dollar. And that is2461where our program really shines is being kind of the matching2462dollars for other programs.2463    Mrs. Sykes. Well, thank you very much for that.2464    And if I can help lift up some of the testimony I have2465heard from all of you, this is not just about the environment2466and cleaning up sites, which is very important, but this is2467about economic development, putting people to work, making sure2468that we are using our land productively, and giving people an2469opportunity throughout our country, and particularly in Ohio's247013th and across the State. So thank you very much for your2471testimony.2472    Mr. Chair, I yield back.2473    Mr. Collins. Thank you.2474    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Knott for 5 minutes.2475    Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To all the witnesses,2476thank you all for your testimony.2477    Mr. Larson, I want to start with you. In regards to your2478experience and observations, what is the greatest impediment to2479having an efficient, I would say, remediation program for some2480of these environmentally sensitive sites in the Brownfields2481Program? Is it local bureaucracy, is it local permitting, is it2482Federal bureaucracy, is it funding? If there is one thing you2483could point to, what would that be?2484    Mr. Larson. So, regarding the cleanup duration or2485complexities at any given site, it is going to be highly2486dependent upon site-specific circumstances.2487    Mr. Knott. Sure.2488    Mr. Larson. So, I would say it is going to be very2489challenging to point to a single factor, whereas there may be2490multiple factors, including the ones that you have listed, even2491from like a technical or scientific standpoint.2492    Many of these properties, the conditions may be unknown----2493    Mr. Knott [interposing]. Yes.2494    Mr. Larson [continuing]. With respect to the environmental2495contamination that may or may not be present. And so as this2496process proceeds of investigating the contamination,2497investigating the site, if it turns out to be the contamination2498presents more of a risk than was originally envisioned, that2499could present more complications with respect to both the2500cleanup and what could be suitable reuses for the site. So,2501there are various factors even as the process proceeds that can2502complicate this.2503    Mr. Knott. Right. I mean, one of the concerns that I am2504bringing to the table is, from North Carolina, there is a $2-2505per-ton municipal waste disposal fee that really is aimed at2506cleaning up these--they are called preregulatory landfills. I2507don't know if you are familiar with that term.2508    Mr. Goldstein, you are shaking your head. But, basically,2509it is a period of time where landfills were utilized and2510anything went in there, and many of them have been deemed2511hazardous. And the North Carolina Department of Environmental2512Quality monitors these landfills, but I think there are 700 of2513them, but only 1 has been cleaned up or 2 have been cleaned up2514in the last 20 years, roughly. And that is a trend that I have2515heard about throughout the country, that cleaning these up,2516putting them back into the marketplace is a real problem.2517    Mr. Goldstein, I would defer to you in terms of, if there2518is a way that we can efficiently identify, manage, and clean up2519these, or cap them, remediate, however you want to phrase it,2520is there a model that you have seen at a local and State level2521that is efficient and provides the necessary certainty to move2522these quickly?2523    Mr. Goldstein. Thank you, Representative Knott. That is a2524great question. And I want to invoke a suggestion that the2525chairman made, the concept of rethinking, reenvisioning the2526grant program to provide community block grants, like community2527block grants to State government so State governments can get2528the money to where it needs to go more quickly.2529    If there is a single limiting factor that makes these2530projects less efficient than they need to be, it is time. And2531the time associated with waiting for the grant window to open2532and to prepare and submit a grant application on a competitive2533basis and then get the money, that time is too long. There is2534too much delay.2535    If we were to have that money go to the States and have the2536State agencies allocate those dollars to where they are needed,2537where the greatest need is, those dollars would get to the2538communities more quickly and they would be spent more2539efficiently with less oversight and administrative bureaucracy.2540    Mr. Knott. Is there a way to incentivize local and State2541government to move on these sites? Because, for instance, in2542North Carolina, a lot of county and State operators are the2543ones who polluted the sites. And so in some ways they are not2544incentivized to, whether it is undertake cleanup costs or to2545remediate, because that could expose them to further liability,2546but is there a way to really expedite this process using the2547Federal leverage at hand? I don't know if that makes sense or2548not.2549    Mr. Goldstein. It absolutely makes sense. We have done2550something like that in the State of Florida, which I know2551Ranking Member Wilson is aware of. In Florida, recently, we2552passed a law that essentially gives grace to local government2553entities that may have caused contamination to a site, provided2554that they bring it into productive reuse quickly and promptly2555and that they find a public-private partnership opportunity to2556invest private-sector dollars in the cleanup. That gives them,2557as I mentioned, grace and a runway without exposure to2558liability under the State's CERCLA analog.2559    Mr. Knott. Do you think that is replicable federally?2560    Mr. Goldstein. Absolutely, it could be replicable on the2561Federal level. There could be an exemption under CERCLA for2562exposure to costs under, for example, PFAS that arise out of2563PFAS contamination, provided that the local government finds a2564private-sector party to invest in redevelopment.2565    Mr. Knott. Thank you, sir.2566    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.2567    Mr. Collins. Thank you.2568    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garamendi for 5 minutes.2569    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2570    This program is a very good one. The recommendations that2571have been made are very helpful and useful, and hopefully, we2572will put forth a reauthorization this year. I think we have2573done it at least once in the past 4 years, and perhaps we will2574be successful this year on a reauthorization. The2575recommendations that have been made by the witnesses are all2576good, and so as we write this legislation, good for us.2577    However, I have a problem. No. We have a problem. All of2578this runs through the EPA. And the President put forth a budget2579proposal, which I would hope the Congress of the United States,2580Senate and House, would thoroughly and completely reject, but2581nonetheless, his proposal is to reduce the EPA budget to its2582lowest level, which happened to be its first budget. Now, just2583how is that going to work?2584    This committee has a very serious responsibility. This2585program, and the CERCLA program also, are critically important2586to our communities, to the health of the communities around it,2587and in some cases, to the larger regional areas. However,2588unless we have the courage--we have the courage to push back on2589what the administration is proposing, this is an interesting2590exercise, and we will undoubtedly write a good reauthorization2591bill, and it will be of no consequence whatsoever.2592    Now, I wish all the committee members were here, and when I2593talk to them individually, I am going to say, yes, it is nice,2594we will do our work as we did before, we have a model, and we2595will use that, and we will update it, given the suggestions of2596the witnesses. It will be an interesting exercise of no purpose2597whatsoever if the administration has its way to gut the EPA.2598So, I would hope all of us would keep this in mind while we2599work through this. Good for us.2600    However, unless we are willing to fight the fight to fund2601the EPA at a level that would allow these programs and others2602to proceed, I guess we will feel good about the work we have2603done, but it will have no consequence, no utility, and,2604actually, cause severe problems throughout the United States as2605we attempt to deal with this particular set of issues and2606dozens of others.2607    So, the fight is not here. The fight is on the proposals2608being made by the administration to gut the EPA and to reduce2609its funding to a level that is equal to what it was on its very2610first day of existence.2611    Now, I happen to support the Brownfields Program. It is2612useful. We have in the city of Vallejo a $600,000 EPA grant for2613Mare Island, the first and oldest naval base on the west coast,2614and you can kind of imagine the kind of contamination that has2615existed there over the last century and a half. So, that is2616useful in making progress. It also allows for the downtown2617waterfront.2618    The city of San Pablo, another one, a rail yard that dates2619back to the 1800s. Yes, there is a bit of a problem there, but2620the cleanup of that will allow the city to bring in housing2621into a historic area that has been--well, all of you know this.2622We all have these; 435 of us have problems, and the Brownfields2623Program helps our districts. So, each of us ought to be not2624only working on the reauthorization legislation and whatever2625changes are appropriate to improve it, but we are going to have2626to fight the big fight. Otherwise, why bother?2627    I am going to let it go at that. I thank the witnesses for2628their specific suggestions on how to improve the existing2629authorization which now expired 2\1/2\ years ago. So, we have2630work to do. But I don't want this committee and each and every2631one of us to forget what is the principal battle at hand, and2632that is in fact the existence of the EPA in a meaningful way.2633    So, with that, I am going to yield back, Mr. Chairman. And2634I would hope to have your support in helping all of us or2635making all of us aware of the problem that the administration2636is creating with its proposed budget cut for the EPA and work2637with all of us to restore the funding to an appropriate level2638so this program and others can proceed. With that, I yield2639back.2640    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burlison for 52641minutes.2642    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2643    Mr. Goldstein, am I correct in saying you have over three2644decades of experience in helping local communities navigate the2645process of these cleanups of brownfields?2646    Mr. Goldstein. Yes, sir, and I feel every single one of2647those days.2648    Mr. Burlison. Given that experience, could you walk me2649through the process that a local county or community goes2650through when they are applying for assistance for a brownfield?2651    Mr. Goldstein. Sure. The process typically starts with a2652developer or a not-for-profit who, either working on their own2653or with a local government, identifies a site that would make a2654wonderful redevelopment project for whatever their mandate is,2655for whatever their constituents are telling them needs to be2656done.2657    They will conduct some due diligence, that typically2658doesn't take a lot of money, to have a consultant perform what2659is called a phase 1 environmental site assessment audit, which2660is a noninvasive study of the history of the site on the2661regulatory status. And more often than not, whether you are in2662a rural area or an urban area, you will identify a legacy of2663chemical contamination, and all of the warning bells will go2664off and the costs will be identified related to cleanup,2665related to third-party liability, related to the incremental2666things that you have to do to safely build on a contaminated2667site. And then people will take a beat and say, well, how are2668we going to pay for all of this.2669    And at that point, many projects simply expire because the2670risk is too high and the costs are too uncertain. But in other2671instances where they are aware of the Brownfields Program, they2672work with the local government or a not-for-profit. For-profit2673entities are not eligible for brownfield grants. And they get2674in the queue to receive EPA funding. Sometimes it is for2675assessment. Sometimes it is for assessment and cleanup.2676Sometimes it is for cleanup only.2677    In many instances, those grants provide important seed2678money but not enough to complete the job, because more often2679than not, these problems, as mentioned by a number of your2680colleagues, are very complex. They are not problems that can be2681solved with $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 or $400,000 in2682grant funding. Sometimes they take millions of dollars in grant2683funding. And sometimes grant funding--all of the money in the2684world wouldn't solve the problem. There need to be more2685liability protection tools, more regulatory tools to expedite2686cleanup, et cetera.2687    But from identification of an issue through award of grant2688and the money becoming available, that window can take 9 to 122689to 18 months, and many projects don't have that time available2690to them.2691    Mr. Burlison. Regarding the nonprofits, how does that2692relationship work? Are there just nonprofits that exist that2693this is their mission, they accept these grants, they work the2694process, and then they kind of align with a business?2695    Mr. Goldstein. There are a variety of not-for-profits. Some2696are involved in the arts, some are involved in affordable or2697workforce housing, and some are involved in providing urban2698farming opportunities. It really spans the gamut of what not-2699for-profits are interested in, and we have seen it all in a2700brownfields context going back to 1995. Many times they can't2701go it alone, they don't have enough money, so they partner with2702local governments and seek these grants.2703    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.2704    Mr. Wilbur, this Congress, this committee plans to consider2705reauthorization of the Brownfields Program. In the2706reauthorization, we will have the opportunity to consider2707whether the funds given to the Brownfields Program have2708achieved their intended purposes of the program.2709    In your opinion, have the funds put towards this program2710achieved the intended purposes and the goals of the program?2711    Mr. Wilbur. I believe that they have, taking what I have2712seen in my county alone with the investment that was made. We2713definitely have identified and assessed the brownfields that we2714know are there.2715    Mr. Burlison. And given the funds that--we are spending2716money, we are stewards of taxpayer dollars, are there examples2717or are there any opportunities where we can make sure that2718those dollars are used to their fullest extent? Are there any2719opportunities that we can make it better?2720    Mr. Wilbur. Well----2721    Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. Make it more efficient with2722the dollars we have?2723    Mr. Wilbur. Well, I would say that the administrative2724aspect of it, the burdensome reporting and all of that has2725definitely been an added chore for most rural counties. They2726have a small staff, like the Chair noted before. I mean, we2727have one county attorney to work on this, and we have one chief2728accountant in the whole county. So, the work is a lot and the2729staff is limited. So, the administrative duties are definitely2730a little burdensome for us.2731    Mr. Burlison. Appreciate it. Thank you. I yield back.2732    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton for 52733minutes.2734    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2735    I strongly oppose the Trump administration's attack on the2736Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency has suggested it2737will return to staffing levels from the 1980s, and President2738Trump's fiscal year 2026 budget would cut the Agency's budget2739by 55 percent. These cuts to staffing and funding levels are2740grave threats to human health and the environment.2741    I support the Brownfields Program. The program is a win-2742win-win. It helps protect the environment and human health, and2743spurs economic development.2744    Mr. Goldstein, how would reduction in funding for the2745Brownfields Program affect environmental justice efforts?2746    Mr. Goldstein. Well, without brown--in Florida, they would2747go away completely, because Florida doesn't have any funding2748for environmental justice directly. The Florida Brownfields2749Redevelopment Act mentions environmental justice, but there has2750never been a funding mechanism.2751    I agree with you, Representative, the people at EPA are2752dedicated. They are hard-working. They are exceedingly2753efficient, both in the Brownfields Program, and we haven't2754mentioned it, but the Superfund Redevelopment Program.2755Brownfields and Superfund redevelopment pray in the same pew.2756They are both important objectives and both tremendous2757opportunities for economic revitalization, public health2758protection, and environmental justice.2759    If we are going to take money out of the Brownfields2760Program, all of these efforts are, as I mentioned earlier,2761going to come to a grinding halt. But I do want to say this.2762Brownfields has always been bipartisan. It has received a lot2763of bipartisan love. The money that gets allocated by Congress2764to Brownfields goes through EPA but doesn't stay in EPA. It2765goes to the communities where that money is needed and where,2766over the past 35 years, it has made all the difference in the2767world.2768    If you look at the leveraging data published by EPA--and I2769am sure that Mr. Larson has looked at this as well--every2770dollar invested by Congress creates a return on investment of2771$20 in private-sector investment. I have actually seen that2772order of magnitude be 40 to 60 times. I mentioned a project in2773Ranking Member Wilson's district where EPA allocated $400,0002774in section 128(a) grant funding and the developer is putting in2775$217 million.2776    But separate and apart from that, there are things that2777Congress can do, that this subcommittee can do, in terms of2778liability protection and process that will also make private2779capital more likely to go into brownfield sites, even if the2780level of brownfields funding isn't what it has historically2781been, until it can come back. Create CERCLA liability exemption2782for PFAS cleanups, for example, where the cleanup is being2783conducted at the State level. Increase the amount of Low-Income2784Housing Tax Credits available for affordable housing and pass2785the Federal brownfield tax incentive as part of the tax bill.2786    Ms. Norton. Thank you.2787    Ms. Shook, based on the success of the Brownfields Program2788in Ohio, how can cities best leverage partnerships among2789governments, the private sector, and communities to maximize2790the program's benefits?2791    Ms. Shook. Many of our communities do just that. They work2792with both the State to get initial assessments done, leveraging2793the funding we have with our State Brownfields Program, and2794then they go on to apply for their own grants themselves,2795relieving the burden of these cleanups.2796    We have a robust land bank program in Ohio, so our counties2797take on a big lift in getting these cleanup dollars and getting2798the cleanups done so that they can attract the businesses and2799the private development. Sometimes they are working in2800partnership with private developers. Sometimes they are ahead2801of the game and are cleaning up these sites in advance of2802having a known end user. So, they have all the work done, they2803have done the environmental work, and then they can advertise2804it and bring in new jobs to their communities with all of the2805funds that they have leveraged over the years.2806    Ms. Norton. Finally, Mr. Larson, how would an extended2807reauthorization of the Brownfields Program improve its2808effectiveness?2809    Mr. Larson. Well, you have, to the extent that Congress2810would decide to reauthorize the program, you potentially--you2811can revisit some of the programmatic elements that were amended2812in prior reauthorizations. So, it gives Congress the2813opportunity to look at potentially revisiting or considering2814certain legislative options to amend the program, to change or2815modify how it is currently operating, or if they want to change2816other aspects.2817    Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.2818    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for 52819minutes.2820    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2821    Appreciate the panelists today here. Thank you for weighing2822in on this.2823    I want to go with Mr. Wilbur. Under the CERCLA policy, the2824issue of strict liability, how much of a chilling effect does2825that have on future owners, people that might want to come in2826and make something out of one of these problem areas, one of2827these brownfields, for something that they didn't do in the2828past or heaven forbid that they bought something without2829knowledge of it and then all of a sudden are left holding the2830bag? Talk a little bit about what kind of chilling effect2831that--to the extent that the liability goes these days for the2832effort to develop and up the pace on cleanup of an area.2833    Mr. Wilbur. Well, to the extent of my experience with this2834program, I haven't really been into the liability end of this.2835I know Mr. Goldstein had a lot to say on that in the beginning.2836    When we administer these grant programs that have been2837given to our county from the Federal Government, we go out and2838we identify and assess the properties. We acknowledge that2839those are the brownfield sites. And then at that point in time,2840if we are successful in getting a phase 2 grant and we are able2841to remediate, then it is basically, they go through the2842assessment again and make sure that it is clear to be put back2843on the market or be developed.2844    Mr. LaMalfa. What I am getting at, though, is overall the2845way the strict liability is interpreted, is it too much of a2846chilling effect on people wanting to do work other than just2847leave it static? Or is there something--I guess let me ask,2848should something be done legislatively to make a stronger2849incentive and less of a negative on taking on one of these2850projects, one of these areas?2851    Mr. Wilbur. Well, it is definitely----2852    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. For development.2853    Mr. Wilbur. Yes. It is definitely a deterrent, I would say,2854for developers in our area. And I honestly, I don't know too2855much more, other than as a person that would be looking to2856develop myself, I wouldn't want to be taking on some of the----2857    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Can you think of any steps2858Congress could do to make it better?2859    Mr. Wilbur. I couldn't hear that question, sir.2860    Mr. LaMalfa. Can you think of any steps Congress could do2861to make it better?2862    Mr. Wilbur. Off the top of my head, I cannot, but I can2863talk to some of my people and submit after.2864    Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Thank you. All right.2865    Mr. Larson, how much success have we had on--if you have2866these stats or an idea of--recovering brownfields and other2867problem areas like that? We have got them in northern2868California where certain activities went on in the sixties and2869seventies and such, and there is a groundwater problem. But it2870is an idle field right now and you hope the remediation is2871making it work out as far as cleaning the water, cleaning the2872land.2873    How much success have we had with the various Federal2874programs since this has really become conscious in recovering2875many across the country?2876    Mr. Larson. Yes. So, regarding kind of the success or2877success metrics, as you have probably heard from a variety of2878different points today, there are a variety of different2879metrics that are commonly cited regarding both acreage under2880the Brownfields Program that have been recovered or jobs2881created. So, certainly in the Brownfields Program, when they2882are talking about a success metric, it is something where it2883has to do with recovered acres or completed sites.2884    Mr. LaMalfa. Can you cite--I don't expect you to have an2885exact statistic, but have there been many successful recoveries2886that these lands are now going from useless to something----2887    Mr. Larson [interrupting]. Regarding the Federal2888brownfields grants, so the 104(k) competitive grants, to my2889understanding, the most recent data that I was able to find for2890fiscal year 2024, I believe it was somewhere around 12,0002891properties that have been--or sites under that program2892specifically that were recovered for reuse, and some are in the2893ballpark of 40,000 site assessments performed with those2894specific grant programs.2895    Certainly, the State programs may have different numbers or2896different numbers for some of the sites that they have2897assessed, but that is just talking about the Brownfields2898Program and not other authorities like Superfund or other types2899of cleanups.2900    Mr. LaMalfa. Is primarily the conversion from a useless2901brownfield site, are they mostly going for industrial uses? Are2902we finding that it is successful to not necessarily put housing2903on that or obviously schools or hospitals or things, but are2904they primarily going into industrial use that has a low2905interaction with these possible problems with, like residents,2906let's say?2907    Mr. Larson. Probably the most broadest way to answer the2908question is to say that typically reuse decisions and land-use2909decisions are largely up to local communities and local2910governments responsible for zoning or if you have private2911partnerships or private interests in those types of2912redevelopment or certain types of industry. So, it could depend2913upon the site, and it can depend on the condition of the site2914and what those goals are for it.2915    Mr. LaMalfa. I need to yield. Thank you. I yield back, Mr.2916Chairman.2917    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Pou for 52918minutes.2919    Ms. Pou. Thank you.2920    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Collins, and Ranking2921Member Wilson, for holding this hearing today.2922    My home State of New Jersey shoulders a heavy burden of2923industrial and hazardous waste. As a Member from the State with2924the highest number of Superfund sites and a significant number2925of brownfields, I know well the importance of environmental2926remediation.2927    The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has2928identified at least 45 brownfield sites in my district alone.2929We must continue to support communities that transform2930contaminated properties into usable spaces.2931    For example, the Paterson Great Falls National Historic2932Park was tainted by centuries of industrial waste. The2933Brownfields Program offered a lifeline to address the former2934Allied Textile plant within that park and to promote public2935health and a cleaner environment.2936    The EPA's environmental funding is essential, truly2937essential for communities struggling with generating the tax2938revenue needed to redevelop abandoned or blighted properties.2939The program showcases the strength in a public-private2940partnership that benefits everyone. Federal and State partners,2941businesses, environmental communities, we really need to do2942something, and we need to make sure to preserve these very,2943very important communities.2944    New Jersey is experiencing a significant affordable housing2945shortage. Mr. Goldstein, in your testimony, you cite Low-Income2946Housing Tax Credit as one of the tools to facilitate affordable2947housing construction on former brownfield sites. Can you please2948elaborate on how smaller brownfield sites like those in densely2949populated States like New Jersey can be redeveloped with these2950particular tax credits, and if you would also share with us2951what are some of the challenges that are associated with2952brownfield developments in those particular urban areas?2953    Mr. Goldstein. Absolutely, and I am prepared to speak for2954the next 3 or 4 hours on these questions.2955    Ms. Pou. Unfortunately, we don't have that kind of time,2956but I am very eager to hear your response.2957    Mr. Goldstein. Yes, ma'am. I will be as brief as I can.2958    The first challenge is really making sure that the cleanups2959are sufficient, that there is the proper amount of regulatory2960oversight and transparency, because there historically has been2961a lot of questions about the sufficiency of cleanups on2962Superfund sites and brownfield sites that have been used for2963housing, but many States do that well. Many local regulatory2964agencies do that well, and certainly EPA can and has done that2965well. That is number one. We want these sites to be cleaned up2966to the standard that they need to be cleaned up to make them2967safe for residential use. That is number one.2968    Number two, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program is2969one of the most successful financing programs that underlie and2970support affordable housing all across the country, but there is2971not enough money in LIHTC to cover the incremental cost and2972risk associated with environmental cleanup.2973    In order to perform sufficient cleanups, we need more money2974to affordable housing developers. One way to do that outside of2975the grant program is through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit2976program. In my written materials, I have some very specific2977suggestions, but then within the context of the Brownfields2978Program, make these grants available to private developers who2979are engaged in the development of affordable and workforce2980housing. Currently, grants are not available to that sector.2981    And then finally, referencing the question from one of your2982colleagues, let's amend CERCLA to mitigate the harsh impact of2983strict liability and joint several liability so that parties2984who acquire contaminated sites for affordable housing2985development and clean those sites up under a State Brownfields2986Program have a complete defense against liability under CERCLA.2987That is what we have in Florida, that type of liability bar.2988But you have to do the cleanup. It is a quid pro quo. It is not2989a get out of jail free card.2990    Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you so very much.2991    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.2992    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Onder for 52993minutes.2994    Dr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all2995the witnesses being here today.2996    Mr. Goldstein, you have described Florida's Brownfields2997Program as a national model, citing its use of State-level2998incentives and liability protections, efficient permitting.2999From your experience, do you believe the Federal Government3000should play a role mostly by supporting and empowering States3001to tailor solutions rather than expanding Washington's control3002over brownfield projects?3003    Mr. Goldstein. Well, I think there remains a very vital3004role for EPA to play. Number one, their mere presence in3005connection with complicated cleanups engender a lot of public3006confidence, so that is number one.3007    Number two, they bring a lot of expertise to the table and3008they have a lot of experience, and all of that is valuable.3009They also are very efficient, in my experience both in the3010brownfields context and in the Superfund redevelopment context,3011as acting as almost concierge consultants to help local3012governments and neighborhood stakeholders and developers and3013their lenders and capital providers understand how to navigate3014all of the regulatory issues and where the bumps in the road3015are from an environmental perspective and a public health3016perspective.3017    And then in terms of actually bringing dollars to bear,3018well, that is an important role as well. But they should be in3019equal partnership with State regulators and local regulators.3020    Dr. Onder. You brought something up that I was wondering3021about when it comes to lenders. Are lenders often hesitant to3022loan money where there is a brownfield redevelopment?3023    Mr. Goldstein. That's correct. Even the slightest whisper3024of a hint of a shadow, an environmental risk tends to send3025conventional lenders fleeing, because they don't understand3026these issues. They hear a lot about CERCLA and other Federal3027programs and State liability programs. They hear the horror3028stories, and it is much easier to lend on a clean site, and it3029is much better for job security.3030    So, it is an existential issue, and it is a bit of a catch-303122 or catch-21, whatever the catch is, because projects need3032financing in order to get over the environmental hurdle, but3033they can't get the financing until they get over the3034environmental hurdle.3035    Dr. Onder. Over the hurdle.3036    Mr. Goldstein. Which is why I have suggested a brownfields3037loan guarantee fund as an opportunity.3038    Dr. Onder. Yes. Okay. Good. So, your support for3039reauthorization of the brownfields tax incentive and new loan3040guarantee program sounds very reasonable. But at this time of3041$36 trillion debt, we want to ensure that we are not just3042subsidizing risk or inflating costs. What accountability3043measures do you support to ensure these incentives go to high-3044performing, results-oriented sites and not less productive3045projects?3046    Mr. Goldstein. Well, I'm a data hound, so I like data. I3047like reporting and oversight and auditing. Those generate3048important metrics, and they hold grantees' feet to the fire and3049make sure that cleanups are efficient and cost effective. There3050are other belt-and-suspenders we can add to that process,3051including requiring multiple bids for any particular project.3052    Dr. Onder. Sure. And you advocate for increasing Low-Income3053Housing Tax Credits for projects built on brownfield sites.3054That may help with cleanup, but how do we ensure that we don't3055end up seeing mission creep where the Brownfields Program has3056just become another affordable housing vehicle as opposed to3057sticking to the primary mission of cleaning up brownfield3058sites?3059    Mr. Goldstein. Well, we have got a perfect storm of need in3060this particular public policy arena. We have a lot of sites3061that need to be cleaned up because they are engines of3062disinvestment, and they are orphan in terms of responsible3063parties who have money and the willingness to conduct cleanup,3064and they provide a significant public health risk. So, that is3065on the one hand. On the other hand, we have a tremendous3066affordable housing crisis.3067    Dr. Onder. Right.3068    Mr. Goldstein. And so, from my perspective and my3069experience, what I am seeing on the ground in Florida and in3070Ranking Member Wilson's district is that there is almost an3071endless ocean of need that you could pour dollars into and not3072have mission creep.3073    Dr. Onder. Got it. Yes. I know back home in the St. Louis3074metro area, I am aware of a number of brownfield sites that are3075just prime, prime real estate for commercial development or for3076housing, and they are just sitting vacant and at very low3077prices because of these issues. So, thank you. Thank you for3078your testimony.3079    I yield back.3080    Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms.3081Friedman for 5 minutes.3082    Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Really appreciate all3083of the witnesses being here today.3084    Listening to the conversation with the committee, it is3085very heartening to hear a conversation where you can't really3086tell what side of the aisle the committee members are. There3087seems to be a lot of, certainly, support for this program and3088an understanding of, I think, of the imperative to expand the3089program to really help these communities that have been3090suffering under the burden of polluted sites and to create the3091housing that we need, and I hope that there is an openness to3092expanding this program and putting the funding into it that we3093need.3094    So, the IIJA provides a total of $1.5 billion for the3095program, money that has directly benefited communities in the3096L.A. region. In my area in Los Angeles in 2023, the city of3097L.A. was selected for a brownfields cleanup grant provided by3098the IIJA. The grant funds are going to be used to clean up a3099site called Taylor Yard, which is an old railway line that sits3100in the middle of Los Angeles that would provide wonderful3101parkland for a very park-poor community.3102    Also in 2023, the L.A. County Sanitation District was3103selected for a brownfield cleanup grant, also funded through3104the IIJA, and these cleanups are vital to our communities. A3105redevelopment of previously contaminated properties not only3106protects the health of our communities, but stimulates our3107local economies and creates jobs.3108    I want to talk more about the housing impact, because that3109is the number one crisis in Los Angeles, particularly now after3110the devastating fires where probably about 20,000 people at3111least lost their homes, and that was on top of an existing3112housing crisis. And I was really interested in your suggestions3113about how to make this program stronger.3114    So, I am going to ask a couple of questions--because I am3115already running out of time--whether there is anything that you3116can anticipate that helps cities pay for the infrastructure3117that they need, maybe water, sewer, that sort of thing, on top3118of what the developers are putting in of their own money for3119these sites if we want to create the housing that we need.3120Sometimes we are going to have to upgrade the infrastructure3121going into the sites.3122    Also, whether you support increasing the Low-Income Housing3123Tax Credit under section 42 of the IRS Code to 6 percent and 123124percent for affordable housing on brownfield sites and whether3125you think that would have an impact. And whether a new and one-3126time Low-Income Housing Tax Credit of 80 percent of the cost of3127land acquisition and demolition to develop affordable housing3128would be beneficial, and just anything else that we can take3129home with us to look at, because we do have this huge need to3130create affordable housing, and we have this program, so, how do3131we make it work better.3132    Mr. Goldstein, I think I will ask you.3133    Mr. Goldstein. Thank you. I don't want to take all of your3134time, so I will try and be brief.3135    Yes to every recommendation you made with respect to the3136Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. At those levels, at those3137percentages, that would be a tremendous incentive to the3138private affordable housing development sector to invest in your3139area and in other similar areas across the country.3140    Increasing Federal funding for infrastructure, water,3141sewer, especially, and roads where brownfield sites and3142Superfund sites will be reused safely for affordable housing,3143that is number two with a bullet.3144    And number three with a bullet--and I am repeating myself--3145is let's drain some of the risk and anxiety out of CERCLA3146generally and the application of CERCLA to PFAS specifically3147because that is a coming storm. By creating an exemption, a3148blanket exemption under Federal law for developers and lenders,3149provided that the developer and the local government are3150cleaning up under a State Brownfields Program. That keeps all3151of these sites out of the National Priorities List and the3152National Contingency Plan and allows redevelopment to be more3153certain.3154    Ms. Friedman. So, I don't know if you are familiar with3155California's old redevelopment tax increment program that the3156State clawed back in about 2010. I, when I was in the3157California Legislature, reintroduced some tax increment3158programs focusing on specific sites, particularly brownfields3159and blight.3160    Is there anything that would be a similar scheme at the3161Federal level? And I am asking this not knowing the answer,3162because I have been looking for some way to help encourage more3163of this redevelopment. Is there anything you can think of that3164would work in a similar way?3165    Mr. Goldstein. Two things come to mind immediately. Number3166one, Congress could expand the New Markets Tax Credit Program3167to create carve-outs and expanded funded opportunities for3168brownfields generally and affordable and workforce housing on3169brownfields specifically. So that is number one, the New3170Markets Tax Credit Program.3171    And number two, expand the Opportunity Zone program3172specifically for brownfields and, as a subspecifically, for3173housing on brownfields. But I will say this, not just housing3174alone, because there is a mixed-use component that historically3175has traveled with brownfields that gives you two bites at the3176apple. One is housing for people who need it, and number two is3177job creation opportunities. That is the mixed-use component3178where you have commercial, retail, or industrial.3179    Ms. Friedman. Thank you. I yield back.3180    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hurd for 53181minutes.3182    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Thank you very much, Chairman Collins3183and Ranking Member Wilson, for holding this hearing on the3184Brownfields Program.3185    I have the pleasure of serving as the chairman of the House3186Natural Resources Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee, and3187in that capacity as that subcommittee chair, I am interested in3188learning how this program benefits our Tribal communities in3189Indian Country. And the EPA's Brownfields Program has provided3190important funding in Indian Country in remediating and revising3191these environmental sites.3192    The Southern Ute Tribe in my district has used money to3193redevelop a brownfield site, for example, for now office space.3194That is one successful example of use of that program. But I3195have also heard that Tribes can at times struggle to attract3196non-Federal funding, particularly compared to counties or local3197governments.3198    And so, Mr. Wilbur, I wanted to ask you, can you talk about3199specific challenges that you can think of that Tribal3200governments face when accessing brownfields funds, and how3201might Congress better empower Tribal communities' efforts to3202redevelop their sites?3203    Mr. Wilbur. Well, I will take a stab at it here.3204Definitely, in county government, we have a lot more research3205than some of our Tribal partners do. And I will first preface3206by saying we can go back at NACo and we can reach out to some3207of our Tribal communities and get you that information so you3208will have accurate data on that as well.3209    But let's just go back to where I was starting that, yes,3210there are significant challenges, whether it be staffing to3211apply for these grants, and oftentimes, the reporting on those,3212and then it is also trying to get developers to develop in3213those areas, too. Some are very, very rural, more rural than my3214area or other parts of the Midwest even.3215    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Do you have any ideas how Tribal3216communities might attract more non-Federal funding for these3217projects as a way that we could facilitate that while maybe3218respecting Tribal sovereignty? Any ideas there?3219    Mr. Wilbur. Off the top of my head, I would say no, but we3220can definitely get you some answers back on that, sir.3221    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Okay. Very good.3222    Mr. Goldstein, question for you. The inspector general3223found that millions of dollars in brownfields revolving loan3224fund dollars have sat idle across EPA regions. From the3225private-sector perspective, what are the key barriers to3226deploying that capital?3227    Mr. Goldstein. That is a great question. I have had3228experience with this specifically in south Florida. What we3229have seen is that, frankly, the RLF grantees, the revolving3230loan fund grantees, tend to want to put that money out at too3231high an interest rate. They are looking for too high of a3232return, which to me goes against the public policy associated3233with those grant funds. Purpose as I understand it, or as I3234would like it to be, is to get those funds into the hands of3235communities and developers as quickly as possible so those3236funds can be put to work and those sites can be cleaned up and3237repurposed.3238    Interestingly, the RLF, the revolving loan fund, grant that3239goes to eligible entities not inclusive of private developers,3240once those funds are received by the RLF grantees, they can be3241loaned out to private developers. And we have used those, our3242clients and my development company has used that funding, but3243it has been slow going for most RLF grantees, typically because3244they are asking for too much in terms of an interest rate.3245    So, what I would like to see, if I may, is a requirement3246from Congress imposing a cap on the amount of interest that can3247be charged. It is important that the money be paid back so that3248the money can be put back out on the street. That is the whole3249concept of revolving loan, but not at an interest factor that3250makes it uncompetitive or punitive. We want to lower barriers3251to redevelopment for private developers.3252    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. What would you suggest how that cap3253would be formulated, just out of curiosity?3254    Mr. Goldstein. I am sorry?3255    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. How would that cap be formulated? Any3256ideas what that might look like?3257    Mr. Goldstein. I would like--best case scenario would be a3258zero-percent interest loan. That money would fly out the door3259and would be put immediately to use.3260    Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Okay. Very good. Thank you very much,3261Mr. Goldstein.3262    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.3263    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Scholten for 53264minutes.3265    Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Chair Collins and Ranking Member3266Wilson, and to our esteemed witnesses for joining us here today3267and for your incredible work on this issue.3268    Michigan is the beating heart of this country's3269manufacturing operations. And while that is an immense source3270of pride for our State, unfortunately, careless disposal of3271hazardous materials associated with that heavy manufacturing3272has left my home State with nearly 24,000 contaminated sites,3273all while being nestled right next to the largest freshwater3274resource in the entire world.3275    The first source of attack, of course, should always be3276holding bad actors accountable who have polluted and need to3277clean up their messes. But when they are not, these properties3278are thrust on the shoulders of taxpayers and local governments3279to clean up and repurpose. Fortunately, the EPA's Brownfields3280Program has provided communities with the resources necessary3281to catalyze the redevelopment and safely address these3282pollutants.3283    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law built on this progress3284directing $9 million in Federal grants funding to Michigan3285alone has shown just how effective these programs can be. These3286investments have remedied the wrongdoings of the past while3287preparing the State to innovate and preserve its manufacturing3288legacy.3289    My first question. In addition to encouraging environmental3290stewardship, the Brownfields Program is also a key tool, as I3291mentioned, to revitalize these communities. I share the3292chairman's concerns about fiscal responsibility. In fact, I3293stand on fiscal responsibility. It is essential that we spend3294our taxpayer dollars in an effective manner.3295    Throughout Michigan, we have seen how fiscally responsible3296investment in this program can be. Redeveloped properties have3297ushered in new jobs, increased local tax bases, and stimulated3298neighborhoods. These investments are an incredible use of3299taxpayer dollars, reinvesting money right back into these3300communities.3301    Ms. Shook, can you speak to how redevelopment of blighted3302properties is an effective use of taxpayer dollars and how it3303benefits local economies across the country?3304    Ms. Shook. Thank you. Investment in our communities really3305can allow the locals to reinvent how their communities have3306developed, whether it be built around a former auto3307manufacturing site--which we also have many of in Ohio--to see3308them think differently about how they want it to look in the3309future, whether it be mixed-use and housing or a new commercial3310development completely. They can change the health effects in3311the community from having dangerous contaminants available for3312exposure to their communities to a new productive use.3313    So, we have seen a variety of projects come through,3314especially through our voluntary cleanup program, that have3315created brandnew metro parks in areas that were otherwise3316industrial histories. You will see that on the Lake Erie3317waterfront and a few of our different communities.3318    To moving back the commercial developments a block away so3319that you can keep your park space available and have all those3320recreational and tourism aspects, and then you have new3321commercial, vibrant businesses opening, new office spaces, new3322restaurants that drive visitors to your communities. It can be3323a true catalyst to getting people back into your neighborhoods.3324    Ms. Scholten. I think your testimony speaks for itself, and3325it is essential to be asking as we look to these cuts, why? Why3326are we saying we can't afford this right now, right. We have3327choices to be made in this country, and while on the one hand3328we are allowing massive tax breaks to major corporations, we3329are saying we can't afford this incredibly fiscally responsible3330investment back into our communities. To me it seems like we3331can't afford not to.3332    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.3333    Mr. Collins. Thank you.3334    The Chair now recognizes Mr. DeSaulnier. I'm sorry, I3335butchered that.3336    Mr. DeSaulnier. Obviously, you took French in high school3337because that was great.3338    Mr. Collins. There was a McDonald's; it was called french3339fries.3340    Mr. DeSaulnier. I respond to anything close to it.3341    Well, thank you to all the witnesses.3342    Mr. Goldstein, I wanted to ask you a question. I represent3343an area in the San Francisco Bay area, the county I have3344represented for a long time at the local, State, and Federal3345level. I was an air regulator, but worked closely with the3346Regional Water Quality Board. We have the highest industrial3347and hazardous material sites on the west coast by concentration3348geographically in population because the bay area is very3349populated. But because of the access to deepwater ports, it is3350really crucial, particularly to the petroleum industry. There3351are five refineries. They are mostly in Mr. Garamendi's3352district, but have been in mine in my various service.3353    So, what's happening is--and also northern California is3354transitioning very rapidly, mostly from market rate in terms of3355renewable fuels and alternative energy cars.3356    So, we have got one refinery that just announced last week3357or 2 weeks ago, the Valero Refinery in Benicia, California.3358Now, these five refineries produce 25 percent of the CARB-3359certified fuel in California and 50 percent of the diesel fuel,3360so, the ripple effect. So there are Superfund sites, brownfield3361sites.3362    Most of the property in the bay area doesn't get deserted.3363We have had brownfield sites. But it is the interaction between3364these that I am interested in, where the liability is when3365venture capital companies decide to come in and buy a big3366hazardous material site because it's not worth what it was 103367years ago. And as they see the transition happening, largely3368because of the private sector, in spite of some of my3369colleagues saying it's regulatory; there is regulatory3370enforcement that I support as appropriate.3371    So, that's sort of my broad question is, in this case with3372Valero, I think they are leveraging. The local city council has3373been very demanding on them, but there is a lot of demand to3374come in and buy the property. But in that transition, whether3375it is brownfield, Superfund, public oversight at the State or3376the local level, we have had a lot of problem with the Regional3377Water Quality Board where the business model seems, to me, in3378some of these places that have been bought now and are just3379going--one plant that was bought, they said we bought it for3380spare parts because we know there is a limited timeframe of3381this refinery.3382    So, discharge petitions and what is going into the bay3383delta, all of that sort of intersects with brownfields. Are3384they going to leave the site? Prospectively they could.3385    So, I am just curious if you had any view--and I realize3386this is a specific hearing, but it intersects with the larger3387economic pressure where we are changing a lot of our use to3388hazardous material sites in areas that have concentrations of3389them. And it has a lot of impact on environmental justice as we3390have switched in California to talk about the cumulative3391effects.3392    So, back to this hearing, it is a small potential portion3393of the overall conversation I am trying to have with you. But3394if you have any thoughts in particular about this and where it3395might be something that we have to think about of supporting3396it.3397    And then lastly, region 9 where EPA is headquartered in the3398west coast has been a target in the first administration where3399it actually moves the Administrator out of the offices and has3400pushed for early buyout. So we don't have the resources we used3401to have in northern California and in the west coast because3402region 9 is being abandoned, particularly the EPA.3403    Mr. Goldstein. So, for these types of sites where you have3404a very significant history of use of acutely hazardous3405materials that are likely widespread creating significant3406public health risk and questions regarding the confidence that3407the public will have in the completeness and thoroughness of3408the cleanup, that illustrates the need for a very vital and3409vibrant regulatory dimension to go hand in glove with all of3410the economic incentives that will be necessary to encourage the3411private sector to do most of the heavy lifting associated with3412that magnitude of cleanup.3413    And so, if you are asking me what my view is of that type3414of scenario, which has played out all over the country, it is3415that the Brownfields Program is multidimensional. It is not3416just about grants. It is not just about liability protection.3417It is not just about private capital coming in or regulatory3418oversight to protect public health. It is all of that. And so3419there is not one particular box that this committee can or3420should check and expect that the momentum that has been3421achieved since the mid-1990s will be maintained.3422    Put another way to bring this answer in for a landing, we3423need to continue to have strong regulatory oversight at the3424Federal level when the issues are exceedingly complex and may3425have a Federal component, a multistate component. Also, the3426State and local regulatory oversight on the one hand, and then3427all of the financial tools and the liability tools on the3428other.3429    Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Chairman, it is really interesting to3430see as these big, billion-dollar assets from private sector3431become less of an asset and more of a liability from a3432financial model and where it's appropriate for us in Congress3433to be--and all of these refineries heretofore were very high3434performing in their total portfolio partially because the3435public demanded it.3436    Mr. Goldstein. One last point on your question, which is a3437great question, and I think this may be what you are getting3438at. As these billion-dollar assets transition to billion-dollar3439liabilities, there are funds out there, very significantly3440resourced funds, that will rush to fill that gap and make the3441safe transition, but they need the right regulatory environment3442in which to do that. And in that sense, while regulatory3443oversight to protect public health is critical, we also need3444the appropriate opportunities from a CERCLA perspective to, as3445I mentioned earlier, drain the anxiety out of potential3446enforcement.3447    Mr. DeSaulnier. I want to thank the chairman for indulging3448this. But I will just close with this. The property itself is3449worth a lot of money. There are developers who are interested3450with all liabilities, so the existing value of that liability3451still continues, and the local government has a lot of say3452because they have the land-use jurisdiction. So, it's a3453fascinating subject.3454    Thank you.3455    Mr. Collins. The gentleman yields back. You're fine. We are3456actually--we are going to--I was going to open it up for a3457second round of questioning right quick because, personally, I3458had a few questions of my own that I wanted to ask. So, I am3459going to yield myself 5 minutes for questioning.3460    I want to open up, Mr. Larson, can you give us the3461difference in a Superfund and a brownfield, and can a3462brownfield be a Superfund?3463    Mr. Larson. Sure. I am happy to address the question and3464provide some points on that.3465    Like I mentioned in my opening statement, the Superfund3466Program was established in 1980, largely in response to very3467high-profile cases where you had a variety of hazardous waste3468sites and communities that were acutely exposed to various3469contamination along with other factors that led to that3470enactment.3471    And so, as part of that, Congress under CERCLA established3472a liability framework for potentially responsible parties who3473were responsible for leasing those hazardous substances into3474the environment. And so, when you are looking at the CERCLA3475framework under Superfund Program, it is a cleanup program that3476is responding to releases of hazardous substances and other3477pollutants and contaminants into the environment.3478    So, you can think of it as, it's an enforcement-first3479framework where EPA is looking to, under the Superfund Program,3480they are looking to enforce liability first against potentially3481responsible parties to make them pay for the cleanup of the3482site, whereas there are--not that we have time to get into it--3483but there are certain other mechanisms for sites that are3484elevated at the National Priorities List. You have additional3485Federal funding mechanisms through the Hazardous Substance3486Superfund Trust Fund for those types of sites.3487    For the Brownfields Program, it was set up and it is3488authorized within CERCLA, but it provides--it is primarily a3489grant-based program for these eligible entities and these3490eligible sites that is intended to both, as we have been3491speaking about, provide some economic assistance or financial3492assistance for these specific projects, but in addition to3493that, to provide liability exemptions so that you have--we3494talked about there are the current and former owners and3495operators of the site. You also have strict liability and joint3496and several retroactive to the time of release.3497    Mr. Collins. And I think that's where I want to pick up3498from there, and it is a good segue into my next question with3499Mr. Goldstein.3500    Can you quantify the loss of investment from private sector3501just because of that liability problem that they perceive or3502they may have?3503    Mr. Goldstein. I can't do it scientifically, Chairman, but3504I can speak from experience. I can tell you what my--I have a3505gut-based answer. And in Florida alone, we have probably seen3506close to $1 billion in avoided transactions as a result of3507potential exposure to CERCLA liability. That's just one3508person's environmental practice over a 33-year timeframe. You3509could probably multiply that by several orders of magnitude.3510    Mr. Collins. Thank you.3511    Ms. Shook, I was listening to someone else's testimony. Are3512all sites to be cleaned to a residential use--or is there like3513a commercial, and residential----3514    Ms. Shook [interrupting]. So most--we do not clean all3515sites to a residential use. In our voluntary cleanup program,3516we have standards for both commercial sites and for residential3517sites.3518    Mr. Collins. Okay.3519    Ms. Shook. We allow the end user to determine which land3520use they are interested in. Any site could be residential with3521the right amount of funding.3522    Mr. Collins. Thank you. Thank you.3523    And one last question--I will open this up to everybody--3524are we adding sites continually or has it stopped? I mean, at3525some point, we should be able to hold people liable for messing3526up the land like that. I mean, I can understand things years3527and years ago, but are we still adding, or have we plateaued?3528    Ms. Shook. I can--I will take that. Yes, we are still3529adding. As businesses go under, as they file for bankruptcy,3530while we can try to hold them accountable, they are often3531overwhelmed with their liabilities and can't complete a3532cleanup. That is where the Brownfields Program is.3533    Many of our brownfields aren't massive sites. A lot of them3534still are mom-and-pop gas stations, a dry cleaner, a former3535mechanic shop. And in many of those cases, you are never going3536to have an entity that can fund the cleanup that they were3537responsible for.3538    Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you. I yield back.3539    Mr. DeSaulnier, did you have additional questions?3540    Mr. DeSaulnier. Just wanted to follow up sort of, again, on3541the same line. In looking at going forward, where we have such3542a large part of potential brownfield sites in the country,3543around energy transition, what could we do better so that we3544could avoid these liability issues, to make sure that we3545anticipate this huge transition--one-fifth of the economy, in3546my view, is happening, and I just happened to be in a region3547that needs it in many ways--what do you think, from your3548experience, Mr. Goldstein, where we could sort of go upstream3549and protect revenue for brownfield, but anticipate these huge3550transitions we are going through on hazardous material sites3551related to energy?3552    Mr. Goldstein. Thank you for the question. A few thoughts.3553Number one, enforcement at the Federal level and at the State3554level remains a critical public policy need, because without a3555cop on the beat, people are going to do what people tend to do,3556which is take shortcuts. Now, not everyone will do that, but3557enough people will do that that we will continue to see the3558volume of impacted sites increase. And sometimes things happen3559not because people intend them to, but that is just the way it3560goes in industry and business.3561    But to get ahead of the game, which is I think what you are3562getting at, what Congress can do is a lot of what we talked3563about today: improve the process, shorten the timeframe from3564which a party applies for a grant and that money gets to where3565it needs to go. That's number one.3566    And number two, put in place more statutory tools to create3567broader exemptions from liability so that private capital will3568feel more comfortable investing in these risky sites.3569    The best way to get ahead of the game is to incentivize3570private parties to tackle these problems sooner than later, so3571that we don't discover 10 years down the road that we could3572have done something 10 years earlier.3573    Mr. DeSaulnier. And just a followup question. Having served3574at every level of Government and having started as a3575Republican--some of my colleagues are always shocked to hear3576that, but parties change--is the inefficiency of sometimes--3577speaking in California, although I love it, is the Federal3578regulators, particularly vis-a-vis region 9 that used to work3579closely with California and local government, what could we do3580to coordinate that, knowing that the modeling shows that these3581facilities, in places like I represent, are changing because of3582the private sector?3583    So, the coordination of the regulatory agencies is a3584frustration for me. They all do a good job, but their3585coordination is not very effective.3586    Mr. Goldstein. Well, in terms of environmental3587redevelopment, there is a model at the Federal level that is3588somewhat dormant. The Federal Brownfields Partnership, in3589theory, a number of the Federal agencies are supposed to be3590coordinating all of their brownfield resources--the Army Corps3591of Engineers, Housing and Urban Development, Department of3592Energy, Department of Commerce, and so on. That rarely happens,3593unfortunately.3594    Going forward, it would be wonderful to have that type of3595coordination, not just among the Federal partners, but among3596State partners as well to identify some of these larger3597transitional projects so that all of the agency stakeholders3598can collaborate with local government officials and the3599developers who are bringing the capital to the table.3600    Mr. DeSaulnier. And as far as the modeling goes, just3601getting DOE and Department of Transportation, EPA, resources3602all to have communication, at least in region 9 they were3603pretty good, but they still--just working across sister3604agencies at the Federal level, and then working with the State3605and the regional agencies and the local agencies, was always3606pretty inefficient and largely stovepiped. So, for the private3607sector, it was not very efficient.3608    So, to the degree, if there is anyone on the other side of3609the aisle who would like to work with someone like myself on3610this, I think it could be very helpful. And then we wouldn't3611have to use brownfield moneys because we would get far enough3612ahead of it that we could stop people from having a liability3613and walking away.3614    Thank you----3615    Mr. Goldstein [interrupting]. I think brownfields money--3616brownfields grants will always have an important role to play,3617at least at the very inception of a project.3618    Mr. DeSaulnier. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,3619witnesses.3620    Mr. Collins. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.3621    Are there any further questions from any other Members?3622    Not seeing anyone in here, that's going to conclude our3623hearing for today. I would like to thank each of the witnesses3624for your testimony.3625    The subcommittee stands adjourned.3626    [Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]36273628                       Submissions for the Record36293630                              ----------36313632 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress3633    from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on3634                   Transportation and Infrastructure3635    Thank you, Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson, for holding3636this hearing on the Brownfields Program.3637    The EPA's Brownfields Program is one of the most effective tools we3638have for turning the legacy of pollution into opportunities for3639progress.3640    Since its inception, this program has returned over 10,800 sites to3641productive reuse, leveraging more than $40.4 billion in redevelopment3642funding and supporting over 270,000 jobs.3643    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law delivered $1.5 billion over five3644years to support assessment, cleanup, job training and technical3645assistance for communities across the country.3646    These are smart, targeted investments that turn blighted properties3647into engines of economic growth and environmental justice. They help3648build parks, revitalize neighborhoods, expand tax bases and protect3649public health--all while creating jobs.3650    In Washington's Second District, the Brownfields Program has helped3651transform the historic Northern State Hospital in Sedro-Woolley--once a3652contaminated and abandoned facility--into a thriving hub for3653innovation, known today as the SWIFT Center.3654    This 225-acre site is being repurposed into a mixed-use campus3655focused on technology, job creation, historic preservation, and public3656recreation through partnerships with the Port of Skagit and local and3657state agencies.3658    Contaminants like arsenic and chlorinated solvents have been3659identified and addressed through EPA and state-supported grants--nearly3660$600,000 in federal funding alone.3661    Thanks to the Brownfields Program, the SWIFT Center now supports3662local employment and protects sensitive habitat like Hansen Creek while3663still honoring the legacy of Northern State Hospital.3664    However, the continued success of the Brownfields Program is now at3665risk. The Trump Administration's ``skinny budget'' has proposed cutting3666EPA funding by 55 percent--the largest rollback in the agency's3667history.3668    These reckless cuts would devastate the Brownfields Program and3669undermine communities still living with the consequences of past3670industrial pollution.3671    These cuts will also disproportionately impact rural, disadvantaged3672communities and working-class neighborhoods--those who can least afford3673the loss of targeted federal assistance.3674    We must continue to invest in these projects. Every dollar spent3675cleaning up a brownfield site is a dollar spent creating jobs,3676restoring communities, and building a healthier future for all3677Americans.3678    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can3679protect and expand this vital work.36803681                                 [all]