Order Code RS22575
Updated April 24, 2007
Brownfield Issues in the 110th Congress
Mark Reisch
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The Brownfields Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
award grants for the assessment and cleanup of sites that pose a less serious threat to
human health and the environment than sites addressed by the Superfund program. The
authorization expired on September 30, 2006. In the 109th Congress, a reauthorization
bill, H.R. 5810, was reported from the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on July 28, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-608, Part 1), but went no further.
Appropriations in the last four years have been between $165 million and $171 million.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also has a small
Brownfields Program, and approximately 20 other agencies have programs or activities
that foster cleanup and development. In the 110th Congress, the House passed H.R. 644,
a bill making HUD brownfields grants more accessible to smaller communities.
Because reauthorization was not enacted in the 109th Congress, it is likely to be an issue
for the 110th.
For more background information on the origins and development of the
Brownfields Program, see CRS Report RL30972, The Brownfields Program
Authorization: Cleanup of Contaminated Sites, and CRS Report 97-731, Superfund and
the Brownfields Issue, both by Mark Reisch.
The Superfund Program is the federal government’s main effort to clean up
abandoned, accidentally spilled, and illegally dumped hazardous waste that poses current
or future threats to human health or the environment. It focuses on the worst spills and
other releases of hazardous substances, whereas the Brownfields Program is designed to
assist local governments with the cleanup of abandoned, idled, or underutilized
commercial and industrial sites where the contamination, if any, is not as serious.
Amendments to the Superfund Act1 in 2002 (P.L. 107-118, known as the Brownfields
Act) gave statutory authority to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)
1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA,
42 U.S.C. 9601-9675).

---

CRS-2
Brownfields Program, which the EPA initiated administratively in 1993 under
Superfund’s authority.
The Brownfields Act authorizes a $200 million-per-year grant program to assess and
clean up contaminated sites, limits and clarifies the Superfund Act’s stringent liability
scheme to encourage reuse of brownfield sites, and authorizes assistance of $50 million
per year to state and tribal cleanup programs. The law’s authorization expired at the end
of FY2006, on September 30. On July 28, 2006, the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure reported H.R. 5810, which would have extended the funding authority
through FY2012 (H.Rept. 109-608, Part 1). The bill was also referred to the Energy and
Commerce Committee, which did not act on it.
This report provides a description of the brownfield programs of EPA and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), reviews their recent
appropriations, takes note of other federal brownfield programs, and summarizes
congressional activity in the 109th and 110th Congresses.
EPA Program. Entities eligible to receive grants include local, state, and tribal
governments and certain quasi-governmental authorities; private persons and corporations
are not eligible. There are four types of competitive brownfields grants:
! Assessment grants provide funding for a grant recipient to inventory,
assess, and conduct planning and community involvement related to
brownfield sites. The grants are typically for $200,000 over two years,
but may be higher.2
! Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) grants of up to $1 million are made to
capitalize RLFs to provide no-interest or low-interest loans for
brownfield cleanups. An RLF grant recipient may also make cleanup
subgrants that do not have to be repaid of up to $200,000 per site.
! Cleanup grants of up to $200,000 per site provide funding for the
recipient to carry out cleanup activities.
! Job training grants are available to certain educational and other
nonprofit organizations, as well as the eligible entities noted above.
These grants of up to $200,000 are to create local environmental job
training programs in an effort to ensure that the economic benefits
derived from brownfields revitalization efforts remain in local
neighborhoods.3
2 In some circumstances, grants may be made for $350,000 or $400,000. For details, see U.S.
EPA, Proposal Guidelines for Brownfields Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup
Grants, October 2006, at [http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/grants/epa-oswer-obcr-07-01.pdf], pp.
6-11.
3 “Brownfields Job Training Grants,” RFA# EPA-OSWER-OBCR-06-06. Available at
[http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/grants/06-06.pdf].

---

CRS-3
The Brownfields Act authorized $200 million per year through FY2006 to carry out these
grant programs.
According to the EPA, since the beginning of the brownfields program, the agency
has awarded 883 assessment grants totaling $225.4 million, 202 revolving loan fund
grants totaling $186.7 million, and 238 cleanup grants totaling $42.7 million. The EPA
states that this $454.8 million of assistance has leveraged more than $8.2 billion in private
investment, helped create 37,525 jobs, and resulted in the assessment of 8,374 properties
and the cleanup of 93 properties.4 The agency says that it has awarded more than $22
million in brownfields job training grants, approximately 3,000 people have completed
training programs, and more than 1,800 have obtained employment in the environmental
field, earning an average wage of $13.26 per hour.5
CERCLA has stringent liability provisions that impose strict, joint and several, and
retroactive liability on all past and present owners of contaminated or polluting facilities,
as well as on those who transported the hazardous substances to a facility, and on those
who “arranged for disposal or treatment” of hazardous substances at a facility owned or
operated by another.6 Concern over the possible applicability of this strict liability
scheme to owners and developers of brownfield properties was identified as a deterrent
to their cleanup and reuse in many cases, because CERCLA had no provisions for
relaxing the liability, even for the socially desirable goal of upgrading contaminated real
estate. The Brownfields Act helped in this regard by exempting from liability (1) owners
of land contaminated by a source on contiguous property and (2) prospective purchasers
of property known to be contaminated. It also explained in detail what constitutes “all
appropriate inquiry,” a phrase used in the Superfund Act as a prerequisite to a land
buyer’s “innocent landowner” liability defense.7 Also, even before enactment of the
Brownfields Act, the EPA revised its system of tracking sites8 suspected of contamination
with hazardous substances to clarify when no further action by the agency was planned
at the site and to remove the stigma of being associated with the Superfund program.
The Act also included provisions to establish and enhance state and tribal response
programs, particularly for brownfields. These programs include the traditional
enforcement-driven cleanup approaches, as well as newer “voluntary cleanup” programs
that avoid some of the costs and delays of that line of action and offer incentives for
participating. Most states provide some sort of liability release, and other incentives
include a streamlined process, financial or tax incentives, and technical assistance. The
4 “$70 Million in Grants Brings Blighted Property Back to Life,” EPA press release, May 12,
2 0 0 6 . A v a i l a b l e a t [ h t t p : / / y o s e m i t e . e p a . g o v / o p a / a d m p r e s s . n s f /
a8f952395381d3968525701c005e65b5/708921c271c50e7d8525716c004e5530!OpenDocument].
5 “$2.3 Million for Environmental Jobs Training,” EPA press release, Nov. 13, 2006, at
[http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/4a5be1c25fb55afa8525702100566bbb/
3c2c0c364f5ff62f852572250067ce69!OpenDocument].
6 CERCLA § 107(a)(1)-(4).
7 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL31911, “Innocent Landowners” and “Prospective
Purchasers” Under the Superfund Act, by Robert Meltz.
8 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System,
or CERCLIS.

---

CRS-4
Brownfields Act authorizes $50 million per year in grants to states and tribes to support
their programs.
In addition, the 2002 law expanded the definition of what is considered a brownfield
for purposes of grants, so communities may now receive funding for mine-scarred lands,
sites contaminated by petroleum, and buildings or sites that were used for the manufacture
of illegal drugs (CERCLA § 101(39)).
EPA Appropriations. Since passage of the Brownfields Act in 2002,
appropriations have been as follows: FY2003, $167.7 million; FY2004, $171.0 million;
FY2005, $165.0 million; and FY2006, $165.0 million. The 109th Congress adjourned
without finalizing FY2007 appropriations for EPA and many other federal agencies. The
continuing resolution (CR; P.L. 109-383, H.J.Res. 102) that is providing appropriations
through February 15, 2007, provides that the rate of annual funding shall be at the lower
of the House-passed FY2007 amount, the Senate-passed FY2007 amount, or the actual
FY2006 appropriation. The CR does not comment on whether the “FY2006
appropriation” means before or after the rescission that was applied that year. Also, the
CR allows the Office of Management and Budget a certain amount of flexibility to adjust
these amounts. For EPA’s brownfields program, the FY2006 appropriation was $165
million; after the rescission, it was $162.5 million, and the FY2007 House-passed amount
was $163.3 million. (See Table 1 for additional information.)
HUD Program and Appropriations. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) also has a brownfields program, which emphasizes economic
development projects and the increase of business and job opportunities for low- and
moderate-income persons. Beginning with the FY2004 budget request, the
Administration has not asked for any funding for this program. Congress, however,
appropriated $25 million, $24 million, and $10 million in FY2004, 2005, and 2006,
respectively, prior to applicable rescissions. See Table 1 for additional data.
In the 109th Congress, the HUD FY2007 funding bill that was reported from the
House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 5576, H.Rept. 109-495) acceded to the
Administration’s request and zeroed out the HUD program. During consideration of H.R.
5576 on the House floor, however, Members agreed to an amendment offered by
Representative Gary Miller (H.Amdt. 1013) to increase the HUD Community
Development Fund by $15 million, coupled with a $15 million offset to another HUD
account. With regard to the continuing resolution, this House-passed amount compares
with an FY2006 appropriation of $10 million and a post-rescission amount of $9.9
million. (Although the language of H.R. 5576 does not explicitly state the purpose of the
$15 million increase, supporters of the amendment stated that the funds would allow the
HUD brownfields program to continue. See Congressional Record, June 13, 2006, p.
H3845-3847, H3886-3887.) Additional information on the program can be found at
[http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/programs/bedi/].

---

CRS-5
Table 1. Administration Request and Enacted Appropriations
(Before Rescissions) for Brownfield Programs Administered by
EPA and HUD: FY2001-FY2007
(in millions of dollars)
EPA
HUD
Fiscal Year
Requesteda
Enactedb
Requesteda
Enactedb
FY2001
$91.6
$91.6
$50.0
$25.0
FY2002
$97.7
$97.7
$25.0
$25.0
FY2003
$200.0
$167.7
$25.0
$25.0
FY2004
$210.8
$171.0
$0.0
$25.0
FY2005
$208.5
$165.0
$0.0
$24.0
FY2006
$210.1
$165.0
$0.0
$10.0C
FY2007
$163.3
—
$0.0
—
Sources: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with the following information.
a. Requested amounts are from agency annual congressional budget justifications.
b. Enacted amounts are from the conference reports on annual appropriations bills that fund EPA and HUD,
prior to the application of across-the-board rescissions in certain years. Appropriations for the full
year FY2007 have not been enacted.
c. Congress appropriated $10 million for HUD’s brownfields program for FY2006 but rescinded $10
million in unobligated balances from prior years’ appropriations, in effect resulting in no additional
funding available for FY2006 beyond amounts already appropriated through FY2005.
Other Federal Brownfield Programs. As early as 1996, the EPA developed
cooperative relationships with other federal agencies to share knowledge on economic
redevelopment and environmental principles and to find ways of applying federal support
to brownfields redevelopment in many different types of communities. The Brownfields
Federal Program Guide lists 22 agencies that have programs developed specifically for
brownfields and other programs with financing or technical assistance suitable and
applicable to a brownfield situation. The guide is available at [http://www.epa.gov/
brownfields/partners/2005_fpg.pdf].
Congressional Action in the 109th Congress. As noted above, the
authorization of the Brownfields Act expired on September 30, 2006.9 To reauthorize the
provisions, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 5810 on
July 28, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-608, Part 1). The bill would have extended the grant authority
through FY2012 at the current level of $200 million annually. In addition, it would have
required the EPA Inspector General to report to Congress every four years on the
management of the Brownfields Program and the allocation of grants. The bill also would
have eliminated a requirement currently in the law that 25% of available funding be used
9 An authorization is not necessary for appropriations; authorization for a number of
environmental programs has expired, but Congress continues to appropriate funds for them, thus
assuring their continuation.

---

CRS-6
for sites where petroleum is the cause for site contamination. Such sites would still be
eligible for funding but would have to compete with other brownfield sites for priority and
funding. It also added a factor for the EPA to use in ranking brownfield grant applications
— the extent to which the grant would implement green building standards and energy
efficient building standards. This would have codified the agency’s current practice. The
bill also would have renewed through FY2012 assistance to states and tribes at the current
level of $50 million annually.
The committee report also made two non-legislative recommendations. One was
that the EPA award the competitive grants more than once a year, if practicable. The
other urged the agency to award several multiple purpose grants each year, not solely for
assessment or cleanup, but for both. H.R. 5810 was also referred to the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce, which took no action on it.
In addition to brownfields reauthorization and appropriations, the 109th Congress
considered other bills addressing the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. In the
first session, P.L. 109-59 (H.R. 3) reauthorized funding for federal surface transportation
programs, which included a pilot program to support planning activities for highway and
public transportation projects, including brownfields redevelopment planning.
Also enacted was an extension of the brownfields tax incentive, which allows a
taxpayer to deduct cleanup costs at a brownfield site in the same year the costs are
incurred (called “expensing”), rather than deducting the costs over a period of years
(“capitalizing”). This tax break had expired at the end of 2005, but the provision was
made retroactive to then and was extended to December 31, 2007, in the Tax Relief and
Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432, H.R. 6111), signed by the president on December
20, 2006.
A bill that passed the House but went no further would have made HUD brownfields
grants more accessible to smaller communities. At least 20 other brownfield bills were
introduced but did not receive committee action.
Congressional Action in the 110th Congress. As of April 23, 2007, two
brownfields bill have been introduced. The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement
Act, H.R. 644, passed the House under suspension of the rules on February 27, and is now
before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. The bill allows HUD
to make brownfield grants under its existing program without utilizing the Section 108
loan guarantee program, which make the grants more accessible to smaller communities.
It also authorizes appropriations of “such sums as may be necessary” for FY2008-
FY2012. An identical bill, H.R. 280 (H.Rept. 109-138), also passed the House in the
109th Congress.
The other bill in the 110th Congress is Representative Nydia Velazquez’s H.R. 43, the
Brownfields Housing and Community Renewal Development Act. It would establish a
program of grants for up to $1 million within HUD for redevelopment activities at
brownfield sites. Unlike HUD’s current program, grants would not be required to be used
in conjunction with loan guarantees. The bill authorizes appropriations of $25 million for
FY2008, $50 million for FY2009, and $75 million for FY2010.

---