U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–789 PDF 2017

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR 

AMERICA: REVITALIZING AMERICAN COMMUNITIES THROUGH THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM 

(115–7) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 28, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana, Chairman 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Vice Chair 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

CHERI BUSTOS, ILLINOIS 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

BRENDA S. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. J. Christian Bollwage, Mayor, City of Elizabeth, New Jersey, on behalf 

of the U.S. Conference of Mayors ....................................................................... 7 

Hon. Deborah Robertson, Mayor, City of Rialto, California ................................. 7 

Hon. Matt Zone, Councilmember, City of Cleveland, Ohio, on behalf of the 

National League of Cities .................................................................................... 7 

John E. Dailey, Commissioner, Leon County, Florida, on behalf of the National Association of Counties ............................................................................. 7 

Amanda W. LeFevre, Outreach and Educational Coordinator, Kentucky 

Brownfield Redevelopment Program, on behalf of the Association of State 

and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials ........................................... 7 

Jonathan Philips, Managing Director, Anka Funds ............................................. 7 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. J. Christian Bollwage ..................................................................................... 48 

Hon. Deborah Robertson ......................................................................................... 58 

Hon. Matt Zone ........................................................................................................ 63 

John E. Dailey .......................................................................................................... 70 

Amanda W. LeFevre ................................................................................................ 83 

Jonathan Philips ...................................................................................................... 93 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, submission of the following: 

Letter of March 10, 2017, from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Oregon, et al., to Hon. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ............................. 3 

Report, ‘‘CERCLA Lender Liability Exemption: Updated Questions and 

Answers,’’ July 2007, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency ............................................................................................................ 118 

Report, ‘‘CERCLA Liability and Local Government Acquisitions and 

Other Activities,’’ March 2011, published by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency ......................................................................................... 125 

Memorandum on the Revised Enforcement Guidance Regarding the 

Treatment of Tenants Under the CERCLA Bona Fide Prospective Purchase Provision, from Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator, Office 

of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, and Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to Regional Administrators, Regions I–X ........................................................................................................ 137 

‘‘FY17 Guidelines for Brownfields Assessment Grants,’’ RFP No.: EPA– 

OLEM–OBLR–16–08, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 

No.: 66.818, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1

Hon. J. Christian Bollwage, Mayor, City of Elizabeth, New Jersey, on behalf 

of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, submission of letter of March 28, 2017, 

from Tom Cochran, CEO and Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors, et al., to Hon. Greg Walden, Chairman, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, et al. ................................................................................................... 9 

1The 74-page ‘‘FY17 Guidelines for Brownfields Assessment Grants’’ published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency can be found online at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2016-10/documents/epa-olem-oblr-16-08.pdf. 

Page

VI 

Amanda W. LeFevre, Outreach and Educational Coordinator, Kentucky 

Brownfield Redevelopment Program, on behalf of the Association of State 

and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, submission of 

ASTSWMO position paper ‘‘128(a) ‘Brownfields’ Grant Funding’’ ................... 113 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Letter of March 28, 2017, from Kevin McCray, CAE, Chief Executive Officer, 

National Ground Water Association, to Hon. Garret Graves, Chairman, 

and Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water 

Resources and Environment ................................................................................ 142 

Letter of March 28, 2017, from Leslie Wollack, Executive Director, National 

Association of Regional Councils, to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, et al. ......................................... 144 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 24789.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 24789.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 24789.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 24789.004
(1) 

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: REVITALIZING AMERICAN COMMUNITIES THROUGH THE 

BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM 

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Garret Graves (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Good morning, and thank you for being here. I would like to welcome all of you to our hearing today on ‘‘Building a 21st-Century 

Infrastructure for America: Revitalizing American Communities 

through the Brownfields Program.’’ 

Brownfields are properties where contamination was suspected. 

These sites include inactive factories, gas stations, salvage yards, 

and many other previously used properties where environmental liability and cleanup standards prevented their continued use and 

redevelopment. 

Fear of environmental liabilities of these sites caused developers 

to look outside cities to previously undeveloped properties for new 

opportunities. This left many sites untouched, driving down property values, contributing to blight, and reducing tax revenues to 

cities. 

In 2001, Congress created specific authority for dealing with 

brownfields, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 

Restoration Act of 2001. It amended the Superfund law and authorized funding through EPA to provide grants for assessment and 

cleanup; provided targeted relief for property owners; and increased 

Federal support for State and tribal programs that were already 

underway. 

The authorization for brownfields grants, under the Brownfields 

Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act, expired at the 

end of 2006, though Congress has continued to appropriate funds 

for the Brownfields Program. As of February this year, EPA and 

State and tribal programs have assessed over 25,000 properties, 

completed over 100,000 cleanups, and made more than 1 million 

acres of property ready for reuse. 

2 

On average, between $16 and $17 is leveraged for every $1 in 

Federal funds that is appropriated for the Brownfields Program, 

and 120,000 jobs have been created or maintained as a result of the 

program. 

Benefits of having these sites redeveloped have increased property values between 5 and 15 percent, and measurable environmental benefits, such as fewer vehicle miles traveled and improved 

stormwater runoff, have also resulted. 

In our home State of Louisiana, our Department of Environmental Quality has passed through approximately $1.8 million to 

local governments and not-for-profits for cleanup of brownfields 

sites. These investments have preserved and created 1,400 jobs and 

leveraged approximately $120 million in funding, significantly surpassing the average that I cited earlier of $16 to $17-to-$1. In this 

case you are exceeding $65-to-$1. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here this morning 

and taking time out of their schedule. 

And I want to recognize our ranking member, Mrs. Napolitano, 

for an opening statement. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you very much for holding today’s hearing on the status of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Brownfields Program. 

First, I would like to welcome all of our witnesses to the hearing 

and look forward to your testimony, and to our dialogue on this 

highly successful program. 

I would also like to formally welcome Mayor Deborah Robertson 

from the city of Rialto, California, to the subcommittee. Rialto has 

benefitted in the past from the Brownfields Program. Mrs. Norma 

Torres and Congressman Pete Aguilar represent Rialto, and I look 

forward to working with them to further brownfield redevelopment 

in the region. 

This is the second time this committee has turned to this subject 

in as many Congresses. Since we met last on this subject, the program has continued to operate as it has since its creation in 2000, 

efficiently and successfully. 

In fact, the data provided by EPA shows that since its inception 

the Brownfields Program has leveraged more than 122,800 jobs 

and over $23.6 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding. 

Nationwide, communities have assessed more than 26,400 properties, cleaned up more than 1,500 sites, and have made 66,800 

acres ready for reuse, back on the rolls. 

For every $1 of brownfield funding, more than $16 of other public 

and private dollars are leveraged, and more than eight jobs are leveraged for every $100,000 of EPA brownfields funds expended. It 

is undeniable that this program is working as it should, and that 

communities across the Nation are benefitting from the investment 

of the Federal dollars in the program while effectively turning 

brownfields into income producers. 

I am troubled, however, by the recent press reports that the new 

administration plans to eliminate nearly 40 separate programs at 

EPA, including the Brownfields Program. In fact, I, along with 

Ranking Member DeFazio, Ranking Member Esty, as well as Ranking Members Pallone and Tonko from the Energy and Commerce 

3 

Committee, sent a letter to the EPA Administrator on March 10, 

2017, on this very subject requesting answers. 

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter 

this into the record. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Without objection. 

[The letter follows:] 


Insert offset folio 5 here 24789.005
4 


Insert offset folio 6 here 24789.006
5 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. In this letter, we sought the clarification as to 

whether or not the administration will support or eliminate this 

program. I would like to note for the record that as of this date of 

this hearing we have received no response. 

To me the administration’s reluctance to publicly support the 

Brownfields Program is puzzling, especially since by all accounts, 

this program has been extremely, very, very, very successful. Every 

witness that testified at the hearing in the last Congress spoke 

very supportively of the program. In fact, one witness called it 

‘‘right law for the right reason.’’ 

However, this program’s successes have been hindered by the 

lack of funds. By EPA’s own estimates, over the past 5 years, funding deficiencies have cost 1,676 viable proposals to go underfunded. 

These sites are not only sitting idle and unproductive, but we are 

missing out on the return investment of these sites. 

In fact, at these sites proposed to receive funding, it is estimated 

those grants would have leveraged approximately 54,680 jobs and 

over $10.3 billion in public and private financing. It begs the question: why are we not investing more in redevelopment of brownfield 

spaces? 

If this is the success rate of an underfunded program, imagine 

the potential economic impact and potential for job creation that 

would come from fully funding the program. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a program that has received bipartisan 

support in the past, and I hope it will continue to receive bipartisan support in the future, and we support an increase for the 

EPA for this program. The program’s success speaks for itself. 

Again, I welcome our witnesses, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for holding this important meeting. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. 

And I would actually like to associate myself with the end of 

your remarks in regard to the importance of the program’s additional funding. So thank you. 

Before I begin introducing witnesses this morning, I just need to 

dispense with a few unanimous—oh, I am sorry. I yield to the 

ranking member of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I am here because I think this is extraordinarily important and 

should be a bipartisan effort in reauthorizing the brownfields law, 

and our colleague, Ms. Esty, will introduce a bill today which I support to do that. 

I was here when the original Brownfields bill was approved. It 

was actually done by a voice vote in the House, and UC [unanimous consent] in the Senate, and signed by President George W. 

Bush. So this certainly has a bipartisan legacy. 

It has been tremendously successful, with one exception, and 

that exception has already been mentioned by my colleague, the 

ranking member, Mrs. Napolitano, which is the lack of adequate 

funding. 

I’ll just give one quick example of how useful these funds have 

been. My largest city, Eugene, Oregon, got a $680,000 site assessment grant back in 2013. They assessed 15 specific properties, and 

6 

development was planned and redevelopment for all those properties. 

And, by the way, this can be obtained locally. The famous 

Ninkasi Brewing Company which makes Ninkasi beer now marketed in the Washington, DC, area—I am not being Kellyanne 

Conway here. I am just promoting something that—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. They are on a former Eugene brownfield, and they 

have gone from 2 employees to 100. 

So, you know, there is tremendous leverage of private investment 

in recapturing these assets, many of which are urban areas where 

the property can be very valuable. 

Initially, and that was quite some time ago, 15 years ago, we 

were appropriating $250 million annually. Obviously, there has 

been inflation since then, but now we have been closer to $160 million annually, and the current administration is perhaps proposing 

further cuts or elimination of the program. 

Mrs. Napolitano mentioned the EPA’s estimate that over the past 

5 years they have only been able to fund one in four of the applications, and that means we have foregone tens of thousands of jobs 

and billions, billions of dollars in leveraged private investment. 

Now, our former colleague, Mr. Mulvaney, has suggested that the 

administration will only fund programs that work. Well, I would 

say that if they want to leverage private investment and they are 

looking for a program that works, they should be proposing an increase in funding for this program rather than a decrease. 

I look forward to the hearing, and I look forward hopefully to bipartisan efforts to reauthorize and enhance this program. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. 

Would you like to give the website as well for the beer? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I will post it upstairs. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I was talking about for the beer. All 

right. 

Again, before I begin introducing witnesses, I need to dispense 

with a few unanimous consent requests. 

I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 30 days 

after this hearing in order to accept written testimony for the hearing record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers 

to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Thank you. 

I would now like to recognize our first witness, the Honorable 

Christian Bollwage, the mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey. 

Mr. Mayor, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

7 

TESTIMONY OF HON. J. CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE, MAYOR, CITY 

OF ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; HON. DEBORAH ROBERTSON, MAYOR, 

CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA; HON. MATT ZONE, 

COUNCILMEMBER, CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, ON BEHALF 

OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; JOHN E. DAILEY, 

COMMISSIONER, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF 

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; AMANDA W. 

LEFEVRE, OUTREACH AND EDUCATIONAL COORDINATOR, 

KENTUCKY BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, ON 

BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL 

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS; AND JONATHAN 

PHILIPS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANKA FUNDS 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I lost 5 seconds. No. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

Congressman DeFazio. 

I was there and testifying back in 2001 and 2000 and 1999, and 

was pleased to be there in 2002 in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 

when the President signed that bill. 

So I have been the mayor since 1993, and I am a trustee of the 

U.S. Conference of Mayors and the chair of the Brownfields Task 

Force of the Conference of Mayors. I am pleased to be here today 

to discuss the role that brownfields can play in our 21st-century infrastructure. 

For many people, brownfields are just a neighborhood eyesore of 

the former industrial site that may exist, but for mayors, as all of 

you know, they represent unrealized potential for tax revenue, economic development, and jobs. 

We see the redevelopment of brownfields as a chance to bring 

back to a community, to revitalize neighborhoods, and reuse existing infrastructure. 

The brownfields law had a very positive effect and not only on 

our economy, but the Nation’s economy. Some of the statistics already mentioned: 26,000 brownfield sites, 5,700 properties, 66,000 

acres, over 123,000 jobs, $23 billion leveraged, and the $1 EPA investment generates $16 in other investments. 

And the last time I was here before this committee, I talked 

about the Jersey Gardens Mall, one of our most successful 

Brownfields redevelopment sites. A former landfill on a 200-acre 

site now has more than 200 stores, movie theater, 4 hotels, 1,700 

construction jobs, 4,000 permanent jobs. 

Another successful redevelopment project was our Elizabethport 

HOPE VI Project. This former industrial spot was historically 

made up of businesses that focused upon complementing the shipping industry in Port Elizabeth. However, as our city expanded, 

evolved, and changed, so did the vision and potential of the land 

use. 

So over a new $15 million townhome redevelopment is now made 

up of 55 market rate luxury housing units with market front views. 

A federally funded HOPE VI project in the late 1990s and early 

2000s assisted in the removal and replacement of public housing 

complexes into townhouses. Individuals previously residing in these 

8 

old, dilapidated facilities had the opportunity to become homeowners in new residential neighborhoods because of brownfields redevelopment. 

And as I mentioned, the Brownfields Program has had a proven 

track record, leveraging private-sector investment, creating jobs, 

and protecting the environment. There is much more work that can 

be done. 

As all of you said, due to limited funding, the EPA has had to 

turn away a lot of highly qualified applicants. The EPA estimates 

that for the past 5 years over 1,600 requests for viable projects 

were not awarded money. EPA estimates that if those applicants 

were funded, an additional 54,000 jobs would have been created 

with a $10.3 billion of leveraged funding. 

I urge Congress to not only reauthorize the brownfields law with 

some minor changes to make it more effective, but to increase the 

appropriations. If you are looking to revitalize infrastructure as 

well and creating jobs, this is one of the best programs to do that. 

And on behalf of my colleagues at NACo, NLC and the USCM, 

we have submitted a letter of organizations that we would like to 

officially submit for the record, and in this letter we urge Congress 

to pass a new brownfields law with some changes. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Without objection. 

[The letter follows:] 

9 


Insert offset folio 7 here 24789.007
10 


Insert offset folio 8 here 24789.008
11 


Insert offset folio 9 here 24789.009
12 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I want to mention that the challenge that the 

communities now face is that many easy brownfield sites have been 

developed, and what now remains are the more difficult sites, the 

sites that may be more contaminated or are located with tougher 

redevelopment markets. 

So our recommendations include increasing the grant cleanup amounts from $200,000 to make it more attractive to a developer. 

We would like to see an opportunity of $1 million and possibly in 

special circumstances up to $2 million. 

Second, creation of a multipurpose grant. The way the program 

works now is that a city applies for a grant, identifies a property 

where it will be spent. This program, this problem is not flexible. 

The development may change. The developer may need a new site. 

The money is then targeted for the one site. You have got to restart 

the process, and it just takes too long, maybe up to 6 more months. 

Redevelopment of ‘‘mothball’’ sites, a very big problem in some 

communities where owners are just not willing to sell or give up 

their land, and one such tool would be to give cities additional liability protections if they want to acquire property through voluntary sales. 

Some recommendations include allowing reasonable administrative costs, clarifying eligibility of publicly owned land and sites acquired before 2002, encouraging brownfield cleanups by Good Samaritans. 

I would like to thank the Brownfields Task Force and this subcommittee for having me testify here today. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman and Ranking Member, and all the members of the committee for making brownfields an important tool for redevelopment. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. 

I want to turn to our second witness, the Honorable Deborah 

Robertson, the mayor of Rialto, California. 

Mayor Robertson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Thank you. 

Councilman Zone. Good morning, everyone. Good morning Chairman Garret Graves and Ranking Member Grace Napolitano, and 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify and talk about how we can revitalize the American 

communities through the Brownfields Program. 

It is a privilege and an honor for me to participate in this important hearing. I am here today as the mayor of the city of Rialto, 

and I share strong support, my community support, for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Brownfields Program. 

For those of you who are not familiar with Rialto, Rialto is in the 

eastern part of California’s San Bernardino County, east of Los Angeles. We are a vibrant, ethnically diverse working-class community of over 100,000. 

The interesting part about Rialto though is that we are only 4 

miles wide and 8 miles long, and yet still we have quite a bit of 

activity going on in our community. It is in the Inland Empire, and 

we are an environmental justice community. 

Like many older communities, we grew up along the railroads. 

It has a long and colorful history that evolved from an agricultural 

base into a more urban transportation industrial economy. 

13 

Rialto is home to a number of major distribution centers, including the Staples Center, which serves the entire west coast of the 

United States, Toys R Us, Under Armour, Niagara, Medline, Amazon, and Target for the northern region of our city, and also the 

western region. 

We also are home to the largest fireworks company, Pyro Spectaculars, which is headquarters in Rialto and listed as the world 

corporate office. 

The city hosts the Union Pacific’s East Colton classification yard, 

Kinder Morgan with the big regional petroleum and fuel storage 

farm, and we also have major trucking companies, such as Old Dominion, Yellow Freight, UPS, and FedEx. 

In addition to that, we have a major defense contractor, which 

is Martinez and Turek, who provides construction of launching 

pads for the NASA Program, and also we have a major confectioner 

manufacturer. 

We are in the middle of a confluence between three major freeways or highways, Interstate 10, the 210, and Interstate 15, which 

helps us in conveying a lot of goods movement from the ports of 

Long Beach and Los Angeles to the rest of the Nation. 

And we have over 95 companies that handle hazardous waste. In 

the State of California, the Water Resources Control Board environmental mapping program, better known as GeoTracker, indicated a significant number of underground storage tanks that are 

leaking, and EPA, moreover, manages and operates a Superfund 

site in the northern part of the city. 

So while my hometown is a wonderful place to live, work and 

play, it also confronts many economic and environmental challenges that can best be addressed through the assistance and partnership of local, State and Federal Government. 

As an elected official and a public servant for more than 30 

years, not just as a local elected official, but also as an official for 

the Department of Transportation, better known as Caltrans, we 

view these programs as vital to assisting our community in cleanup, restoring, and reusing the environmentally compromised properties that exist within our communities. The partnership is absolutely critical to the economic revitalization and job growth. 

I know in my testimony I submitted, I talked about a number of 

sites that are currently underway and the fact that in Rialto we 

have identified over 25 remaining sites that are left to be cleaned 

up. 

But I would like to share one other additional thing. We have an 

area as a local agency where we inherited or we took over a general aviation airport many years ago. That airport required us to 

seek Federal legislation to relocate the aviation activity so that we 

could then take that property, over 953 acres, and be able to redevelop it so that it can bring jobs. 

For me, I see the program and the Brownfields Program as the 

only program probably that helps our communities, all of them, in 

being able to restore the land and put it into a good economic use, 

such as bringing about not only the revenue for the community, the 

revitalization, and the jobs, but also being able to deal with the 

blight that goes on in our community. 

14 

I would encourage you, you know, to really look at this program 

and support it, but also, as my colleague says, to increase it because we have wo many sites that still need to be addressed, and 

we will never get ahead of the eight ball if we are only identifying 

a few at a time. 

In Rialto, we have been blessed to be a part of something similar, 

Chairman, that you have in your district, and that is to be designated as a megaregion, and so we are looking at how, similar to 

your transit, do we take that and tie the nexus between brownfield 

cleanup and data analytics, logistics, surveillance and at the same 

time innovation, things that will bring more jobs into the community of Rialto and in southern California. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Madam Mayor. 

Next we have the Honorable Matt Zone, who is a councilmember 

from Cleveland, Ohio. 

I appreciate you being here, Councilmember Zone. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ZONE. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member 

Napolitano and members of the committee. 

I am Matt Zone. I am a councilmember from Cleveland, Ohio, 

and president of the National League of Cities. I am here today on 

behalf of the National League of Cities, which is the oldest and 

largest organization representing 19,000 cities and towns of all 

sizes across America. 

I appreciate this opportunity to share our perspective on the importance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Brownfields Program, and discuss how the program contributes to 

the revitalization of communities, and boosts the localand national 

economy. 

Mr. Chairman, as an older industrial city, Cleveland has had a 

long manufacturing legacy. Today that legacy has left us with 

many abandoned factories, vacant commercial spaces, and polluted 

industrial sites. 

These brownfield properties pose environmental and health risks, 

but redeveloping them has helped to bring new life to Cleveland 

and to create new opportunities for our residents. 

In 2005, the city partnered with the EPA and the State of Ohio, 

local businesses, and other entities to create the Land Bank Program which is targeting former industrial and commercial properties for rehabilitation. Known as the Industrial-Commercial Land 

Bank, the program’s mission is simple: to invest in redevelopment, 

redeveloping contaminated properties for productive use. 

And to date, Mr. Chairman, our Industrial-Commercial Land 

Bank has redeveloped 13 sites. We have cleaned up 137 acres. We 

have invested $40 million in Cleveland, and we have created or retained 2,800 jobs. 

In my written testimony, members of the committee, I highlight 

three projects that our city has undertaken through our land bank, 

but right now I want to talk just about one in particular, the Trinity Building. 

15 

It has been one of the most challenging sites, and I think it illustrates why the Federal support for brownfields redevelopment is so 

critical 

The Trinity Building is a small, 6-acre site, but it posed huge 

challenges for our city. Today the site is positioned to be the future 

home of our city kennel, but it took a difficult road and a strong 

Federal-local partnership to get there. 

The Trinity Building was originally a factory that produced aluminum products and employed over 500 Clevelanders, but in 1980 

the factory closed, and by the mid-1990s, the abandoned building 

had become a blight on our community and a public health risk for 

our local residents. 

So in 2004, the city took ownership of the property, and we allo- cated $2.9 million for remediation. Three years later, the city discovered that the site was contaminated with dangerous PCBs. With 

such a significant public health risk now in play, the city requested 

that the EPA investigate the site and assist with an immediate response. 

After conducting its response, EPA announced that the city itself, 

and this is important; the EPA announced that the city itself could 

potentially be liable for the cleanup. If it had not been the worstcase scenario, that huge cost of treating PCB contamination would 

have put our Land Bank Program in jeopardy. 

Fortunately, the city was able to work with the EPA to prove 

that the pollution was not the city’s fault, but the process took 

years of litigation and delays, and created substantial uncertainty 

in the remediation project which ultimately increased our cost to 

the city. 

You know, when you look at the return on that initial investment, Mr. Chairman, as a local government official, I can attest to 

the fact that the brownfield redevelopment is a powerful economic 

tool. Turning polluted properties back into productive real estate 

helps us create jobs in distressed communities, while simultaneously improving public health and safety. 

But brownfields redevelopment involves a lot of risk for cities 

and for developers. You know, projects like the Trinity Building 

needed public support to compete with newer development sites 

and overcome the challenges of working with contaminated real estate. Our brownfield challenges and unique opportunities really allowed us to support our cities and towns as we worked to really 

revitalize our main streets in downtowns across economically challenged neighborhoods in America. 

So NLC urges Congress to reauthorize the Brownfields Program 

and make some key improvements. Our first priority would be we 

would urge Congress to increase or maintain the current overall 

authorization level for the program. 

My colleagues will discuss some of the other shared priorities 

like the importance of multipurpose grants and raising the overall 

cap on the cleanup grants amounts, but I want to take a minute 

to just talk about the issue of municipal liability. 

You know, Cleveland’s experience with the Trinity Building highlights one of the greatest challenges that local governments face in 

redeveloping brownfields, and that is the dangerous liability concerns that can arise when cities acquire contaminated property. 

16 

For most brownfield sites, the only chance of redevelopment is 

through public acquisition. But just like with the Trinity Building, 

hidden liabilities can arise after cities acquire property, even if the 

city had no role in creating those contaminations. 

The result is that many local governments are unable to acquire 

property because of the risk of incurring major liability, and Congress can fix this problem by clarifying and expanding the liability 

protections for public entities that acquire contaminated brownfield 

sites, especially where that public entity was not responsible for 

creating that contamination. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, in 2009, I had the opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of this program, and I am grateful that 

the city of Cleveland has the experience and the resources to start 

redeveloping many of our brownfields in our neighborhood. 

I am joined today by David Ebersole, the director of our 

Brownfields Program, and our story in Cleveland is no different 

than any other industrial American city, and our residents are feeling the benefits of turning polluted sites back into productive 

places. 

But even though there is so much progress that has been made, 

the work is nowhere near finished. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Would you please wrap up? 

Mr. ZONE. I want to thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your questions in a little bit. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. I appreciate it, 

Councilmember. 

Our next witness is Commissioner John Dailey from Leon County, Florida. 

Commissioner Dailey, you are recognized. 

Mr. DAILEY. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Napolitano, and 

members of the subcommittee, it is my honor and privilege to be 

here with you today. 

My name is John Dailey, and I serve as the chairman of the 

Leon County Commission in Florida, and today I am representing 

the National Association of Counties. 

Leon County is located in northern Florida, and is home to our 

State capital of Tallahassee. We serve a population of 285,000. 

As a county commissioner, I have seen firsthand the positive effects that brownfields redevelopment has had on my community. 

Today’s hearing is timely since counties play such a significant role 

in both land-use planning and economic development. 

Many counties oversee brownfields redevelopment projects directly because these projects are a natural extension of our landuse authorities. These authorities include developing comprehensive land-use plans, setting zoning ordinances, overseeing environmental monitoring and enforcement, creating viable economic development districts, conducting public health evaluations, and running risk assessments at brownfield sites. 

These many responsibilities allow us to see the big picture for 

our communities and direct our focus on areas that would most 

benefit from a brownfields redevelopment project. 

In my county, we had a former 450-acre brownfield site that included a historic rail depot, chemical warehouses, and other indusVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:31 Sep 19, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\WR\3-28-2~1\24789.TXT JEAN
17 

trial sites, and about 6 years ago, we completely transformed the 

area. And it is vibrant. It now includes shops, restaurants, pubs, 

hotels, private housing, and a small business incubator. 

As a result, the corridor has brought 200 new jobs, increased the tax value of the site by $130 million, and attracted nearly 3,000 

new residents. Since additional improvements are planned, we only 

expect these numbers to grow. 

We are also proud of our 24-acre Cascades Park. This area was 

formerly a manufactured gas plant and municipal landfill located 

just blocks from the Florida capital. We have completely transformed this area into a nationally award winning stormwater facility that just happens to also be a beautiful central park in downtown Tallahassee. 

The successes that we have experienced are not atypical. Counties across the U.S., large and small, are undertaking brownfields 

projects in their local communities. While we have made tremendous strides, it is estimated that there are over 400,000 brownfield 

sites that have yet to be addressed nationally. 

As you consider revisions to the Federal brownfields policies, we 

have several recommendations to ensure that local governments 

can successfully clean up and develop sites as part of our comprehensive plans. 

First, there is more need for funding. I will say it again. There 

is more need for funding availability for local governments. We 

need that strong Federal partner to address these sites, no doubt 

about it. 

[The National Association of Counties submitted the following 

post-hearing amended portion of Mr. Dailey’s opening remarks:] 

We recommend that Congress maintain or even increase funding for EPA’s 

Brownfields Program and increase the total allowable grant amount so communities can clean up more sites. 

Second, we advocate for a multipurpose grant program which 

would allow local governments to apply for one, rather than multiple, brownfield grants to clean up the site. Under the current 

process, county governments bear a significant administrative burden because we have to apply for multiple grants for one project 

and have very little flexibility on how we apply the grant to meet 

the needs of the project in our local community. This places a burden on our staff. 

Third, as local governments acquire brownfields, our ongoing risk 

of incurring liability under Federal environmental laws is a continued concern and may prevent us from even acquiring the sites in 

the first place, as my colleagues have also testified. 

This is especially relevant, as it was mentioned prior, for ‘‘mothball’’ properties where the current property owner is unreachable 

or unwilling to discuss a property transfer or improve the site conditions. These sites are often delinquent on property taxes, and the 

local government must foreclose on the property to address the contamination. However, this is the option of last resort because of liability issues. 

While a number of the States have clarified brownfields liability 

protections for local governments, there is a need for a more permanent national solution. 

18 

We believe that Congress should exempt local and State governments from liability if they neither caused nor contributed to the 

contamination and exercised due care with contaminants once they 

acquired the site. 

In conclusion, we look forward to working with the committee to 

address revisions to the Federal Brownfields Program. Together, 

we can transform our communities and lay the groundwork for a 

new and better future. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of 

America’s 3,069 counties. I welcome the opportunities to address 

any questions that the committee may have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Our next witness has been misled in the pronunciation of her 

name. Coming from south Louisiana, we would pronounce that 

very differently. However, I will respect the Kentucky approach 

here. 

Ms. LEFEVRE. Right. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. And I want to introduce Ms. Amanda 

LeFevre from Kentucky Brownfield Redevelopment Program. 

Ms. LEFEVRE. We also say Versailles, too, instead of Versailles. 

So please forgive us. 

But good morning, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for having us all here today to talk about this subject. 

My name is Amanda LeFevre. I am the vice chair of the 

Brownfields Focus Group for the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. 

ASTSWMO is an association representing the waste management and remediation programs of the 50 States, 5 territories and 

the District of Columbia. ASTSWMO is a strong supporter of the 

Brownfields Program. Brownfields are evidence of our country’s 

proud industrial, commercial and social heritage. These once thriving properties, now abandoned, contribute to the economic, social 

and environmental decline in the places we live, work and play. 

However, the redevelopment has substantial benefits. 

Brownfields redevelopment sparks job creation and private investment, encourages infrastructure reuse, increases property values, 

improves the tax base, and facilitates community revitalization. 

For the past 15 years, State and territorial Brownfields Programs, in collaboration with local communities and our Federal 

partners, have served to break down the barriers to redevelopment. 

Section 128(a) funding has allowed States to building a buffet of 

services particular to their State’s specific needs. 

Services can be accessed and combined, depending on the project 

and the entity pursuing the project. At any given time you will find 

State program staff across this country providing environmental 

site assessments, assisting communities to apply for Federal 

brownfield grants, providing education on brownfield redevelopment, assisting entities to manage risk and liability, providing crucial technical support, and managing the volunteer cleanup programs that are the basis for the reuse of properties. 

19 

Properties going through our programs may use one or all of our 

services, but the underlying theme is that we cannot provide them 

without the section 128(a) funding. 

While many envision brownfields as just an urban problem, we 

would like to highlight the important role that we play in small cities, towns, and rural areas. Due to limited resources, these smaller 

local governments cannot afford to have an environmental professional or a grant writer on staff. They require a higher level of 

project assistance. 

In many cases, redevelopment in these towns would not happen 

without those section 128(a) supported services. Since the beginning of the section 128(a) program in fiscal year 2003, funding has 

been provided at just under the $50 million level, whereas the 

number of applicants has more than doubled. In the first year, 80 

States, territories, and tribes received funding. By 2016, 164 entities requested funding, including 50 States, 4 territories, the District of Columbia, and 109 tribes, 8 of which were new. 

The awards in 2003 averaged $618,000. In 2016, they averaged $293,000. As a result of this budgetary slide and inflation, States 

have increasingly resorted to cost saving measures, such as 

brownfield staffing reductions, cutting or eliminating the amount of 

assistance provided, increasing fees, and reducing the number of 

environmental assessments. 

This especially impacts our rural partners as they frequently require more support services than some of our urban partners. 

We are at a critical juncture in our national history where expansion of our municipal boundaries, while attractive short term, lead 

to increased infrastructure costs that we can ill afford. While rebuilding our infrastructure, we have the opportunity to revitalize 

the surrounding areas which will help build a more robust economy. Brownfield development and economic development go hand 

in hand. 

Keep in mind that brownfield investment is a good one. The 

funding provided for brownfields redevelopment multiplies in our 

communities and attracts additional public and private investment. 

According to the studies indicated in my written testimony, $1 of 

brownfield investment in Delaware generates a $17 return on the 

State’s initial investment. In Wisconsin that $1 leverages $27 in 

total funding and resources. In Oregon, $1 equals about $15, according to a 2014 study, and in Michigan in 2016, if you spend $1 

on brownfield redevelopment, you received about $34 in leveraged 

funds. 

And brownfields, of course, are the gift that keep on giving. Since 

2015, Oklahoma has garnered over $10 million in new State and 

income taxes annually on remediated sites. A 2014 study of Oregon’s program found that the 51 completed sites in their survey 

generated 4,300 permanent jobs. Sixty percent of those were in the 

industrial sector. 

To summarize, ASTSWMO believes that a robust Brownfields 

Program at all levels of Government is essential to our Nation’s 

economic, social, and environmental health. The ASTSWMO position paper, ‘‘128(a) ‘Brownfields’ Grant Funding,’’ which was provided with this testimony, gives additional information on 

ASTSWMO’s support for the program. 

20 

We thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony today, and 

I will be happy to answer any of your questions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Ms. LeFevre. 

And finally, for cleanup, our last witness is Mr. Jonathan Philips 

with Anka Funds. 

Mr. Philips. 

Mr. PHILIPS. Good morning, members of the committee. I am 

Jonathan Philips, managing director of Anka Funds out of Raleigh, 

North Carolina. 

Anka Funds invests institutional capital and expertise in strategies that often concurrently help solve environmental or societal 

problems. We have acquired approximately 700 properties and 

spun out of Cherokee Investment Partners, which prior to the 2008 

crash, had been recognized as the world’s largest and most active 

firm specializing in brownfield revitalization. 

And given what we know about the causes of the brownfield 

problem, the market forces that both inhibit and encourage remediation and redevelopment, existing Government programs to encourage redevelopment, and the criteria that markets use to select particular sites for investment, we ask: how do we solve the overall 

problem? How do we move beyond the current situation where 

some of the sites are being remediated and redeveloped while literally hundreds of thousands of others continue to languish? 

A friend once told me that for every complex, difficult problem, 

there is usually a simple solution—and it is usually wrong. I think 

that is true for the brownfield issue generally. 

If there were one simple solution, we probably would have found 

it and enacted it long ago. On the one hand, the problem seems 

clear cut. The costs associated with redeveloping a site must be 

outweighed, when adjusted for risk, by the potential economic reward from that transaction. Viewed on that level, the solution becomes one of reducing costs and risks or increasing potential income. 

On the other hand, the problem is much more complex. In 2005, 

2006, 2009, and 2015, I encouraged congressional committees to 

think about sites as being ‘‘underwater’’ or ‘‘above water.’’ A few 

brownfield sites may be already economically ‘‘above water.’’ That 

is to say, without additional incentives, those sites will still likely 

be revitalized soon. The risk of unknowns may still drive some developers away, but the project is economically viable. 

The other sites, sort of in the middle band, are those that are 

marginally ‘‘underwater.’’ That is to say that with some coordinated 

efforts, focus, creativity, and a modest economic push, the sites 

would likely be redeveloped within a reasonable period of time. 

And then there is a third category of sites in less attractive real 

estate markets and/or those with more substantial contamination. 

Those sites may be substantially ‘‘underwater’’ and without significant help may never be cleaned up. 

Viewed on this level, the solution becomes more multifaceted. 

Policymakers need to increasingly understand that the problem of 

brownfields is nuanced, and solutions must be nuanced and targeted, as well. 

21 

Some would prefer to focus attention on the geographical intersection of the most polluted sites and those with the lowest intrinsic real estate value, as these are the ones that most need the help 

from the public sector for reclamation to occur. 

Other folks would prefer to target sites that fall within the geographical intersection of those with most economic development potential and those that are most easily, cheaply, and quickly revitalized. So, you know, perhaps the answer is a combination of those 

two views. 

If we, as a country, really want to attack the brownfield issue on 

a nationwide basis, it is clear that we must create policies that will 

truly move the meter well beyond assessment assistance and expensing provisions—though such programs have been and continue 

to be important. 

I believe it is on this front that the Federal Government can 

have the biggest impact. The challenge should not be to create a 

new program that helps better characterize brownfield sites or that 

tries to create a larger role for Federal agencies. The Federal Government’s challenge should be to look for bold, innovative ways to 

reduce barriers and create incentives to attract significant volumes 

of private capital and hire leaders who know how to do this. 

I have spent a good amount of time thinking about creative ideas 

related to this issue, from both a policy perspective and also as an 

investor who could benefit from a good many programs that have 

been put in place over the years across different agencies. The fruit 

of some of this thinking was the UBIT tax exemption for eligible 

nonprofits investing in qualified sites, an idea I personally developed in 2000 and one that was passed into Federal law as part of 

the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 with active, bipartisan 

support. 

I understand members of this committee and also in the Senate 

have been working on a reauthorization of this legislation. This is 

just one example of the Federal Government’s creative path to 

leveraging private capital to clean up and recycle America’s lands. 

It is my basic assessment that the sites most plaguing this country are more often than not either those that would produce net 

losses for private investors or those with a risk reward ratio that 

is significantly unattractive relative to traditional greenfield development. In either case, the problem stems from rational economic 

decisions based upon local forces of supply and demand. 

With strong public guidance, private forces can operate efficiently 

to produce revitalization in places where communities most need it, 

but where without such involvement, revitalization may not occur. 

Right now the EPA has a unique opportunity to dig deep into the 

anatomy and, if I may borrow a phrase, ‘‘the art’’ of a private 

brownfield deal and understand and alleviate the obstacles that remain. Doing so will forge a pathway where one day the Federal 

Government’s expenditures will drastically reduce and be reserved 

for a much smaller group of sites. 

It will take very concerted leadership at the highest levels of the 

EPA and other agencies to make this happen, but it is doable and 

will not require large expenditures of taxpayer dollars. 

With less than 4 percent of the Nation’s brownfields having been 

cleaned up in a decade following the EPA’s coining the term 

22 

‘‘brownfield,’’ it is clear that more needs to be done. Clearly, if we 

are to be successful, the Federal Government must be an active 

and significant facilitator and partner in this effort to attract private investment to solve this problem in our lifetime. We have an 

opportunity to make real headway and leverage the private sector 

as never before. 

Thank you for your invitation to provide testimony to the distinguished members of this committee and repeat our sincere interest 

and willingness to continue to serve as a resource to you and your 

colleagues as you do your good work. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Philips. I appreciate 

it. 

For the first round of questions I am going to defer to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate you convening this panel today. Great testimony, 

and this is a very important issue even in rural communities that 

I serve in central Illinois. 

I would like to ask the panel about access to brownfields grant 

funding for some of those rural communities. One such community 

in my district in Litchfield, Illinois, has been working with our regional office, EPA region 5, and the Illinois EPA to secure funding 

to clean up and redevelop a specific property, but unfortunately has 

not yet been successful in acquiring that funding. 

The city continues to be told that no funding is available to assist, and the property in question, a small property, sits downtown 

and it impacts economic viability during the year when community 

events are bringing thousands of people to that rural community. 

Can any members of the panel address any disparities that exist 

for rural communities having access to brownfields funds and make 

some recommendations for having to improve them? 

Who wants to start? Ms. LeFevre. 

Ms. LEFEVRE. Well, in Kentucky, I mean, if you have ever been 

there, it is mostly green space. So incentivizing—— 

Mr. DAVIS. And horses. 

Ms. LEFEVRE. And horses and some bourbon out in the corner, 

right? 

So when we first started our program, really all we could do for 

you was assessments, but our program in particular, and all of our 

programs are different across the States. We have been given that 

latitude to create what each State needs. 

So part of our strategy, we cannot give you funding, but we can 

actually help you get better access to that. And as you know, the 

brownfield cleanup grant competition is highly competitive. So 

what we undertook was a strategy of teaching communities who 

did not have a grant writer on staff how to better write grants, how 

to make them more competitive. 

So we created a lot of those support services. We also worked 

with our Area Development Districts. I am not sure if Illinois has 

something similar. 

Mr. DAVIS. Oh, yes, we do. 

Ms. LEFEVRE. If you can educate your Area Development Districts on those grants as well, they have been strong supporters of 

23 

brownfield cleanup grants and things like that, and they work with 

their smaller communities. 

A lot of times those smaller communities need those gap services. 

So that is where our State and local Area Development Districts 

really come in. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. 

Ms. LEFEVRE. So it is more building a support system that will 

help them because they are at a disadvantage because you have a 

lot of consultants writing grants and professional grant writers. So 

you have got to get them on a much more even playing field. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you for your suggestions. 

Mr. Philips, in the development business that you are in, do you 

see this disparity with any of your properties? 

Mr. PHILIPS. Well, there is no question that redevelopment of 

brownfields from the private-sector perspective is driven completely 

by the real estate markets, and that is the local real estate markets. And so if that particular rural community has an attractive 

real estate opportunity, that is going to drive the private capital. 

That is fundamentally what folks, I think, need to understand. 

Now, in rural communities, there are opportunities to be creative. People have used the USDA loan program. People have included solar credits as part of brownfield sites redevelopment. They 

have included monies from broadband infrastructure in rural communities. 

So people get really creative with dipping into different pockets, 

but at the end of the day, you know, it is interesting. I think the 

EPA and the administration and Congress can really do a great job 

here in focusing attention and being a facilitator for more difficult 

sites or sites in areas where maybe there is less economic activity. 

There was a site in Oklahoma called Tar Creek that we toured 

with Senator Inhofe at the time. He had asked to come and look 

at a private buyout of residents who happened to be in that locality 

and who were concerned about contamination. And what it did was 

it really focused the lens on that area and allowed other private 

companies to come in and were interested in the sites and began 

poking around, and it spurred some activity. 

And I think that helps in some of the rural settings. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. Zone, I want to go on to another question real quickly while 

I have got a couple of seconds. What you guys have done in Cleveland is amazing. I was there this summer, a beautiful community. 

You guys did great at the National Convention, which was probably the best logistically run convention I have been to out of three. 

So congratulations to the city of Cleveland. 

In cases where State and local governments involuntarily acquire 

brownfields by bankruptcy, abandonment, et cetera, how do they 

protect themselves from liability? 

And what about cases where they voluntarily acquire these sites, 

too? 

Mr. ZONE. So this summer they were calling for a riot and we 

threw a block party in Cleveland. So thank you for coming. 

You know, local governments can take control of property 

through a variety of means, including tax liens, foreclosure purchases, and the use of eminent domain in order to clear title. 

24 

Consolidating multiple parcels can be very challenging, but when 

you are looking to put forth an economic, viable project, sometimes 

you need to do that. So we have been conducting site assessments, 

remediating environmental hazards to address public health and 

safety issues and otherwise preparing the property for development 

by the private sector or public and community facilities. 

The issue is that CERCLA includes liability defenses and exemptions that may protect local governments, and the optimal word 

there is ‘‘may,’’ that involuntarily acquire brownfields. 

We have acquired property through tax delinquencies, and you 

know, one of the examples cited in the law often presumes that we 

are protected. That creates exposures for cities. 

I would be happy to follow up, Mr. Chairman, at a later date if 

that is appropriate. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. Thank you, 

Councilmember. 

I want to defer to the gentlewoman from California, the ranking 

member of the subcommittee, Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

This is for the entire panel. Based on current appropriations to 

the Brownfields Program, we know that EPA can only fund 30 percent of qualified applications that are submitted to the agency annually. The funding deficiency delays vital community redevelopment plans and prohibits business expansion. 

In your opinion, what would be the beneficial amount to increase 

the authorized funding level to the program? 

And should we increase it, yes or no? 

[Many panelists nod.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. And to what level? 

Mr. ZONE. The total amount? Well, we have been asking for up 

to $1 million per project, and in some instances, you heard the 

mayor talk about maybe in special exemptions up to $2 million. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, for the whole program. All of it. What 

would happen if it were doubled? What would happen to the ability 

for you to file and get cleanup? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Currently, in every congressional district in this 

country there are at least 30 identified brownfield sites, and if you 

look at the 30 identified brownfield sites at a minimum in every 

congressional district and you pick a number, I think this panel 

would gladly leave it up to this body on what number you would 

want to pick. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But what would you do with the money is 

what I am asking. Every community, would it help foster your economic growth, your cleanup? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Oh, go ahead. Absolutely, yes. All of that. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Yes, without a doubt, Member. 

I would just like to say, echoing what they are saying, as I said 

earlier we have just in Rialto alone 25 identified sites. That is not 

counting surrounding communities, and even though Rialto and the 

areas, such as Colton and my neighbors, we are all seen as urban 

or suburban areas. 

I would think that if you were to increase the program, perhaps 

we would be able to move forward on not only our own sites, but 

25 

also on some of our neighboring sites, such as the application I 

have right now. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, what would it mean to the economy to 

each site? 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Right, but at least it would allow us to include, 

do multijurisdictional assessments with the county and with our 

local agencies, and so we could attack and address the issue, I 

think, a more effective way if we knew we had more resources 

available. 

Currently, we have to decide how can we, one, be successful and 

at the same time do it in a manner that we look at multijurisdictional applications from now on. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. And you heard me state that we sent the 

letter to the leadership in regard to the cut of funding to the EPA 

program, the Brownfields Program. We have not received a response. 

Are any of you concerned about the elimination of the program? 

Mr. ZONE. Yes, absolutely, and I would say that only about onethird of all applications that are submitted are actually funded. So 

to answer your previous question, if you increased the program by 

three, I think that would be moving in the right direction. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. A couple of weeks ago, I met with the Administrator, with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and part of his comments were extremely encouraging when it came to funding 

brownfields and Superfund sites. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Just remind him of that. 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I am. Hopefully, I will have the opportunity to 

do that, but he also said that he was going to take that position 

to the White House and be firm and stern about funding 

brownfields and Superfund sites, and he saw that from his perspective as the new Administrator as a priority in the upcoming budget. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Let’s hope the President agrees with him. 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I agree, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One of the original goals of the brownfields 

law was to invest in communities of underserved populations. Has 

the implementation followed through on the original goal? Anybody? 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Well, if you do not mind, I would like to at least 

address that to begin with. In some degree, the money, the resources that have been made available in Rialto has definitely 

helped. When I was making my comments earlier about the Federal legislation that allowed for the relocation of the general aviation airport, it was very ironic. The city took on the facility which 

was really in the past a military installation. 

Yet when it was time for us to do cleanup and identified hazardous waste there at that property, because the city owned it, it 

is back to what we were talking about: the liability that becomes 

a big problem. 

We could not even apply funds to that. Nonetheless, we are moving forward. We are redeveloping an area that is going to bring 

about a significant retail, commercial, industrial, and housing area 

26 

to the tune that when we build out the total 1,500 acres, we are 

going to see approximately a $2 billion investment. 

Sadly, that investment and what we will see envisioned will not 

have occurred with the brownfields dollars. But fortunately, we 

have used them in other areas within the city, an 18-acre area 

where we are going to be able to do similarly, and we will be able 

to bring about a public fire station and other open spaces. 

So it has been an advantage to the underserved communities. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

We are going to next go to Mr. Ferguson from Georgia. 

Mr. FERGUSON. Well, thank you all for taking time today. 

It was not but just a few months ago I was sitting where you all 

are as mayors and representatives of your local communities. Lord, 

sometimes I surely do miss that compared to what we get to go 

through now. 

But I will say this. As a mayor, I have dealt with this issue before, and I was mayor of a community that really had to go through 

an important revitalization to begin to put itself back on track. 

And one of the things that we found that was very, very difficult 

in this process with brownfields was the complexity of the process, 

and we always tried as a local government to make the process of 

application through the permitting as smooth as seamless as possible. 

Could you all address, you know, two issues? First of all, how 

would you recommend or what are your thoughts on streamlining 

the process, getting through the procedures? 

Because that is one of the things that developers would always 

come to us and say. ‘‘Hey, we understand there is a process here, 

but sometimes it is so complex and so complicated that the economic viability of the project is in jeopardy because of the longevity.’’ 

And private dollars will follow the opportunity to make a profit, 

and they get hung up in a swamp, so to speak, it really makes it 

more difficult. 

And the second thing is: can you all speak to—and, Mr. Philips, 

maybe you could address this—how much, even with brownfield 

grants; what is the economic viability gap on many of these 

projects, particularly in rural communities, and how would you address that? 

So we will start with Mr. Dailey, if you do not mind talking 

about how would you streamline the regulatory process. 

Mr. DAILEY. Congressman, that is a fantastic question, and we 

appreciate it. What we tend to forget nationwide is that 70 percent 

of the counties have a population of 50,000 or less. We are small; 

we are rural, and so we deal with these issues day in and day out. 

In the State of Florida, we have a population of over 2 million, 

half of which live in the unincorporated areas. We deal with these 

issues every day. 

Counties are in charge of comprehensive plans in many situations. And addressing brownfields is a piece of the puzzle. Getting 

back to the funding issue, those in small communities do not have 

tremendously big staffs. 

27 

My colleague testified to the fact, and this goes directly to the 

process; my colleague testified to the fact that when we have smaller communities with smaller staff, there are staffing gaps that we 

need to address as well. 

But the fact of the matter is that when we are dealing specifically with private industry on a particular project, if we say, ‘‘I am 

afraid that this process is going to take anywhere from 18 to 36 

months. We are going to have to apply for several grants from beginning to end in order to accomplish our goals.’’ 

A lot of times the private industry might not be interested in 

moving forward with the more extended timeline; on top of that, 

for us to be even able to dedicate the staff. 

The answer is, number one, of course, more funding, and every 

opportunity that I have to speak, I will stress that need. I think 

we all agree that more funding can be put into the program, it 

would be great because it also levels the playing field for our smaller rural communities to be able to compete for these projects. 

Number two, more flexibility within the grants themselves. If 

you could be able to empower local governments to work hand in 

hand in partnership with the Federal and State governments along 

with the private sector on these particular programs, that would be 

fantastic. 

First and foremost, funding; secondly, flexibility. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Dailey, I am going to go to Mr. Philips. I 

have only got about a minute here. 

If you could briefly touch on that economic viability gap question. 

Mr. PHILIPS. Sure. I think the gap is really huge, honestly, for 

most of the sites that concern people, and the gap is not just in 

fungible dollars as we think about it. The gap is in time, and this 

is particularly true for the investment community. 

You know, your return on investment clock, your IRR, is ticking, 

ticking, ticking, and every moment that you wait for the next step, 

for approvals and for processes, it just makes it much more difficult. 

Just to give you a feel: a couple of years ago we did an assessment internally to see how many sites are we looking at, how many 

sites come through that funnel and that we actually invest in. Now, 

remember this was the largest investor in brownfields in the world. 

We reviewed about 450 sites, and in the next 2 years we were 

able to invest in 10 of those sites. We researched these and found 

out other entities across the world only invested in an additional 

10 of those sites, leaving 430 of those sites underwater, unable to 

attract investment, and this is despite the State and Federal programs and incentives that existed at the time, and these were not 

rural sites mostly, I can assure you. 

So in terms of the gap, it is significant. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. 

We are going to go to the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Lowenthal. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

all the witnesses for joining us today and really informing us on 

some of what is really taking place in the communities regarding 

the Brownfields Program. 

28 

I am really glad that we are having this hearing and that we can 

understand a little bit more what the Federal Government’s role is 

in working with the States and localities in funding and helping to 

redevelop many of these sites. 

You know, I think the Brownfields Program has been a great example of a win-win situation which both improves the environment, 

improves the health of our citizens, and at the same time spurs 

economic growth and development. That is a win-win situation. 

That is why I am particularly disturbed when I read that the 

program might face severe cuts. You know, we talked about what 

additional monies we have heard you might need, but let’s just talk 

about the reality, that this program might receive severe cuts or 

even elimination if the President and the EPA Administrator have 

their say and that is really the direction we move in. 

So really I want to start with Mayor Robertson. You know, I represent the port area of Long Beach, and so I am familiar with 

many of the critical issues that face Rialto and the other cities in 

the Inland Empire that serve as logistic centers, and so we are 

really connected to each other. 

So what happens in reality in Rialto directly affects my district 

also, and so I am very impressed with what you are trying to do. 

So my first question is: could you really elaborate a little bit 

more deeply on some of the positive benefits of your successful 

projects? 

Tell us a little bit more, Mayor Robertson, about some of the successful projects and what the benefits have been economically and 

also to the health of your community. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Thank you. Thank you, Member. 

You know, I guess I would just quickly say that one of the things 

this tool, this program, has really helped Rialto in the community 

and a lot in California with public-private partnership, a willingness for our partners to know that we are in this together. 

From that, just recently in a lot of the sites that we have identified in Rialto and that we have actually done the cleanup of the 

hazardous areas in partnership with some of our developers, we 

have managed to help them cobble together a lot of small pieces 

of property to facilitate the development of a major industrial or 

warehouse. It brings directly 1,500 jobs every time we assemble 

some land and we create a more efficient way to use the land. 

At the other side, the other thing I need to speak to constantly 

we seem to lose and I know from your district we have all dealt 

with health assessments. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Yes. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. And what is ongoing not only from the mobile 

activity, the mobile source of what is in the air, the particulate 

matters, but we also have to recognize that because if we fail to 

address these areas, a lot of these brownfields are also fallow land, 

dry land, and the elements are still in the air and then they are 

contributing factors not only to the adults and the people in the 

area that are working, but they are contributing factors to a lot of 

our young adults who are now highly affected with asthma conditions. 

So it is imperative that we address it and we figure out how to 

address it not only, yes, the economic opportunity is great because 

29 

it brings about jobs; it brings about some local revenue to our community; it helps us come up with some type of sustained revenue 

source for the local jurisdictions. 

But it also has a significant health impact, and we are not talking about only airborne, what is in the air, but also what can go 

into the air by the fact that we continue to not address these designated, identified brownfield sites. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. This is for any, including yourself, Mayor Robertson. 

We are living in a time of uncertainty. We are not sure where 

the EPA is going, what funding will be available. I am wondering 

how does this uncertainty affect your planning process. Anybody. 

Where are you now hearing about these cuts and not really understanding whether this program will be cut, not cut? 

What is happening in the communities now about planning? 

Anybody want to jump in? 

Mr. ZONE. I would just add, Congressman, the private sector 

wants predictability. You know, the public sector dollars is the 

yeast that raises the dough from the private sector. There is so 

much uncertainty right now that the private sector is, quite frankly, skittish. They want to know if I am going to invest in an area, 

is Government going to be with me and supporting me, and there 

is a lot of uncertainty. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. 

We are going to go to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for your testimony today. 

Mr. Dailey, I have to note at the outset that I am absolutely 

shocked and stunned that you think more funding would be helpful. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KATKO. But I, quite frankly, happen to agree with you. I am 

from the industrial Northeast, and Syracuse has been ravaged by 

loss of industry, but loss of industry also comes brownfields because they are not always the best stewards of the environment 

when they leave, and that is always a problem. 

So I happen to agree with you, and I am proud to say I have 

partnered with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Ms. 

Esty, to present a reauthorization bill that we introduced today 

and we hope to see Congress act on that bill because we truly believe this is a critically important program to revitalize areas. 

There are towns and cities all across my district, Auburn, New 

York; Wolcott; Fulton; Oswego; Syracuse, and others have all benefitted from that program, and the differences have been absolutely 

remarkable. 

It is a critical aid to the redevelopment and the use of blighted 

properties, and I really hope that we can continue robust funding 

of this. 

Now, my colleague, Mr. Ferguson, noted about the complexity of 

the process, and I wanted to dig into that a little bit deeper because that is something I am very interested in. 

Assuming we can be successful, Ms. Esty and myself and others, 

in getting this reauthorization, I want to know how we can make 

30 

it better. It is clear to me from talking to businesses across my district that time and again that overregulation and the labyrinth of 

paperwork and regulatory structures are choking businesses just as 

much as the programs themselves sometimes. 

So if someone can just give me some examples, pick one thing. 

What is one thing we could do to really make this process less complex? 

Let me start with the councilmember from Cleveland because I 

want to go to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and you are making 

me think of it. So we will start with you. 

Mr. ZONE. Well, Congressman, I would love to give you a behind 

the scenes tour. 

Mr. KATKO. Oh, be careful about that because I will take you up 

on it. 

Mr. ZONE. I am going to give you my card at the end of the hearing. 

If I had to give one thing, we have reviewed the summary of your 

bill. Thank you for putting that forward. We would hope that the 

Brownfields reauthorization could include liability protections for 

local governments that take ownership of properties through both 

voluntary and involuntary means. 

The example that I cited about the Trinity Building, what once 

was a public safety hazard, we came in there to remediate the public safety hazard. Now we are left with an environmental hazard 

on our hands. 

So really holding governments harmless who were not the original polluter would be the one thing I would encourage you to include in your bill. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you. 

It is funny you say that. I was just thinking of a property in Syracuse where they were a scrapyard and adjacent on Onondaga 

Lake, and they basically just went out of business, up and left and 

just basically left the keys on the table for the county to mop up. 

And that is the type of thing I am concerned with, and we need 

to do a better job with that. So your point is well taken. 

Anyone else want to chime in? Mr. Bollwage? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Congressman, section 3 of your bill where it 

talks about multipurpose cleanup grants would be extremely important in streamlining the process because it affords a flexibility 

opportunity for not only the developers, but the municipality as 

well. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you. 

Anyone else? Mr. Philips? 

Mr. PHILIPS. On the issue of—— 

Mr. KATKO. I feel like I am in a game show. Whoever presses a 

button first I call on. So this is fun. 

Mr. PHILIPS. On the issue of complexity, I would just note that 

it tells you something when cities that are active in brownfields redevelopment are the ones that have to hire a brownfield coordinator as a full time position in the city or the county. 

I mean, think about that for a moment. A city has to hire a special person just to navigate through the complexities of these different programs, of the grants, of the assessments. 

31 

You know, so there is not enough time to go into the complexities 

in detail now, but I think we were certainly in agreement with the 

premise of your question. 

Mr. KATKO. Well, I encourage after the hearing feel free to submit Ms. Esty and myself or others some of the laundry list of 

things we can do to make it less complex because, you know, we 

are in an era where we are reviewing the overregulation of everything, and this is a good time to have a wish list. 

So I encourage you to have a wish list. Does anyone else want 

to chime in? 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Yes. 

Mr. KATKO. Ms. Robertson. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. I just would like to say along with the things 

that they identified I guess for me and for a lot of us in the local 

communities it would be great if we could expedite. Sometimes the 

time alone just to know if, in fact, you are going to be successful 

in a competitive process. 

We already know that there are way more projects than there is 

money available, but then you have to still wait. So if we had some 

way of knowing a preliminary of whether we are going to get the 

nod or not, we need, yes, it clearly goes without saying. Everybody 

says we need more money, but the other thing I would say, too, is 

it had created kind of an industry niche in Rialto because we have 

95 companies that specialize in hazardous waste cleanup. 

So I don’t know. It spurs growth. It spurs jobs, and it gives us 

an opportunity to have that qualified staff and consultants available and onboard. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you very much. 

I know my time is up, but I encourage all of you to please submit 

some papers on this because they are very helpful, and we will look 

at them. 

We are committed to try and streamline the process. We understand very well how regulations sometimes well intended can end 

up as a whole really choking the process to the point where it is 

not worth it, and that defeats the purpose, and we do not want 

that to happen here. 

Rest assured Ms. Esty, myself and others, we are robust supporters of this program, and we will work hard to keep it. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Katko. 

The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member 

Napolitano, for convening this hearing today on an incredibly important topic, and as you may have gathered, rare in this place 

these days, one of bipartisan support because we know as you indicated, Mr. Bollwage, this is across every single congressional district in America. The low estimate is 400,000. The high estimate 

is 600,000 sites. 

They are gas stations in our rural communities at crossroads. 

They are large industrial sites like the brass centers in Waterbury, 

Connecticut, that I represent, and these are all opportunities as 

well as obligations for us to do better. 

So I wanted to lay out a few things, a bit about the bill that Mr. 

Katko and I are introducing today, get your response, but also to 

32 

have you think about while I am doing that about some of the 

themes that I heard from you: the importance of predictability; the 

importance of de-risking. You did not use that language, but derisking is critically important for liability. The assessment grants 

are about de-risking so that people like Mr. Philips know what they 

are getting into. 

And the importance of saving time which translates to money, 

and so if we are going to leverage those private resources, we have 

to find ways to get determinations, as Mayor Robertson noted. Yes 

or no, let us know so we can move forward. 

And we are all committed to doing that. We have got what we 

think in part, due to many of you and your organizations helped 

us craft this bill over some considerable period of time, but it certainly can be improved, and we look forward to continuing to work 

with you and our colleagues across the aisle to get the right bill 

that can make it through both Houses and get signed by the President, get out there making a difference in our communities. 

So I wanted to talk a little bit about those provisions and lay 

them out. One, it creates multipurpose grants. This is something 

I was just in New Britain, Connecticut. We do not really have 

those. So we have right now our State is doing this, and Connecticut is one of the States doing it, but clearly we have heard 

from everybody this crosses across jurisdiction. 

We need more flexibility, to go to the point. Commissioner 

Dailey, I think you mentioned the point of flexibility. We need flexibility. So that is going to allow characterization, assessment, inventory, planning, remediation with greater certainty over funding 

streams and can flow into the areawide planning revitalization, 

which I know especially, again, can be important when you have 

got properties that cross boundaries. 

It also clarifies and expands eligibility. We have discussed this 

at considerable length. If we are going to have public-private partnerships, there is not enough money in the Treasury to clean up 

every one of these properties so the dirt can be eaten with a spoon. 

That is not the objective. The objective is to try to get them back 

into play to make sense to deal with category 1, Mr. Philips, of the 

worst contaminated sites that are public health hazards. Clean 

those up, and the category 3 things that can get back into productive use. How do we leverage those? How do we move both of those 

categories? 

To encourage those partnerships, our bill expands eligibility for 

brownfields grants to certain nonprofits that have been excluded; 

limited liability corporations; limited partnerships; and community 

development entities. And I can tell you Waterbury, Connecticut, 

where I do a lot of work, this has been a huge stumbling block for 

them. 

They have a redevelopment authority. It is not actually the city 

that wound up with the keys, as Mr. Katko noted. They wind up 

with the keys, and the entity that is empowered to do it actually 

is ineligible for these grants. 

Well, that is clearly wrong, and with your help, hopefully we will 

fix it. 

It also expands to include governments that acquired the 

brownfield sites prior to 2002, and we know those legacy sites. How 

33 

could you possibly have complied with the post-2002 rules pre-2002 

unless you were clairvoyant. You were not able to do that. 

And, third, the bill eliminates eligibility barriers for petroleum 

brownfield sites. We know that in certain communities that has 

been a huge issue. I have got one two blocks from my house which 

we are still waiting to get fixed. 

So we have talked a little bit about expanded liability. Commissioner Dailey, maybe you can talk a little bit about the multipurpose grants and what a difference that might make if we expand, 

as our bill does, to do that. 

Mr. DAILEY. Sure. Again, Congresswoman, it is a wonderful question. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to it. 

I am sure my colleagues will agree with me. Any time that we 

can provide the most flexibility to local governments to make the 

best decisions on behalf of their communities, we are going to be 

moving in the right direction. 

Any time we make assumptions, either nationwide or even within the State, that every community is the same and all community 

needs are the same, I think that we are not moving in the right 

direction. 

So when we look at the multipurpose grants and the flexibility 

within, especially with smaller communities that have limited resources to even begin the process, we need to provide them flexibility, so that when they are in the game and they are moving forward, they have the flexibility to do the best they possibly can for 

their community. 

Ms. ESTY. Mr. Philips, just a quick question as the private-sector 

representative. On this de-risking notion, what are these most important elements, things you like about the bill that we have got 

out there, things that we could maybe improve as we move forward? 

Mr. PHILIPS. Well, first, I would welcome talking to you about 

some details about the bill. 

But I would say that, you know, just in your own State, you 

know, we looked at the Stratford Army Engine Plant, and at the 

time there was no clarity on the cleanup at all. We tried. We 

worked hard. We spent a lot of money. We made a lot of trips. We 

engaged in a lot of officials, and at the end of the day, there were 

multiple entities involved with determining who was responsible 

and how it was going to be cleaned up. 

And we did not even know where to invest dollars, and we ended 

up pulling out. That delayed the process by at least 10 years, at 

least a decade, probably more because it still has not been redeveloped, and they are looking at it now. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. 

I appreciate your indulgence and I will follow up with all of you 

again. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

Next we are going to go to the gentleman from California, Mr. 

LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Panelists, thank you from joining from a wide range of diverse 

places and backgrounds. 

34 

I have a very rural district in far northern California that borders Oregon to the north and just north of Sacramento to the 

south. The largest cities, a couple of them, around 100,000 and 

many of them are at 1,000 or less. 

So we have issues as well with brownfields that over the years 

with industrial use, et cetera. But let me give you an example real 

quickly. There is one city in my district called Yreka, different from 

Eureka on the California flag. Yreka is right near the top, nearly 

the Oregon border. It has just 7,000 residents, but it was able to 

take a $400,000 grant and turn it into many millions in private investments that came in after that grant on former mill sites when 

basically the timber industry had been run out of business by regulations, et cetera. 

So the brownfield activity that came from that conversion has fortunately turned up to a little over $4 million of annual activity, 

and then for a small town, again, like Yreka of about 7,000 people, 

the project created about 100 jobs. So proportionally, that is pretty 

good. OK? Not the biggest maybe across the country, but for a proportion, it is a pretty big hit. 

So I guess for folks on the panel here, maybe I would like to get 

maybe a couple of extreme ends perhaps, Mr. Dailey and Mr. Zone, 

on rural and urban. 

The Federal dollars we put in, does it change a lot based on the 

locality or its size, such as, you know, rural areas like mine? 

Does it require a bigger emphasis on the administrative side, the 

staff side proportionally, but at less cost? Do urban areas have 

more cost? Were they able to spread that over a wider range of 

staff or, you know, internal costs? 

But then, on the other hand, are they able to get more private 

attraction out there because it is a large city? 

Mr. Zone, would you like to go first? Then we will call on Mr. 

Dailey. 

Mr. ZONE. Thank you, Congressman. 

I would answer your question with a question and then just add 

some commentary. 

I mean, if local government does not perform the cleanup, who 

will? 

And you know, in our city we have cleaned up 13 sites. It totaled about 137 acres and invested over $40 million in our city, which 

has created nearly 3,000 jobs. 

We are fortunate. There is our brownfield administrator. We 

have a full-time person. He is now also doing double duties, acting 

as our interim economic development director, but we are fortunate 

and blessed in that respect. 

We are an older, urban legacy city that built America. I mean, 

John D. Rockefeller got his start, Standard Oil, in Cleveland, Ohio, 

and built America, and now we are left with these old legacy sites, 

and we are fortunate to have somebody like David, but on the administrative side, it is very, very heavy. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. 

Mr. DAILEY. Congressman, a wonderful question. Remember that 

a lot of times your county is going to be responsible for the overall 

vision of the community, which is your comprehensive plan, your 

economic development vision. A lot of times it is the county health 

35 

department which is the first line of defense for your health issues 

in our communities. 

We also are the first line of defense for your environmental permitting issues. My point is this: smaller communities have smaller 

staff. Smaller staff are already spread thin under normal responsibilities, and as it was testified earlier before, some communities 

have had to literally put a new staff person in place solely to handle brownfields issues and the county’s relationship with the Federal Government. 

Is it taxing local communities? Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So do you think that is a disproportionate amount 

of staff per benefit because it is a smaller situation at rural or is 

it made up for by how disproportionately positive it could be on 

local employment, et cetera? 

Mr. DAILEY. I think it would be unfair for me to categorize every 

local government as the same, but I will say that obviously the 

smaller the government, the smaller the staff, yes, the more taxing 

it is going to be, which was also addressed earlier on some of the 

service gaps, even before applying for the process, let alone carrying through with the grants themselves. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. Go ahead. 

Mr. PHILIPS. I was just going to add that I think a big piece of 

the answer to your question and probably some other questions 

that are circulating here relates to the kind of zoning and entitlement issues. 

What is going to happen to these sites? That is being controlled 

by the local governments, and you know, in our experience with 

rural and smaller communities, they are much easier to work with, 

overall. 

The urban communities, there is just a tremendous amount of resistance to development. There is a scrutiny associated with every 

decision that is made that takes more time and takes more money. 

Of course, the cruel irony is that there is generally more value— 

intrinsic real estate value—associated with the more urbanized 

areas. So that is the paradox. 

Mr. LAMALFA. It would seem, you know, when you are talking 

about a brownfield in an urban area there would be even more incentive to want to make something flip over to more positive on 

that. 

But my time has expired. So I thank you, panelists, for your comments. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. 

We are going to go to the gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. 

Lawrence. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I want to thank you for this hearing. 

To the Honorable Mayor Bollwage, we were colleagues. He is a 

mayor’s mayor. I am glad to see you and cannot wait to talk about 

our children. 

One of the things I have not heard from a single panelist here 

today was the pushback on what defines property as being contaminated. As we move forward today, conversation is about our 

EPA standards and qualifications. 

36 

Mayor Robertson, you brought up asthma, which we know is directly tied to air quality and contaminants. I want to hear from 

you. 

I was a mayor for 14 years, and the question of if we do not clean 

it up, who will, I represent Detroit. We are the, quote, unquote, 

Comeback City. If we did not have in Michigan over $1 million of 

investment from brownfields, I can tell you that properties and the 

insurgence of development that we are seeing at historic levels 

would not have happened. 

But it happened not only for development purposes. I get that because as a mayor I did not want a site sitting there vacant and, 

you know, undeveloped, but also it gave me that sense of responsibility that I must redevelop with responsibility for health, quality, 

respect of the earth. 

So if you are bold enough, I would like to ask that question. 

And, Mr. Philips, you are the private guy, and so I know you look 

at the dollars and cents, but you know, I had former gas stations 

that closed down. I had dump sites that are sitting there and buildings in Detroit that were almost a century old, and you know the 

quality of the material and asbestos and everything that is in the 

building. 

So would you please talk to me about that? Take a deep breath. 

Mr. PHILIPS. With regard to the question of how to define contamination, well, for us our opportunity is to invest in places where 

we are wanted and invest in places where we think we are solving 

a problem. 

And so in some ways we use the word ‘‘brownfield’’ a little bit 

differently than the EPA has defined it. For us we view brownfield 

as anything where there is a perceived environmental issue from 

historic use or, it is, as people would refer to it in the State or Federal sense, a CERCLA or a Superfund site. Even if it is a heavily 

contaminated site or petroleum site, we view any environmentally 

distressed site, or potentially environmentally distressed site, as a 

brownfield, and we think that those are opportunities. 

So if we are solving a problem for a community, then that is sort 

of how we define the brownfield target. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mayor Bollwage, please comment on this for 

me, please. 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. We as mayors, as you know, Mayor, Congresswoman, we define brownfield site as any site that has basically laid 

fallow for a number of years and unable to generate any tax revenue to our community. 

There are some that are contaminated, and there are some that 

are just not marketable maybe because of location or zoning or 

other issues, but that is within the town’s ability to correct if that 

was the case. 

The brownfield sites with some type of minimal contamination 

will need an assessment grant, will need some type of followup in 

order to make it marketable for a developer. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mayor Robertson? 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Yes, I was sitting here thinking about the same 

thing as well. Sometimes it is very complicated because the land 

lays fallow, but then we also have an absentee landlord, a person 

who is not interested in moving forward, trying to improve that 

37 

property. So we have to spend a lot of energy resources to try and 

either bring that property owner forward to work with us, figure 

out a way that we can mutually do something because in the case 

of our city, Rialto, which is over 100 years old, a lot of land was 

bought by others and they have moved away. Now they are sitting 

back and waiting. They are waiting for the value to go up, and they 

are waiting on it, and they are not in the environment. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Zone? 

Mr. ZONE. Congresswoman, in your hometown, I mean, it took 

skillful coordination between the Federal, State and local governments to clean up and make Detroit the comeback community that 

it is. 

It is not only an economic issue. It is an environmental issue, 

and look at all of those young people in your city who are suffering 

some ill health effects as a result of that. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes. Thank you. 

I just want to make this statement before I close. Michigan, for 

every dollar invested, over $35 was generated in economic development. The brownfields work. I know that my city that I represent 

would not be the Comeback City and have the ability to grow and 

enhance the overall economic GPA of this country without it. 

So thank you so much. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mrs. Lawrence. 

I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I am going to take a little bit of liberty here with my good friend, 

the ranking member. I think that we all agree that some objectives 

like environmental restoration and cleanup are important; that economic development and returning properties to commerce are important; that local revenues and economic activity are important. 

And I think we agree on that. 

I think that the more we can do to eliminate blight is an objective that we share. Obviously, ensuring that we have an efficient 

program and removing bureaucratic hurdles, I think, is important 

to both of us, and I think we both support additional funding for 

this program. 

In moving forward, I look forward to working with you to focus 

on those objectives and a number of others, but I still think we are 

hearing a few things that I would like to understand a little bit 

better. 

Mayor Bollwage, could you talk a little bit about some of your experiences in dealing with brownfield sites prior to the 2001 Act? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before 2001, it was really almost impossible to develop a 

brownfield site. There was very little direction or very little help 

from any other government. 

So in developing the EPA Brownfields Program in the 1990s and 

when the law was passed in 2002, I testified here probably between 

1994 and 2001 at least four or five times. In order to get one done, 

the developer had to take a lot of risk, and I think Jonathan could 

probably speak to some of that risk, but it was mostly based on the 

risk of the developer. 

And those deals were really rare for a lot of communities. Developers would usually just look to the pristine or the green areas, 

38 

and as a result, we had all of these abandoned and underutilized 

property. 

The Jersey Gardens, which started in 1997, was actually started 

based on an EPA assessment grant where we assessed the property 

and we worked with the developer, OENJ Cherokee at the time, in 

order to remediate it and vent the methane gas, which was a 

former landfill that then created the Jersey Gardens project. 

But the developer took a risk, and the quick story is they could 

not get heavy equipment in there. So when the developers came to 

see me in 1993, they said, ‘‘Mayor, we can get heavy equipment in 

there and remediate this 200-acre landfill if you will build a road.’’ 

Now, the road cost the city taxpayers $10 million to build to get 

the heavy equipment in there. So I could see my reelection campaign where the opposition would say mayor builds $10 million 

road to dump and nothing gets done. 

So there was a lot of risk involved, both a trust factor in the developer and the city to build that road and then remediate the 

landfill in order to create what is now a 2-million-square-foot mall 

with 4 hotels and movie theater and 4,000 permanent jobs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mayor. 

I am going to start a new trend. Ms. LeFevre, look. The French 

influence in south Louisiana, the people at home are going to be 

looking at me like, ‘‘What is that guy saying?’’ if I pronounce it the 

other way. Sorry. 

I have two questions for you. Number one, just very quickly, 

roughly what percentage of properties that you deal with that are 

in rural versus urban areas, brownfields specifically? 

Ms. LEFEVRE. I would say probably 25 percent urban and 75 percent rural. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Wow, wow. 

Ms. LEFEVRE. Yes. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. And one other question. It seems like 

in reading some of your testimony some of the specific approaches 

that you have taken in Kentucky to remediate brownfields, to return those properties to commerce seem to be unique and not necessarily Federal centric approaches. 

Do you care to comment about some specific approaches that you 

have taken that you think with perhaps more State-based leadership would have been successful? 

Ms. LEFEVRE. Yes. Like I said, you know, being a mostly rural 

State, we know that, you know, the same person who is your mayor 

might be your wastewater operator, might be your brownfield redeveloper. So we built a very service friendly program with our State. 

You know, we spent a lot of time holding hands, learning what 

our folks need, whether that be visioning workshops and, you 

know, educational workshops and things like that. Those are the 

things you do not initially see in our reports to EPA, but we do a 

lot of that hand-holding work and that support work. 

We actually sort of work as a multipurpose grant from the first 

place. So them saying multipurpose grants, it is a great idea for cities, too, because I mean, that gives you that flexibility, you know. 

39 

And we have developed over time from nonprofits to for profit 

and from assessment to cleanup, different things for different people. 

I just want to emphasize when you talk about liability, one of our 

most successful parts of our program now is our risk management 

program and clarifying that risk. We basically have letters, a program that mirrors Federal bona fide prospective purchaser, and 

you get a letter saying that you are not liable for that contamination, and that has really spurred brownfield redevelopment and 

movement in those areas. 

So over time, we have just sort of paid attention to what our 

folks need, and States need to do that. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

Next is the gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Bustos. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to all of our panelists. I appreciate you guys being 

here. 

My congressional district is in the northwestern part of the State 

of Illinois, and like everybody that I have heard since I have been 

here anyway, they have all spoken about the importance of the 

Brownfields Program. 

We are the world headquarters for John Deere in the town where 

I live called Moline, and literally had it not been for the 

Brownfields Program, what is now a beautiful Mississippi riverfront civic center, which had been an old, closed down factory, 

never would have happened. 

I live right along the Mississippi River. So when I walk down 

along our bike path and head to our downtown area, I mean, it is 

just virtually all a result of what has happened with the 

Brownfields Program. 

So I think we have all seen the value of that. What I would like 

to start out with is a question for Commissioner Dailey. You mentioned the role of brownfields in creating jobs. Part of the 

Brownfields Program is a job training grant program. 

In your experience, are environmental technicians in high demand in areas with brownfield projects? If you could address that 

please. 

Mr. DAILEY. One more time. I am sorry. Could you repeat the 

question one more time? 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Sure, sure. Part of the Brownfields Program is a 

job training grant program. In your experience are the environmental technicians in high demand in areas with brownfields 

projects? 

Mr. DAILEY. I would answer yes, absolutely, and we have got 

some pretty interesting examples, not just from private industry, 

but as I referenced in my written testimony, King County, in 

Washington State, had a diversion training program for those that 

were coming out of incarceration. The county trained them to work 

at these sites. 

So we are getting creative with job creation specifically not only 

working with the private industry, but also using some of the resources that we have as well. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. And, Mr. Philips, do you have anything to add to 

that since you are more in the private end of things? 

40 

Mr. PHILIPS. I would agree that environmental technicians are in 

high demand and there are large companies out there that we have 

hired a lot of their services to provide technical and remediation 

support for the cleanups. 

You know, you can analogize it to, you know, when you spot 

some mildew in your house from a ventilation fan maybe not keeping up with your shower exhaust and your steam. You can hire 

somebody who can clean it up pretty quickly with some bleach or 

you can hire a certified company to cordon off the place and perform a fumigation, you know, all kinds of remediation. The differences in cost are, you know, orders of magnitude. 

And I see there is sort of an analogy here with brownfield cleanup, too, and that may be getting us a little bit off course for what 

you guys were trying to look at right now for this hearing, but I 

think that relates to the technician question. Where do we need to 

focus? Where is the expertise really needed, and how can we do 

that more inexpensively? 

Mrs. BUSTOS. All right. Thank you. 

Mayor Robertson, in your experience how has the Brownfields 

Program interfaced with other community redevelopment programs, such as the Rails to Trails or transit programs in your city? 

We have seen some of that in, again, the community where I live. 

And could the Federal Government do more to encourage the selection of projects that incorporate multiple redevelopment design 

elements? 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Yes, absolutely, and thank you for pointing that 

out because in addition to just taking the land and creating economic opportunities, there is an opportunity to take some of this 

land and create open space, create active transportation opportunities. People can do walking and biking, and so that is what the 

Rails to Trails Program has done, and I am hoping that we can 

continue it. 

I would like to just add one other item on the workforce thing, 

which is just to say that one thing that I think we are missing here 

on the workforce development and training that is available for 

EPA is an opportunity for those skill sets to bridge into other environmental areas. 

And so I just wanted to point that out because we have used the 

training program in the Superfund site, and we have been able to 

employ, but the training program that the Brownfields Program 

has, they have had a much higher success rate in terms of placement, and those skills are transferrable into other areas, such as 

water treatment, wastewater treatment. 

And so we have lost sight of an opportunity where people can, 

regardless of where they are coming from, begin to deal with getting skills that can be transferrable in an area we are going to continue to be in, and that is the environment. 

So I just wanted to say that. I am sorry, but speaking to the 

Rails to Trails and all of our open spaces, even within our commercial areas we are finding better ways to incorporate the open space, 

the Rails to Trails, but areas where people can find solace. That 

is the best way to put it. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Thank you, Mayor Robertson. 

And my time has expired. I yield back. 

41 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

Next we are going to go to my friend from Florida, the cowgirl 

from Florida, Ms. Wilson. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you so much, Chairman Graves and Ranking 

Member Napolitano, for holding today’s hearing. 

The Brownfields Program is a proven catalyst for redevelopment 

and revitalization that is truly, truly needed. In fact, when I served 

as the principal of Skyway Elementary School, I fought to prevent 

the creation which could ultimately become a brownfield across the 

street from the school where a composting plant had been built. 

The facility was polluting the neighborhood and eroding the children’s ability to focus and learn. 

My students and I mobilized the community and lobbied school board and government officials until the $27 million plant was shut 

down just 2 years after it had opened its doors. It was quite a victory. 

But there are remarkable brownfield success stories in the heart 

of my congressional district. Thanks, in part, to the Brownfields 

Program, a former railyard that was contaminated with lead, arsenic, and petroleum was transformed into Midtown Miami, a $1.2 

billion mixed-use development that supports nearly 2,000 jobs. 

This project garnered national praise, including the prestigious 

2009 EPA Phoenix Award. 

While I am very proud of the Midtown Miami success story, I remain extremely concerned about the brownfield sites in my district 

and across the Nation that have yet to be remediated. Due to the 

current fiscal limitations and recent proposals by the current administration to eliminate the program, I am very worried about the 

future of the program. 

With every Member of Congress having at least one brownfield 

site in their district and the broad bipartisan support, I am looking 

forward to working with my colleagues on this committee to reauthorize and strengthen this critical program. 

And thanks to the panel for coming today. I appreciate your testimony and I have learned a lot from just listening to you and your 

responses. 

I have a question for all of you. We have heard multiple times 

today that for every $1 spent through the Brownfields Program 

$17.50 is generated in economic return. Can you describe for us 

how this economic return is generated? What does this look like on 

the ground in the community that has received the brownfields 

grant? 

First come, first serve. 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. 

I can only tell you that when we built the Jersey Gardens Mall 

and I went out there one day and saw some of the young people 

that were working there or a senior citizen and they would come 

up and they would say, ‘‘Mayor, I want to thank you because this 

job opportunity gave me the ability to help my granddaughter go 

to college,’’ or if it was a high school student, it gave that high 

school student the ability to save money in order to get enough to 

go into college. 

So the glee on someone’s face when they have a job because of 

the work of the city government and a developer is second to none, 

42 

and that is how I can tell you that you feel the effect of the 

Brownfields Program when somebody says, ‘‘Thank you.’’ 

Ms. WILSON. Honorable Dailey? 

Mr. DAILEY. Congresswoman, it is great to see you, and I have 

enjoyed working with you when you were at the State level as well. 

I know you are very familiar with Tallahassee from your great 

service in the State of Florida, and next time you are in town, I 

would love to take you out on a stroll down Gaines Street. 

Ms. WILSON. OK. 

Mr. DAILEY. When I testified earlier about it, the whole redevelopment, which I know you are very familiar with, the old industrial 

side of Tallahassee which now has 3,000 new residents, over $130 

million of economic vitality with hotels and pubs and restaurants 

and our local incubator program. I think you will be absolutely 

amazed, and I think it will bring it home because you know and 

are familiar with this area that this is a great project to stand up 

and say, ‘‘Job well done. We worked together in partnership.’’ 

Ms. WILSON. Honorable Zone. 

Mr. ZONE. Thank you, Madam Congresswoman. 

In my district, there is an old abandoned battery factory. It is 

called the Energizer Factory. It was owned by the Energizer Company. We were able to use some assessment dollars to do an analysis of that land. 

Today on this 14-acre site, we are in the midst of a $150 million 

housing redevelopment project. So that initial small, little investment of assessment dollars has leveraged the private sector investing nearly $150 million in repurposing land, along the rail spur, 

right along Lake Erie, next to our fresh drinking water source. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Yes, Member, if I could just chime in and add 

as well that on one of our remedial grants that we used to clean 

up, it was $136,000 that was used to clean up a site. That site now 

is a site that is going to be home to a fire station, a $9 million fire 

station, also with housing and commercial. We are anticipating there will be about $15 to $20 million in a 

retail center and economic benefit and over 1,500 jobs. 

And then back to Member Bustos’ point about the Rails to Trails, 

this is another area where we are not necessarily looking at the 

economic benefit, but we are looking at the trail and the cleanup 

there has caused us to have a connection with six communities 

along a corridor that has brought us all the way from the Los Angeles County line well into San Bernardino County line. 

So there are also economic benefits, and then there are quality 

of life benefits. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. I appreciate the gentlewoman from Florida. 

Next we are going to go to the vice chair of this subcommittee. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mast. 

Mr. MAST. Thank you, Chairman. 

You know, I actually just recently used Florida’s Department of 

Environmental Protection for Brownfields GeoViewer and to explore some of the brownfield sites in my congressional district. 

There were not very many, only a handful, but I am very thankful 

that that kind of technology exists. I think everybody up here 

43 

should have the opportunity to view that and see that, and hopefully I think we all want to see the number of these actually drop 

down to zero. 

Now, from what I have heard, this program is a pretty fine example of the way Federal Government programs ought to work. I 

think they should probably be mirrored. You know, the Federal 

Government should not necessarily be involved in doing everything 

at the State and local level that they can handle on their own down 

there, but you know, provide support where need be, you know, 

and even in circumstances where the Federal Government may get 

involved should probably be very careful not to sideline State and 

local partners, you know, really allow the State and the locality to 

take full ownership of the problems that are faced that were developed in those areas, and I think unfortunately that is where Washington gets into trouble, is when Washington takes full ownership 

of these programs. 

So in that, Mr. Dailey, I would like to ask you a question if you 

do not mind. You know, when it comes to what they did in Leon 

County with the Cascades Park, I think it is interesting to turn the 

brownfields into public parks. I think that is certainly one of the 

decent ideas that is out there and also have it function as a 

stormwater management area. That is a good marrying of what 

you can do in there. 

My community is pretty conscientious of pollutants entering into 

our waterway. We have water from Lake Okeechobee that comes 

into the Indian River Lagoon in my area, and so we are pretty in 

tune with that. 

So I am interested to know from you what kind of monitoring, 

what kind of assessment has been done after the cleanup to essentially ensure that there was not anything leaching out and things 

were not washing downstream, what goes on after, and then maybe 

even follow up beyond that and state has the EPA been of good assistance in providing technical support after everything has been 

said and done, or are you getting that support downstream that 

you need? 

Mr. DAILEY. Congressman, first of all, thank you for the question 

and the opportunity to respond. 

I can tell you when it comes to Cascades Park, and you being a 

Floridian understand the importance of Cascades Park to our history where St. Augustine and Pensacola met halfway to form the 

government of the State of Florida, it has always been very important to us. 

But obviously, over the years we did not necessarily take enough 

care of it on the local level and had to move forward with the redevelopment of it. 

I can tell you that I will need to follow up with the specific details on the environmental remediation and continue monitoring. 

However, I can tell you that it is a national award winning park 

and stormwater facility, not only based on the design in the flow 

of the work, but also based on our environmental record as well for 

maintaining that facility and being able to move forward. 

But you are absolutely correct that first and foremost it is a nationally award winning stormwater facility. When the hurricane 

came through Tallahassee back in September, knock on wood, it 

44 

worked beautifully. It is built to flood and then draw down immediately. It just also happens to be a beautiful park. 

I will be more than happy to follow up with your office with the 

intimate details, but, yes, as far as I know, we have not had any 

problems with the EPA in partnership with the monitoring moving 

forward. They have been good partners for us. 

Mr. MAST. That would be outstanding, yes, if you could certainly 

get back to me or this committee and let us know, you know, what 

is being done going forward. If there is further support needed or 

something that needs to be addressed to ensure that this continues 

to be sustainable in that way, I hope you will let us know. 

And I yield back, Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

I am going to go the second round. Mrs. Napolitano, ranking 

member. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Very quickly, I just want to take one last 

swipe at this. 

In the last Congress, this subcommittee held a similar hearing 

for the reauthorization of Brownfields Program. There were questions on the potential Superfund liability for local governments 

that acquire brownfields property that were also raised. 

In response to the question, for the record, EPA testified that 

section 101(20)(d) of Superfund law provides a specific statutory exemption for properties involuntarily acquired by local governments 

through bankruptcy, tax delinquency, abandonment or other circumstances in which the government involuntarily acquires title by 

virtue of its function as a sovereign. 

I ask unanimous consent that the four different documents on 

EPA, CERCLA liability and local government acquisition and other 

activities, be made part of the record. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Without objection. 

[Three of the four documents can be found on pages 118–141. The 74-page ‘‘FY17 

Guidelines for Brownfields Assessment Grants’’ published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can be found online at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/epa-olem-oblr-16-08.pdf, as noted in the table of contents.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There you go. 

For properties that are acquired by local government voluntarily, 

the Superfund law treats these parties the same as any other bona 

fide prospective purchaser and requires the same level of due care 

with respect to hazardous substances at the property. 

Since the statute seems pretty clear on this and provides a pathway for local governments to redevelop properties acquired both 

voluntarily and involuntarily, how would you have the proposed 

changes for municipal liability differ? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Congresswoman, on those exemptions there is 

eminent domain and tax liens. The exemptions are not covered. So 

if we are going to change it, we would want to make sure that municipalities and/or counties that go through an eminent domain 

process or acquire the property through tax liens, that the exemption is in place. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? 

45 

Mr. ZONE. I would just add that, you know, a lot of the properties 

that my colleagues around this country have acquired through involuntary actions have become voluntary. Working with the State 

EPA and the Federal EPA saying this has become a hazard on our 

community and we need to step in to remediate it, working every 

step of the way, having that indemnification and working with the 

Environmental Protection Agency to support that local government 

would be highly important. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That is it. 

Well, then if it is voluntary, would there be a different way of 

looking at it? 

Mr. ZONE. Well, I would just say, Congresswoman Napolitano, 

even properties that we acquire through tax delinquencies, one of 

the examples that has been often cited in the law and often presumed to be protected may not necessarily be exempt if local governments took it affirmatively or voluntarily through that tax delinquency process. That is always a risk to local government, and 

one of the reasons or the impediment to cleaning up that property 

as well. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. All right. Well, the EPA guidance includes a 

third party lender liability and the low-risk petroleum sites. So 

that would be part of the record to show that this is covered. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

I just wanted two issues to try and finish up here. Number one, 

Councilmember Zone and a few others have talked about helping 

to address liability issues for local and State governments and 

whether it be through voluntary or involuntary acquisition. 

I just want to get your thoughts, Councilmember Zone, on, I 

guess, relegating that liability protection to public entities or 

should that also carry over to private entities that choose to come 

participate and clean up, but perhaps had nothing to do with the 

actual contamination. These are folks who, again, have chosen to 

come in and help clean up blighted properties or try and recondition these properties back to economy development. 

Mr. ZONE. Often remediating a brownfield there is usually a private-sector developer that is waiting to partner with that local government and come in and do that. 

It is risky. We do not want to. When I say ‘‘we’’ collectively, on 

behalf of cities, we were not necessarily the original polluters of 

that property, and letting that sit fallow, as the mayor has said 

several times here, presents a challenge. 

We need to create the conditions to allow the private sector to 

come in. I am certainly open to having the expansion to privatesector developers, working closely with our State EPAs to make 

sure that all the rules are regulations are complied with. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

Other folks care to comment on that? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. He said it best. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

Next, Mr. Philips, I am very curious. Ranking Member 

Napolitano and myself, we have talked about concerns expressed 

with decreased public resources available for investment into 

46 

brownfield properties, and we talk about some of the objectives 

that I think we share. 

You talked about a model whereby some properties are actually 

ripe for private investment. Could you just talk perhaps about 

some of the characteristics, number one? 

Number two, just based upon your personal experiences, what 

percentage of properties perhaps do you think are actually ripe for 

private investment? 

And I understand in your testimony you cite the downturn in the 

economy and economic activity, real estate activity, back in the 

2008–2009 timeframe, but I am just curious if you could talk a little bit on that and basically just the role you see the public sector 

playing versus the private sector in some of this redevelopment. 

Mr. PHILIPS. Sure. I think the answer to the question as to how 

many sites are ripe for redevelopment without much public involvement, at least without public resources, is one that fluctuates 

greatly depending upon the local, and even national, real estate 

markets. 

And, I think one of the things we talk about is public resources. 

You know, for us, one of the biggest, most important elements of 

a transaction, particularly the larger transactions, is not necessarily the cleanup assistance specifically, but is more associated 

with maybe a tax increment financing associated with the future 

activities that are going to happen on that site. And, if people can 

buy into what is going to happen there and the tax revenues that 

are going to be generated from that activity, then the markets can 

say, ‘‘We are going to float a bond,’’ and then the bond can help 

front end some of that more costly remediation associated with that 

site. 

A similar example might be the entitlements that I had mentioned earlier, particularly in urban areas. You can take a city like 

Portland, Oregon, with an urban growth boundary. I mean, there 

are very constricted views as to what can be done on those sites, 

and maybe brownfields should receive special considerations, essentially, in exchange for a certain amount of cleanup and/or for a certain amount of extra entitlements. That is something that we look 

at quite a bit. 

Another piece is taxation. Institutional investors, at least a big 

pool of them, are not-for-profit. Essentially, they are structured 

such that they are only subject to unrelated business income taxation. 

And there is a piece of legislation that I mentioned that also exempts for qualified brownfield redevelopments the gain on those 

developments from incurring unrelated business income tax. Something, perhaps, could be offered for the taxable entity, as well. For 

the unrelated business income tax, that was sort of the low-hanging fruit, and what that is what we targeted then. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, thank you. 

If there are no further questions, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. I appreciate all of your testimony. This 

has been very informative and helpful, and I just want to reiterate 

that there may be additional questions submitted to you for response in writing for the record for the hearing. 

47 

And if no one has anything else to add, then the hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

48 


Insert offset folio 10 here 24789.010
49 


Insert offset folio 11 here 24789.011
50 


Insert offset folio 12 here 24789.012
51 


Insert offset folio 13 here 24789.013
52 


Insert offset folio 14 here 24789.014
53 


Insert offset folio 15 here 24789.015
54 


Insert offset folio 16 here 24789.016
55 


Insert offset folio 17 here 24789.017
56 


Insert offset folio 18 here 24789.018
57 


Insert offset folio 19 here 24789.019
58 


Insert offset folio 20 here 24789.020
59 


Insert offset folio 21 here 24789.021
60 


Insert offset folio 22 here 24789.022
61 


Insert offset folio 23 here 24789.023
62 


Insert offset folio 24 here 24789.024
63 


Insert offset folio 25 here 24789.025
64 


Insert offset folio 26 here 24789.026
65 


Insert offset folio 27 here 24789.027
66 


Insert offset folio 28 here 24789.028
67 


Insert offset folio 29 here 24789.029
68 


Insert offset folio 30 here 24789.030
69 


Insert offset folio 31 here 24789.031
70 


Insert offset folio 32 here 24789.032
71 


Insert offset folio 33 here 24789.033
72 


Insert offset folio 34 here 24789.034
73 


Insert offset folio 35 here 24789.035
74 


Insert offset folio 36 here 24789.036
75 


Insert offset folio 37 here 24789.037
76 


Insert offset folio 38 here 24789.038
77 


Insert offset folio 39 here 24789.039
78 


Insert offset folio 40 here 24789.040
79 


Insert offset folio 41 here 24789.041
80 


Insert offset folio 42 here 24789.042
81 


Insert offset folio 43 here 24789.043
82 


Insert offset folio 44 here 24789.044
83 


Insert offset folio 45 here 24789.045
84 


Insert offset folio 46 here 24789.046
85 


Insert offset folio 47 here 24789.047
86 


Insert offset folio 48 here 24789.048
87 


Insert offset folio 49 here 24789.049
88 


Insert offset folio 50 here 24789.050
89 


Insert offset folio 51 here 24789.051
90 


Insert offset folio 52 here 24789.052
91 


Insert offset folio 53 here 24789.053
92 


Insert offset folio 54 here 24789.054
93 


Insert offset folio 55 here 24789.055
94 


Insert offset folio 56 here 24789.056
95 


Insert offset folio 57 here 24789.057
96 


Insert offset folio 58 here 24789.058
97 


Insert offset folio 59 here 24789.059
98 


Insert offset folio 60 here 24789.060
99 


Insert offset folio 61 here 24789.061
100 


Insert offset folio 62 here 24789.062
101 


Insert offset folio 63 here 24789.063
102 


Insert offset folio 64 here 24789.064
103 


Insert offset folio 65 here 24789.065
104 


Insert offset folio 66 here 24789.066
105 


Insert offset folio 67 here 24789.067
106 


Insert offset folio 68 here 24789.068
107 


Insert offset folio 69 here 24789.069
108 


Insert offset folio 70 here 24789.070
109 


Insert offset folio 71 here 24789.071
110 


Insert offset folio 72 here 24789.072
111 


Insert offset folio 73 here 24789.073
112 


Insert offset folio 74 here 24789.074
113 


Insert offset folio 75 here 24789.075
114 


Insert offset folio 76 here 24789.076
115 


Insert offset folio 77 here 24789.077
116 


Insert offset folio 78 here 24789.078
117 


Insert offset folio 79 here 24789.079
118 


Insert offset folio 80 here 24789.080
119 


Insert offset folio 81 here 24789.081
120 


Insert offset folio 82 here 24789.082
121 


Insert offset folio 83 here 24789.083
122 


Insert offset folio 84 here 24789.084
123 


Insert offset folio 85 here 24789.085
124 


Insert offset folio 86 here 24789.086
125 


Insert offset folio 87 here 24789.087
126 


Insert offset folio 88 here 24789.088
127 


Insert offset folio 89 here 24789.089
128 


Insert offset folio 90 here 24789.090
129 


Insert offset folio 91 here 24789.091
130 


Insert offset folio 92 here 24789.092
131 


Insert offset folio 93 here 24789.093
132 


Insert offset folio 94 here 24789.094
133 


Insert offset folio 95 here 24789.095
134 


Insert offset folio 96 here 24789.096
135 


Insert offset folio 97 here 24789.097
136 


Insert offset folio 98 here 24789.098
137 


Insert offset folio 99 here 24789.099
138 


Insert offset folio 100 here 24789.100
139 


Insert offset folio 101 here 24789.101
140 


Insert offset folio 102 here 24789.102
141 


Insert offset folio 103 here 24789.103
142 


Insert offset folio 104 here 24789.104
143 


Insert offset folio 105 here 24789.105
144 


Insert offset folio 106 here 24789.106
145 


Insert offset folio 107 here 24789.107
146 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 108 here 24789.108