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

96–017 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–722 

CLEANING UP AND RESTORING COMMUNITIES 

FOR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 24, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 24, 2013 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 1 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ..................................... 2 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii .......................... 5 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 8 

WITNESSES 

Stanislaus, Mathy, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response ................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

O’Malley, Debbie, Commissioner, Bernalillo County Commission, New Mexico 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Kenyon, Kendra, President, Idaho Council of Governments ................................ 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Anderson, Geoff, President and CEO, Smart Growth America ........................... 61 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

(1) 

CLEANING UP AND RESTORING COMMUNITIES FOR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS

AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m. in 

room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Udall (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Udall, Crapo, and Hirono. 

Also present: Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. The Subcommittee will come to order. We welcome you to today’s meeting of the Subcommittee on Superfund, 

Toxics and Environmental Health. We are going to start off to just 

keep it rolling here. Senator Crapo will be here, I think, momentarily and then we will get into his opening also. 

First, I would like to thank and welcome the witnesses who came 

to share their stories and provide their input on EPA’s successful 

Brownfields Program. We are pleased to have the chief EPA official 

overseeing the Brownfields Program with us today, Mr. Mathy 

Stanislaus. 

I would also like to extend a warm New Mexico welcome to 

Bernalillo County Commissioner Debbie O’Malley who has experience in redevelopment in brownfields in both the public and the 

private sectors. 

Congress established the brownfields to provide financial incentives to clean up the thousands of brownfields sites throughout 

America. Since 2006, EPA has enrolled 42,000 properties, completed more than 68,800 cleanups and made over 644,000 acres 

ready for development. 

These sites are underutilized areas that have been contaminated 

by environmental pollutants. They are often areas that no community, business or industry would develop because of environmental 

concerns or even just the perception of an environmental concern. 

They are, therefore, wasted space. 

Without this type of assistance, many communities would be 

forced to rely entirely on their own public resources for cleanup, 

often when the previous occupant who contaminated the property 
2 

is gone. Redevelopment of brownfields sites ultimately spearheads 

community revitalization and economic development. 

In New Mexico, we have had success in turning brownfields sites 

around. The historic Santa Fe Rail Yard was once a vibrant part 

of the community prior to World War II. It became a blighted area 

following suburban expansion and the opening of the interstate 

system. The area remained polluted and essentially vacant for decades. 

With the help of the city of Santa Fe and money from the 

Brownfields Program, the rail yard has become a vibrant mixed use 

development with art galleries, museums, a farmers market, retail 

shops and office space. It is now an important contributor to Santa 

Fe’s economy. 

Another example, the historic La Posada Hotel, was once the 

tallest building in Albuquerque and the first with air conditioning 

in New Mexico. The hotel fell into disrepair until it was ultimately 

auctioned in 2005. After that, it went through a costly renovation. 

The new owners utilized brownfields loans to remove lead-based 

paint and asbestos. The hotel has reopened as the Hotel Andaluz 

and is the first LEED gold certified hotel in New Mexico, another 

great turnaround story. 

One more example is the iconic Route 66. This highway was an 

important pathway for migration to the West, particularly in the 

1930s. When Route 66 was bypassed by the interstate system, 

many of the service stations and old motels along the route became 

dormant. The underground fuel tanks leaked, causing contamination. 

Brownfields grants have been used to clean up this contamination and a variety of mixed use redevelopment has occurred. Route 

66 economic revitalization can give an economic boost to New Mexico’s tourism economy. It is a great route to travel with families and 

to learn history. 

Just yesterday, the EPA awarded the State of New Mexico an- other $350,000 for supplemental brownfields funding. I am optimistic that we will see future success stories if we keep this program strong. 

Earlier this year, Senator Crapo and I joined Senator Inhofe and 

the late Senator Lautenberg to introduce the BUILD Act, which 

stands for the Brownfields Utilization Investment and Local Development Act. This bill would increase the limit for cleanup grants 

and expand eligibility for certain public-owned sites and nonprofit 

organizations. Additionally, the BUILD Act would reauthorize the 

program through fiscal year 2016. 

I am proud to announce today that we have several new co-sponsors, including Senators Merkley, Senator Shoots and we also have 

Senator Whitehouse, Senator Hirono, Senator Merkley, Senator 

Brown. So, we have got a good group there. 

And I now recognize Senator Crapo for any remarks that would 

like to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and before 

I make my remarks I ask unanimous consent that photos of some 
3 

brownfields sites in Idaho that we have be entered into the record 

and be in order for review during this hearing. 

Senator UDALL. Without objection. And I would also, there are 

photos with Commissioner O’Malley which are of the same character and part of her testimony and I would ask unanimous that 

they be put into the record. Without objection. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I appreciate Chairman Udall for your holding this hearing for EPA’s 

Brownfields Program. 

There have been a lot of fights in Congress over the past few 

months and frankly over the past few years over what the role of 

the EPA should be, how it goes about fulfilling its responsibilities 

and so on. And in fact, the EPA seems to be the one agency that 

Idahoans raise the most concerns about with me when they call or 

write or visit. However, the Brownfields Program has been a very 

bright exception to that rule. 

The EPA initiated the Brownfields Program in 1993 to assist 

communities with the cleanup of low-risk sites that were not considered hazardous but in which cleanup was nonetheless needed in 

order to encourage economic development. Now, 20 years into the 

program’s tenure, this is an ideal time to evaluate its track record 

thus far and look at ways to continue improving it. And what better way to do that than to hear from someone who runs a 

Brownfields Program. 

On that note, I would like to welcome Dr. Kendra Kenyon who 

will testify as part of today’s panel. Dr. Kenyon is responsible for 

overseeing all aspects of the Idaho Council of Governments serving 

10 counties and 42 cities in Southwest Idaho. The council is the 

umbrella organization for the following Federal and State agencies: 

the Area Agency on Aging, Economic Development District, Regional Planning Agency, the EDA-RDA Brownfields Revolving Loan 

Funds and the Idaho Hunger Task Force. 

Kendra has over 20 years of experience working with government 

agencies and has been involved with domestic and foreign policymakers as an active member of an international conflict management team working with members of Parliament and the former 

Soviet Union and Northern Ireland and heads of state in Cyprus. 

Dr. Kenyon holds a Ph.D. specializing in Organizational and 

Leadership Development, a Master’s in Psychological Counseling 

and a Bachelor’s Degree in Communications. Kendra’s academic research has been used in a Harvard study and her work has been 

published in a number of professional journals. 

Dr. Kenyon has been nominated for many awards including Senior Fulbright Award, Ambassador Rotarian Award, and she was selected for the Who’s Who of American Women in 2000. As her visual aids will attest to, Kendra is an avid outdoorswoman, enjoying 

whitewater rafting, fishing, reading and international travel. 

In her testimony, Dr. Kenyon will discuss the success that we in 

Idaho have had with our Brownfields Program and will also discuss 

the critical partnership between the Federal, State and local governments that must exist for the program to be successful. 

Thank you, Dr. Kenyon, for being here today. 

I think the Subcommittee will find particularly interesting Idaho’s perspective on the challenges for small rural communities fac-
4 

ing not only the gargantuan paperwork requirements that can accompany Federal programs but also the challenges of competing 

with non-rural communities for Federal funding which generally 

have more resources to work with. This is a reality that often goes 

unnoticed, and I am glad that Dr. Kenyon is going to speak to that 

in her testimony. 

To briefly note how important the Brownfields Program is for 

Idaho, I would like to provide an example of the good work the program is doing there. 

For years, the Linen Building at the northwest corner of 14th 

and Grove Streets in Boise was vacant due to concerns about contamination stemming from its historic uses involving commercial 

laundry fuel storage and cleaning solvent storage. This historic 

property in the heart of Boise’s downtown was cleaned up, redeveloped and now houses businesses, an event center, an art gallery 

and a parking area. 

The Environmental Council of the States reported that development of the Linen Building led to the purchase and development 

of more than 60 percent of the buildings, most of which were formerly vacant, in this area, and the formation of a six-block Linen 

District. 

There are currently 224 brownfields eligible sites in Idaho alone. 

The Brownfields Program is an example of a program that EPA administers that increases economic activity while bettering the environment. Successful brownfields projects are truly win-win for the 

economy and the environment. 

Since the program began, the Brownfields Program has been 

credited with assessing more than 20,000 properties and creating 

more than 86,000 jobs nationwide. That is why I join with the late 

Senator Frank Lautenberg and with Senator Jim Inhofe and our 

Chairman today, Tom Udall, in introducing bipartisan legislation 

to modernize and improve key elements of the EPA’s Brownfields 

Program. 

As the Chairman already mentioned, the Brownfields Utilization 

Investment and Local Development Act, or the BUILD Act, would 

improve the existing grant process by increasing the limit for cleanup grants and expanding grant eligibility for certain publicly 

owned sites and nonprofit organizations. 

The bill would authorize the EPA to make multipurpose grants 

which provide more certainty for long-term financing. In addition, 

the legislation identifies opportunities for waterfront properties and 

brownfields sites appropriate for clean energy development, allows 

grand recipients to collect administrative costs and provides technical assistance to small, rural and disadvantaged communities. Finally, the bill would reauthorize the program at current levels 

through fiscal year 2106. 

Thank you again very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Crapo. 

Senator Hirono, you are recognized for your opening. 
5 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MAZIE K. HIRONO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you very much, Chairman Udall and 

Ranking Member Crapo, for scheduling today’s hearing. 

The Brownfields Program definitely does have bipartisan support, not only the existing program but amendments to improve the 

program. That is really good news. 

Each of comes from a State with unique and beautiful natural resources, rivers, forests, mountains, the ocean. These features have 

served as the foundation of our economies and shaped the different 

histories of our communities. Part of that history is the story of 

how our predecessors made use of the land to support their livelihoods and prosper. In a perfect world, industrial activity would balance perfectly with the need to conserve and protect these treasures for future generations. As we all know, that has not always 

been the case. 

However, as Americans we believe in second chances and renewal. Those are critical themes in our economic history for both 

individuals and communities. That is what makes a program like 

the EPA’s Brownfields Program so important. It affords us the opportunity to restore contaminated lands and create new opportunities for sustainable economic growth. 

Like many States across the Country, Hawaii has made use of 

brownfields funds to clean up and redevelop valuable land across 

the State. Examples. Brownfields funds have supported the development of the University of Hawaii’s Medical School Campus and 

the Kakaako Waterfront Park in Honolulu, a park that is used by 

hundreds and hundreds of people. 

More recently, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands received a $200,000 brownfields grant to remediate the site of a 2,000 

household development for Native Hawaiians in Kapolei, Oahu. 

And of course, Hawaii is a place where we certainly need to create 

affordable housing. 

These projects not only improve our environment but also serve 

as a boon to our local economy. According to the Hawaii State 

Planning Office, it is estimated that every $1 of Federal funds invested in brownfields redevelopment leverage to $18 in total investment. And redeveloping one acre of contaminated land creates an 

average of 10 jobs. 

In Hawaii it is clear. The Brownfields Program is good for our 

environment, good for our communities and good for our economy. 

In these difficult budgetary times, we should be looking to bolster 

programs that meet so many key objectives. That is why I am 

proud to be a sponsor of the BUILD Act that the Chairman referred to. This Act would make multiple improvements to the 

Brownfields Program by expanding grant eligibility, increasing 

grant limits and other positive changes. 

The Hawaii State Planning Office wrote me in support of the 

BUILD Act and I ask unanimous consent that their letter be included in today’s hearing record. 

Senator UDALL. Without objection. 

Senator HIRONO. I thank the Chair and Ranking Member again 

for holding this hearing. 

[The referenced letter follows:] 
6 
7 
8 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hirono follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Crapo, thank you for scheduling today’s hearing. 

Each of us comes from a State with unique and beautiful natural resources. Rivers, forests, valleys, mountains, the ocean—these features have served as the foundation of our economies and shaped the different histories of our communities. 

Part of that history is the story of how our predecessors made use of the land to 

support their livelihoods and prosper. 

In a perfect world, industrial activity would balance perfectly with the need to 

conserve and protect these treasures for future generations. As we all know, that 

has not always been the case. 

However, as Americans we believe in second chances and renewal—those are critical themes in our economic history for both individuals and communities. 

That is what makes a program like the EPA’s Brownfield program so important. 

It affords us the opportunity to restore contaminated lands and create new opportunities for sustainable economic growth. 

Like many States across the country, Hawaii has made use of Brownfield funds 

to clean up and redevelop valuable land across the State. Brownfield funds have 

supported the development of the University of Hawaii’s medical school campus and 

the Kakaako Waterfront Park in Honolulu. 

More recently, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands received a $200,000 

Brownfield grant to remediate the site of a 2,000 household development for Native 

Hawaiians in Kapolei, Oahu. 

These projects not only improve our environment, but also serve as a boon to our 

local economy. According to the Hawaii State Planning Office, it is estimated every 

$1 of Federal funds invested in brownfield redevelopment leverages $18 in total investment, and redeveloping one acre of contaminated land creates an average of 10 

jobs. In Hawaii it is clear—the Brownfield program is good for our environment, 

good for our communities, and good for our economy. 

In these difficult budgetary times we should be looking to bolster programs that 

meet so many key objectives. 

That is why I am proud to become a cosponsor of the BUILD Act. The BUILD 

Act would make multiple improvements to the Brownfield program by expanding 

grant eligibility, increasing grant limits, and other changes. The Hawaii State Planning Office wrote me in support of the BUILD Act and I ask unanimous consent 

that their letter be included in today’s hearing record. 

I thank the Chair and Ranking Member for holding this hearing, and I look forward to working with all of you to advance this bill. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman, and I want to 

thank both you and the Ranking Member for your leadership on 

the BUILD Act issue. This is indeed a place where we can come 

together because this has been such a successful program. 

For every dollar of Federal funds invested in brownfields redevelopment it has leveraged an average of $18 dollars in total investment. That helps increase surrounding property values, it helps 

with employment opportunities, and it helps rebuild our communities at a time when they really need it. 

Rhode Island has received more than $15 million through the 

program that has supported dozens of redevelopment projects some 

of them, well, I am going to mention two. The Woonsocket Middle 

School, a project that transformed a 20-acre, hundred-year-old industrial site into an environmental justice area and it became the 

largest middle school campus in New England, again with a lot of 
9 

players coming together, but with these funds from the Brownfields 

Program being instrumental. 

There is a wonderful program in Rhode Island called the Steel 

Yard which is a community-based nonprofit that takes kids who do 

not have a lot of options and helps train them in arts and particularly metalworking, metal arts, and that has created 30 new jobs 

in a blighted neighborhood out of what was abandoned and contaminated industrial lots. 

Just this Monday, I was at an event where the Waterfire Program, which is a wonderful thing that we do in Rhode Island, Providence has a river that goes right through the middle of it and we 

light fires and braziers out in the middle of the river and restaurants open up along the edges, people come from not just 

around the region but from around the Country to participate in 

it. There is music playing, people are really, really enjoying it. 

Waterfire has taken over an old industrial site, a former Uniroyal 

Rubber Plant on Valley Street and that was where the event was 

and they got a $600,000 grant to help move that forward. 

Another group, the West Broadway Neighborhood Association, 

which I worked with very closely when I was Attorney General, 

working on the nuisance properties in that area with a nuisance 

task force that we set up, they continue to be a wonderful organization that works very hard for their community and they have received $200,000 to help remediate a former service station on Westminster Street that they are going to be able to put to use. So right 

now, right here, this is working in Rhode Island. 

And to Senators Udall and Crapo, thank you for your leadership 

to strengthen and to simplify this terrific program. I look forward 

to working with you and I am proud to be a cosponsor. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. 

Now we will hear from our first witness, Mr. Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environment Protection Agency. 

You have 5 minutes for your oral statement. Your written statement, full statement, will be put in the record. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MATHY STANISLAUS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Thank you. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and 

members of the Subcommittee, Ranking Member Crapo, Senator 

Hirono and Senator Whitehouse, who just left. I was going to say 

the Waterfire sounds pretty cool. I have to attend that. 

Senator UDALL. It does, doesn’t it? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am the Assistant Administrator for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response which has responsibility for the Brownfields Program. I am not sure I can actually talk about the Brownfields Program the way that you all just did, but I will give it a shot. 

Now we all recognize that there are many communities facing 

significant challenges today as they work to rebuild their economies and support economic recovery. Reclaiming vacant properties 

and repurposing brownfields are the heart of EPA’s Brownfields 

Program. Cleaning up and repurposing land can be the impetus for 
10 

spurring economic revitalization and job creation and a healthy environment for families and for workers. EPA’s assistance in funding 

to support redevelopment and economic recovery is helping communities to rebuild and revitalize rural and urban downtowns and 

neighborhoods throughout the Country. 

Brownfields are found all around us in the smallest towns and 

villages to the largest of cities. These are properties where real or 

potential environmental concerns pose a barrier to reuse. Although 

these sites blight neighborhoods and reduce property values in very 

visible ways they can, when addressed, become valuable assets providing economic, social and environmental benefits for communities. Working together, our efforts show that environmental 

health and economic health go hand in hand. 

Recent research completed by my office concludes that 

brownfields cleanup leads to increases in nearby surrounding housing values, and prices on the average are between 5.1 to 12.8 percent higher. This also results in increased property tax revenue. 

Since the Brownfields Program inception in 1995 and through 

the June of fiscal year 2013, EPA has provided funding to 

Brownfields Program grantees to assess more than 21,000 properties, more than 41,000 ready for reuse, leveraging more than 

93,000 jobs for cleanup and redevelopment activities, and leveraged 

more than $20.8 billion in economic development. 

Based on historical data, as you all have noted, every dollar of EPA brownfields resource leverages between $17 to $18 of other 

kinds of investment. I would argue it is probably one of the best 

uses of Government resources in terms of the great leveraging it 

does. 

Successful reuse of brownfields properties includes wide-scale 

waterfront development, manufacturing, a key focus of the Administration to create jobs, and in-sourcing clean energy production 

and component part manufacturing for this very important industry, housing and recreation, essentially the reuses that make a 

community vibrant. 

Brownfields revitalization also produces long-term sustainability 

benefits. For example, every acre of brownfields reused saves 4.5 

acres of green space. This saves those properties for recreation and 

farming. Studies show between a 32 to 57 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled, thus reducing air pollution emissions, including greenhouse gases. These same studies show an estimated 47 to 

62 percent reduction of stormwater runoff. So essentially, this demonstrates the win-win of the Brownfields Program. 

The EPA’s Brownfields Program provides direct funding for 

brownfields assessment, cleanup, revolving loans, research, technical assistance, area-wide planning and environmental job training. The Brownfields Program funding is largely distributed by a 

statutory national competition process. This competition directly is 

linked to the success of the program. 

Essentially, we are looking at the strength of each application 

and score each of the applications based on their strengths, based 

on the partnerships, based on leveraging, based on the ability to 

implement projects in the shorter term. And we believe maintaining this national competition is really critical for continuing the 

success of the Brownfields Program. 
11 

There continues to be unmet need for brownfields funding. Every 

year, we fund approximately one-fourth of the requests that we get. 

So, that is an indication of the tremendous demand out there. But 

we are trying to maximize the use of that money. 

In fiscal year 2013, more than 56 percent of our grants went to 

communities with fewer than 100,000 people, and of those, 40 percent went to micro-communities, or communities with a population 

of less than 10,000 people. So essentially we demonstrate not only 

are brownfields a problem in many communities spread throughout 

the Country, but also we are meeting that need by providing resources throughout the spread or the size of the communities. 

Separate from the grant competition, we also provide technical 

assistance which is critically important to enable particularly 

smaller communities to compete for Government resources, but 

also to provide assistance to enable transactions to move forward 

in a timely basis. 

And I see my time is up. But I will close by stating that not only 

is the Brownfields Program providing tools for local communities, 

it is premised on the basic paradigm of providing tools for local 

leadership to lead and not have the Government dictate to them. 

One of the successes of this program is tools identified by local 

communities, providing tools for local communities to lead, and I 

believe that is a critical part of the success of the program. 

A recent innovation that we are really pushing through is how 

do we maximize the implementation resources for the program? 

And every brownfields project, the implementation resource like 

transportation resources, like housing resources, so one of the 

things that this Administration is trying to do is to link transportation resources and link housing resources in a more aligned way 

through the HUD-DOT-EPA Sustainability Partnership. 

With that, I could go on because I love the Brownfields Program, 

but I will close and take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanislaus follows:] 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much for your testimony, and 

we will give you a chance to speak further because we are going 

to go into a round of 5-minute questioning here. So, we appreciate 

your testimony. 

One of the issues that seems to me to be an intriguing one is 

using these sites for renewable energy, potential renewable energy 

development. For example, there is a Superfund site in New Mexico where Chevron has installed a large concentrated solar power 

system on a mine tailings landfill, which is, this project has been 

a great success. 

Do you see potential in developing these areas for renewable energy development and what kind of assistance can EPA provide? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I see tremendous potential in that and we 

have recently, over the last few years, we have partnered with the 

Department of Energy, worked with energy developers and worked 

with the finance community to provide a set of tools to really tap 

the potential of siting renewable energy on contaminated property. 

And we think it is a win-win. 

We have done mapping of these sites which shows the subset of 

contaminated properties were in proximity to transmission corridors and where there are capacity gaps, to be able to site renewable energy on certain properties and tap into the transmission corridors. We have also developed a set of tools for local leaders to 

analyze which of the contaminated properties best fits different 

kinds of renewable energy. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Now, the Brownfields Program has 

been a tremendous success because it seems that most of the 

brownfields grants have gone to urban areas. In a rural State like 

New Mexico, how can we provide better access to brownfields 

grants in rural areas? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, let me just pull back my numbers. Last 

year’s competition, 56 percent of our grants went to communities 

less than 100,000 and 40 percent of those went to even smaller 

than 10,000. But I think there is more to do on that. I received letters from probably the largest set of States with rural communities, 

about 6 or 7 months ago, and I have committed myself to really engaging representatives of the rural communities to figure out how 

can we better touch and provide resources to rural communities. 

And I have held a series of conversations at a stakeholder meeting recently with representatives from rural communities in Nebraska and Western Iowa. So, the plan is to figure out how can we 

best deliver, in some cases technical assistance, direct and indirect, 

and in some cases tailoring our grant competition so that we can 

ensure that all the communities that have a need get a fair percentage of the grant resources. 

Senator UDALL. You know, for that 40 percent number for less 

than 10,000, that is a pretty good number I would think. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. It is. And we have placed a great emphasis on 

not only making sure that our criteria is fair to ensure that communities can compete fairly, but do some upfront technical assistance. 

The critical, our studies show that the critical aspect of getting 

awards is getting successful applications. And clearly smaller communities need more capacity assistance than the larger commu-
27 

nities. We made a conscious effort in both direct technical assistance but also funding technical assistance organizations around the 

Country to work with local communities. 

Recently, we had discussions with the rural cooperatives to also 

partner with them to engage rural communities in our technical assistance. 

Senator UDALL. How has sequestration impacted the Brownfields 

Program? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think sequestration, like all, you know, 

Government funding has had an impact. In terms of the specifics, 

I do not have that information in front of me. But I can get that 

to you. 

Senator UDALL. OK. We could appreciate that. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
28 
29 

Senator UDALL. Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Just following on the same question about sequestration, from an 

overall program perspective, Mr. Stanislaus, can you tell me how 

the current economic climate over the past few years has impacted 

the Brownfields Program? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I think what I will say is that the Brownfields 

Program is affected by the real estate market in ways that other 

programs are not. But I think when you talk to local leaders, they 

actually see that this is the time, and we have seen this in the last 

few years, to begin the planning, begin the assessments, so as the 

real estate market begins to move, beginning movement there, that 

those properties are well-positioned to redevelop. 

So, actually we are seeing significant interest in brownfields 

properties because of the inherent advantages. So brownfields properties, approximate existing infrastructure, approximate population 

centers, so there is some inherent advantage of that. And recently 

we had our National Brownfields Conference and I held a roundtable with a number of mayors from around the Country and they 

all believe that brownfields are the key aspect of revitalizing their 

communities and creating jobs locally. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. And moving to the statistics that you 

gave us, 56 percent of the grants, I believe it was, went to communities with less than 100,000 and 40 percent less than 10,000. Is 

that in total numbers of grants or is that in total numbers of dollars? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I believe it is total number of grants. Let me get 

back to you. It is the applications. 

Senator CRAPO. That is in terms of the applications. Do you have 

with you, or can you get for us, the breakdown in terms of total 

numbers of dollars? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I can get you that. I do not have that with me. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
30 
31 

Senator CRAPO. All right. And you indicated that the rural communities or, I guess, probably any community, needs to have successful applications in order to be successful in accessing these 

grant dollars and that one of the key factors is the quality of the 

grant applications. I think we are going to hear testimony about 

the question of how rural communities can compete with urban 

communities on that level. Could you just discuss that a little further? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. The thing that I heard in discussions with 

rural stakeholders is precisely the point that you make which is 

that rural communities do not have the same capacity to put together applications that larger communities have. So one, to 

streamline the application process, two, to provide, I would say a 

more modular way of approving applications, three, providing earlier technical assistance. So, doing all of those so that they can, 

again, be able to compete in a more fair way. We are also taking 

a look at should we look at the competition, the grant competition, 

differently. 

And separate from that, and one of the things that I have heard 

from a lot of rural communities, is they want to get one or two key 

projects moving. So, they put on the table maybe there is a contract-based mechanism to advancing those projects as opposed to a 

grant mechanism. So, we have a contract-based mechanism to go 

in and do a site assessment. 

And the reason they put that on the table is because they, some 

communities do not want to have the burden of managing a grant 

and oversight of the grant. So, they prefer more getting into the 

community, doing the assessment as opposed to managing a grant. 

Senator CRAPO. OK. Thank you very much. And I appreciate the 

fact that the EPA is aware of this issue with regard to the disadvantage that small communities face in competing for these 

grants and I would appreciate the attention that you could give in 

the future to making sure that the agency helps the smaller communities to overcome that disadvantage. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Absolutely. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Stanislaus, thank you very much. We really 

appreciate you coming and we are going to move on to our second 

panel now. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Senator, would you mind? 

Senator UDALL. Please, please go ahead. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. The one thing I ask you to think about is, 

again, we are significantly oversubscribed in our grant program. 

One of the reasons I believe the grant program is so successful is 

we have this national scoring competition that really looks at those 

communities that can put together the strength of local partnership. And if we up front divide that money, my concern is the potential of unintended consequence of impacting that success. 

So clearly we should look at rural communities and being able 

to get those resources. But if we up front divide it among end uses, 

I am a bit concerned that may have the unintended consequence 

of dampening what I believe is the success of the national competition process. 

So, I would ask you all to kind of think about that. 
32 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Stanislaus, in that context, a 

question that comes to my mind is in the process of setting the priorities for the competition for the grants. Are you sure that the factors that are utilized there are properly balanced between rural 

and urban issues? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think we try to and in fact this week we 

are going to have another stakeholder conversation. So, I believe 

we do. But I think we could always learn more and are always 

open to, maybe we can score things differently. I would be open to 

looking at that. 

Senator CRAPO. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. You are welcome. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Do you, are you capable of giving out to non-governmental and nonprofits? I mean, would you have that capability? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, that is very restrictive right now. 

Senator UDALL. Do you think it would—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I do. I believe a subset of not for profits would 

be very helpful. Because when you talk to local government leaders 

around the Country, not for profits, whether it be community development corporations or all of the kinds of not for profit organizations that play a role in redevelopment, are a key extension of local 

government. So, they are, in many communities, the implementers 

of project development. So, I think providing not for profits eligibility, I think, would be really helpful. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much for your testimony. We 

will work closely with you on the reauthorization and look forward 

to many productive years ahead. Thank you. 

And we would call up, at this point, the second panel. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Thank you. I appreciate your time. 

Senator UDALL. You bet. 

I want to welcome our second panel. We have Commissioner 

O’Malley, Dr. Kenyon and Mr. Anderson. And it is wonderful to 

have you all here. You will each have 5 minutes for an oral statement and your full statement will be included in the record. And 

following that, as you just observed, we will have a time of questions and answers. 

So, Commissioner O’Malley, we will start with you and then proceed down the line here with Dr. Kenyon and then Mr. Anderson. 

Please. 

STATEMENT OF DEBBIE O’MALLEY, COMMISSIONER, 

BERNALILLO COUNTY COMMISSION, NEW MEXICO 

Ms. O’MALLEY. Good afternoon, Chairman Udall and Ranking 

Member Crapo. 

My name is Debbie O’Malley and I am Vice Chair of the 

Bernalillo County Commission representing the residents of District 1. Bernalillo County is the most heavily populated county in 

the State of New Mexico. Eighty-two percent of the county’s residents reside within the city of Albuquerque. For 9 years prior to 

my recent election to the County Commission, I was an Albuquerque City Councilor. 

I am honored to be here today to speak in support of EPA’s 

Brownfields Program. As many have testified, the Brownfields Pro-
33 

gram has had a profound effect on the quality of life in communities throughout our Country. 

In Bernalillo County, this program has been instrumental in the 

cleanup of industrial sites and landfills and the creation of more 

open space, much-needed regional parks, affordable housing and 

mixed use developments. All of these projects were in established 

areas and in some cases historical neighborhoods and as a result 

did not contribute to the problems related to urban sprawl. For example, in 2001 the county partnered with the city of Albuquerque 

to create a million dollar revolving loan fund that was used to 

clean up and remodel a historic hotel, trading post and school library. 

I was asked to testify today, however, because of my direct role 

in one of the most successful neighborhood redevelopment efforts in 

the State. It is an effort that I helped lead prior to my becoming 

an elected official. It involved over 35 acres in the historical heart 

of Albuquerque. 

It is the story of the Sawmill Redevelopment Project, a community-driven and community-owned multi-million dollar, award winning redevelopment initiative that transformed two contaminated 

industrial sites into mixed use development that includes highquality, permanently affordable single-family, multi-family and 

senior housing. 

It is also the story of personal commitment and perseverance by 

residents of a predominantly Hispanic, historic, low-income neighborhood which had experienced decline for decades. Today, it is the 

story of true and lasting community empowerment. 

My involvement in this project came over 20 years ago when I 

received a flier on my doorstep encouraging residents in our neighborhood to come to an important meeting. My husband and I had 

bought our first home in this area, an area where my family has 

a long history. It was an old adobe, mud brick, house that needed 

a lot of work but that was affordable to us at the time. We were 

busy raising our two daughters and remodeling our small home. 

Until I received that flier, I had never been to a neighborhood 

meeting or participate in any civic action. 

I went to that meeting and I discovered that a few determined 

neighbors, led by Max Ramirez, a retired house painter, were organizing to stop a nearby particle board manufacturing company from 

polluting our neighborhood. They had discovered that the company 

had been dumping its industrial wastewater containing formaldehyde, benzene and other toxic chemicals into unlined pits. 

This activity had resulted in a contaminated plume, a contaminated groundwater plume, a quarter of a mile long. My neighbors 

were also concerned about the health effects of toxic emissions that 

were being released from the plant, particularly at night. 

I was shocked to learn about these problems. Because my husband and I made the commitment to raise our family in this neighborhood, I decided I would do my part. Thus began my education 

in community organizing. Working side to side with my neighbors, 

a small group with few resources, and going to what seemed like 

countless meetings, we began to see that our actions were having 

an impact. 
34 

We were able to pressure the company to address the contaminated groundwater through a cleanup agreement with the State, 

the first of its kind in New Mexico. We were also successful in getting the City to cite the company for illegally emitting toxic particulates at night. 

In 1992, things took a dramatic turn and much to our surprise 

27 acres of industrial land next to the particle board manufacturing 

plant when up for sale. We heard that the plant was considering 

acquiring the land and expanding its facility and we began another 

organizing effort. 

Having no experience in community planning, we found ourselves on a steep learning curve. We familiarized ourselves with 

such new terms as smart growth, sustainable development and 

neo-traditional neighborhoods. Ultimately, we were able to convince 

the city of Albuquerque to acquire the 27 acres and commit to a 

contract, another first of its kind in the State, to allow the community to plan and develop this property. 

In order to carry out the planning and development, we first 

formed a community development corporation and later a community land trust. It is important to us that the housing we developed 

be affordable for future generations. I was hired as the Executive 

Director and our first task was to master plan this site. 

The award-winning master plan, which we named Arbolera de 

Vida, which is Orchard of Life, was based on neo-traditional neighborhood design, homes with front porches, safes areas for play, 

community gardens, places that encourage multi-generational 

interaction. 

In early 2000, after removing truckloads of contaminated soil, we 

began construction of the first phase. We did not use the 

Brownfields Program for this initial cleanup. The program was 

used, however, later during the subsequent phases of this project. 

In an ironic twist of fate, the Sawmill Community Land Trust 

was able to purchase the former particle board manufacturing facility. The company had gone out of business and the land was put 

up for sale. The site, as you can imagine, required extensive environmental remediation. 

In 2009, the Sawmill Community Land Trust applied for and was 

awarded $225,000 through the State’s Brownfields Funds Program 

for cleanup of the particle board manufacturing company’s site. Additionally, we received $500,000 from the Enterprise Foundation in 

the form of a loan to also help with that. 

I brought photographs with me that illustrate the transformation 

of this area. And this one over here to the left is fairly new, it is 

the senior housing, and it is based on a really environmentally 

sound model. We cannot see the catch basins for rainwater but 

very well thought out and we have got a lot of very happy seniors 

living in this development. It is one of the nicest ones, I think, in 

the city. 

And the other photographs show just what kind of a mess that 

we encountered on that particular site. That was the particle board 

manufacturing company’s site and you can see that we did a lot of 

cleanup there. That was where the $225,000 was used. 

As you might imagine, millions of dollars in public and private 

financing have gone into the Sawmill effort over the last 20 years, 
35 

resulting in hundreds of local construction-related jobs. Most important, however, the project has created social and economic 

wealth in a community that was suffering from disinvestment and 

neglect. 

It was through the efforts of committed and determined residents 

that the neighborhood was turned around. It is through resources 

such as those provided by the Brownfields Program that these 

projects become a reality. 

I would like to thank you, Senator Udall, for inviting me to speak 

before this Committee today. I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. O’Malley follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Dr. Kenyon, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KENDRA KENYON, PRESIDENT, IDAHO 

COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 

Ms. KENYON. Chairman Udall, Majority, Ranking Member Crapo, 

thank you for having me here today. 

My name is Dr. Kendra Kenyon. I am the President of the Idaho 

Council of Governments and we serve 10 counties and 42 cities in 

Idaho which represents about 55 percent of the entire population. 

I am here today to discuss the Brownfields Revolving Loan Program and the benefits that we have had here in Idaho. 

Idaho has thousands of brownfields sites. These often-abandoned 

sites can create safety and health risks for surrounding residents, 

they can blight an area, increase unemployment and are frequently 

tax delinquent. On the other hand, brownfields represent a tremendous opportunity for developers, investors and lenders to complete 

very profitable projects in prime locations. 

Since forming a coalition in 2004, we have partnered with our 

rural communities to turn landfills and abandoned mine sites into 

parks and trails, abandoned wood mills into visitors centers and 

white water parks, a historic grain silo into a performing arts theater, a historic laundry building into an event center, an abandoned creamery into a LEED certified municipal complex, and a 

former methamphetamine lab into a children’s art academy, among 

many other projects which has led to job creation, community development and the protection of human health and the environment. 

These efforts have cleaned up thousands of acres for redevelopment at over 100 properties in Idaho, removing the stigma of environmental contamination and blight from rural communities, ultimately leading to improved economic and environment conditions. 

The Loan Fund fills crucial gaps in funding by providing loan 

dollars to private developers and low-interest loans and subgrants 

to communities, thereby providing public-private partnerships that 

further catalyze the cleanup of contaminated properties, incenting 

redevelopment over new development, creating and retaining jobs, 

conserving green space and reducing commuter miles. 

As a predominantly rural State, most communities in Idaho do 

not have the capacity to undertake a remediation project without 

significant technical, administrative and funding support. In rural 

areas, often our program can remove environmental barriers to development with a total expenditure of $15,000 to $50,000. While 

this dollar amount may sound small, these amounts are significant 

and difficult to come by for most rural communities in Idaho. Without EPA funding, there would be far fewer cleanup projects completed in Idaho, if any. 

To date, Idaho has put millions of dollars to work resulting in 

hundreds of jobs being created and retained. These revitalized 

properties have increased tax revenues for counties and have created safe havens and safe neighborhoods in our beautiful State, 

and all with an impressive loan default rate of 0 percent. 

Here are some noteworthy projects. 
49 

Kelly’s Whitewater Park. In Cascade, a small rural community, 

Kelly’s Whitewater Park was developed on an old landfill. The University of Idaho recently released a report entitled 2011 Economic 

Impact of Kelly’s Whitewater Park in Cascade, Idaho. They concluded the following. Kelly’s economic impact on Valley County in 

2011 was approximately $600,000 and provided 7.5 jobs. Kelly’s attracted over 40,000 visitors, 15,000 of who were first time visitors 

to Valley County. And just a few weeks ago, Kelly’s hosted the first 

annual Payette River Games, attracting over 9,000 visitors. 

Kelly’s is turning Cascade into a competitive destination, and 

over time Kelly’s will naturally attract more and more tourists to 

Valley County. As the university points out in their study, Kelly’s 

is creating spending potential for the community by bringing in 

tourists who could have chosen another destination or just passed 

through to other points of interest. 

The economic stimulus key is key in converting these opportunities into realities. By giving tourists and visitors reasons to spend 

money in Cascade, this is good for Cascade, good for the county and 

the State of Idaho as a whole. 

Another project is Lakeshore Market, which is a convenience 

store and a gas station. It is the site of an active petroleum contamination cleanup project financed by the Loan Fund of $385,000. 

Petroleum contamination was identified after the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality was notified that ice from a dispenser in the convenience store tasted and smelled like gasoline 

and a neighboring property owner reported that the domestic well 

water smelled like gasoline. 

The financing provided the capital required to undertake the remediation and keep the business viable which retained six important jobs in this rural community in addition to solving a health 

hazard and potentially saving lives. 

Another project is Mahaffey Oil with a $200,000 loan. In Canyon 

County, the county acquired a former bulk petroleum facility 

through delinquent taxes. But they did not have sufficient funds to 

complete remediation. Through assistance from the program, Canyon County is in the process of completing the cleanup of the property. When the project is complete, the county has plans to sell the 

property as a useful commercial industrial site that is ideally located in the center of the community’s industrial zone. 

And here is my favorite, TRICA, Treasure Valley Institute for 

Children’s Arts. In the heart of Boise’s desirable north end residential neighborhood, an abandoned church in the Hyde Park District 

has finally been restored and removed from the list of Idaho’s top 

five endangered historic properties. For years, the neglected and 

contaminated church was a site for the production of 

methamphetamines. The Idaho Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund 

played a pivotal role in financing this project. 

The restored, beautiful stone church now serves as a safe community arts space for children which includes music, dance, a recording studio, a children’s library, a museum and a full theatrical 

stage. And this is where Casey’s supposed to have puppets come up 

from the picture, but he forgot those. So, he did not have a picture 

that blew up that large. 
50 

The center now employs 32 staff and teachers and provides education for hundreds of children per year. This is an excellent example of the often-overlooked social benefits that also come with 

brownfields cleanup projects in addition to protecting our children 

from dangerous and unhealthy situations. 

Our brownfields lending program has established excellent working relationships with all of the Federal, State and local entities 

needed to be successful. This allows us to drive the process at the 

local level working to identify and execute projects while having 

minimal administrative impact on our rural communities. 

We save our communities precious time and resources so they 

can devote their efforts to revitalizing these properties and creating 

needed jobs. These collaborative efforts have strengthened Federal 

and local relationships here in Idaho. 

In conclusion, Idaho’s EPA-funded Brownfields Program has a 

very successful track record of promoting, funding and implementing brownfields revitalization projects which has ultimately 

led to job creation, reduction of environmental contamination and 

community renewal. 

We are grateful for the opportunities the fund has provided us 

and look forward to having the ability to continue to do good work 

that results from cleaning up the environment. 

Thank you, and I will stand for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kenyon follows:] 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Dr. Kenyon. 

Mr. Anderson, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFF ANDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

SMART GROWTH AMERICA 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Crapo. 

My name is Geoff Anderson. I am the President and CEO of 

Smart Growth America, a national nonprofit organization dedicated 

to helping communities across the Country implement better development patterns. 

Smart Growth America is also the host of the National 

Brownfields Coalition which supports Federal policies that accelerate brownfields redevelopment and includes the U.S. Conference 

of Mayors, the National Association of Development Organizations, 

the Trust for Public Land and many others. 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing 

and I would also like to thank you both for joining your colleagues, 

Senator Inhofe and the late Senator Lautenberg, in sponsoring and 

introducing the BUILD Act. 

As the Subcommittee considers ways to encourage brownfields 

development, I would like to provide three points to keep in mind. 

First, the market demand has created favorable conditions for 

brownfields redevelopment in existing communities. There was a 

time not long ago when there was little demand for development 

in the kinds of communities that brownfields are typically found in. 

Now, more and more millenials and boomers are choosing to live 

in cities, suburban downtowns and rural town centers and businesses are following. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2000 and 2010, 

metro areas experienced double digit population growth in their 

downtown areas. And as a result, the private sector, I think, is now 

more ready than ever to put its capital behind cleanup and redevelopment. This is a unique opportunity, but it needs help in the form 

of Government financing and creating a conductive market and 

regulatory environment. 

Second point is that brownfields redevelopment makes economic 

and fiscal sense because it helps communities leverage private sector investment and improves local government budgets. I think you 

have heard some great examples of that already. And you cannot 

help but know now that the EPA has estimated that for every dollar, Federal dollar, that goes in, you are looking about an $18 return on that investment. 

With respect to local governments’ budgets, though, blighted 

properties are bad taxpayers themselves, and they also reduce 

property values around them, reducing local government revenues. 

The good news is that this can work in the other direction, too. Redevelopment not only improves the brownfields property value, but 

it can increase property values within a three-quarter-mile radius 

of the site by as much as 5 to 15 percent. So, it has got a very positive impact there. 

That is just part of the picture. A review of the studies in the 

field and Smart Growth America’s own research has found smart 

growth development which often includes redevelopment of 
62 

brownfields sites costs one-third less in upfront infrastructure 

costs, saves an average of 10 percent on ongoing service requirement costs, and generates as much as 10 times the tax revenue per 

acre compared to more conventional development. 

The BUILD Act provides several key changes which will help 

local governments capitalize on these economic and fiscal benefits. 

The Act expands the types of properties for which local governments can apply for a site assessment grant. The BUILD Act expands the eligibility for site assessment to include nonprofit organizations and, as has been noted earlier, these are often the folks 

who are best positioned to take the lead on some of these properties. 

And it eliminates the prohibition against using grant funds to 

cover administrative costs which I think is especially important in 

smaller communities that do not have a lot of capacity. So, I think 

that is a key piece of this. 

These changes are going to help nonprofits and local governments greatly. But as I pointed out at the start, there is new interest in these sites from the private sector and that leads me to my 

third point, and that is to realize the fiscal and economic benefits 

that I think we all recognize, we must have the private sector help 

meet the demand for brownfields redevelopment. 

With more than 450,000 unremediated brownfields sites across 

the Country, local government, State government, Federal Government by itself is not going to get it done. We have got to have the 

private sector capital engage on this more deeply. And I think 

there are two important steps the BUILD Act is taking to make 

that happen. 

We know that the costs of cleanup is a barrier to bringing sites 

back into the market, and the BUILD Act increases the maximum 

remediation grant from $200,000 to $500,000. And that brings the 

assistance more in line with what the Northeast Midwest Institute 

has calculated as the average cost of a cleanup, which is around 

$602,000. 

The BUILD Act’s authorization of multipurpose grants is another 

step in the right direction, I think. Securing upfront funding for 

various phases of brownfields redevelopment, instead of having to 

piecemeal those funding sources together, allows communities to 

work more closely with the developer to turn blighted properties 

into productive community assets. 

To conclude, brownfields redevelopment benefits local economies, 

the municipal budgets, creates jobs, spurs private sector investment in blighted communities, protects public health and the environment and is responsive to market demand. 

The BUILD Act contains important improvements that will help 

to realize these benefits. As the Subcommittee considers reauthorization of the EPA’s Brownfields Program, Smart Growth America 

and the National Brownfields Coalition stand ready to help in any 

way that we can. 

And I just want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:] 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that excellent testimony. 

Commissioner O’Malley, one of the things I think we would like 

to do is improve the work community-driven organizations like 

Sawmill have done to redevelop these areas and you have seen 

both sides of this from a nonprofit developer and as a local elected 

official. 

Would it have been helpful for Sawmill to have directly applied 

for the grant? Was the process cumbersome or not? Could you comment on those issues? 

Ms. O’MALLEY. Senator, I think that the, I think it would, it is 

a benefit for nonprofits to be able to apply directly for Federal 

funding. And, you know, it depends on the process, I guess, and I 

am assuming, you know, that it is streamlined and that it does not 

require sort of the technical assistance that other folks have mentioned in terms of making something cumbersome to qualify for, I 

think it would be a good thing. 

Senator UDALL. And do you have an estimate on how many jobs 

the brownfields environmental remediation created? 

Ms. O’MALLEY. Hundreds. 

Senator UDALL. Hundreds. There you go. That is good. 

Ms. O’MALLEY. Yes. I mean, you can imagine and, you know, as 

pointed out, the type of private investment that these kinds of 

projects attract. There was very little interest in investment in that 

area prior to the efforts of the community to, basically to make 

that, build that economic value, if you will. And as a result, there 

is a lot of interest. There is more, there is a hotel that has expanded, for example. The place just looks so much nicer as a result. 

Senator UDALL. No doubt about it. In your testimony, you mentioned urban sprawl. Can you expand a little on how incentives like 

brownfields grants and others help alleviate the many problems associated with urban sprawl? 

Ms. O’MALLEY. Yes. I mean, as was mentioned by one of the 

speakers regarding the problems with sprawl is that we have limited capacity. We have limited resources. And, you know, we can 

take areas that have existing infrastructure and we can start to revitalize those communities. That makes a big difference. And we 

start to spur reinvestment in those areas. 

It is very costly to build out. That is something that we grapple 

with as a community in terms of, you know, resources for fire, resources for police, not to mention extension of water lines. Those 

things, to maintain get very costly. 

And a lot of times, it is unfortunate for the areas that do not receive that kind of benefit. I mean, we have people who have paid 

taxes for decades in the interior of the city and they are waiting 

for their roads to be repaired. But a lot of times, our money ends 

up going out to these other areas. So, I think it really is really a 

matter of, you know, resources and how we use those resources. 

Senator UDALL. Is Bernalillo County looking at other brownfields 

projects? I mean, is this something that you think could be applied 

in a number of other areas? 

Ms. O’MALLEY. Yes. One of the things that we are focused on, 

like a lot of counties and cities throughout, is, of course, job creation in the county. And we are fortunate that we have a, especially in unincorporated areas, there is a really strong local agricul-
72 

tural activity there. And one of the things that we want to do is 

promote local agriculture. 

We are looking at a distribution center and that would probably 

likely take place in one of the older areas within the center of the 

city and it may very likely, it would probably require some remediation. So, there is an opportunity there that we would be looking 

at. 

Senator UDALL. OK. Thank you. 

Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to direct my questions primarily to you, Dr. Kenyon. 

First of all, we appreciate all of the work you do in Idaho and 

your making the effort to come here and help us in Congress to understand the importance and also maybe ways to improve this important program. 

One of my first questions is how can we facilitate greater access 

for small rural communities to the Brownfields Program? 

Ms. KENYON. Very good question. Idaho is mostly rural and this 

has been a barrier that we have been up against with the 

Brownfields Program and I think having better access there are a 

couple of things that we could do. This is strictly a business decision for these communities, for the county commissioners if you 

will. And there needs to probably be more flexibility in the payback 

term. It is 5 years now. And I think if we could have some flexibility, maybe move that out to 10 years, that would pencil out for 

some of these communities. 

Also the match, even though it is 20 percent. It seems like very 

little. We know we want some skin in the game, so to speak, for 

these communities, but some of the distressed communities, it 

would nice if we could have less of a match and I think that they 

could look at participating at that point. 

And also changing the twice removed properties. There is the 

twice removed rule and oftentimes that is very, very difficult to 

overcome, especially in real life. People tend to hang on to their 

properties and they do not turn over as fast as they do in the urban 

areas. 

So, I think a few things like that would help with access. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you. I can identify with that a little 

bit. In previous years, we have worked on trying to help our small 

communities deal with their water infrastructure systems and one 

of the things we found was some of the communities face such significant burdens with such a small population base that if you put 

much of a match requirement in place, they simply cannot participate in the programs. 

And it is something that we really need to pay attention to as 

we try to allow our smaller communities to access some of these 

more important environmental remediation programs in addition to 

the other things you pointed out, I appreciate that, and maybe we 

can work on putting some of those improvements in our legislation 

as we move forward to help these small communities. 

Let me ask, what is the success rate for EPA competitive grant 

proposals that you work on submitted by Idaho applicants if those 

applicants do not solicit your program’s assistance with crafting 

their applications? 
73 

Ms. KENYON. I do not know the exact numbers but I do know 

that most of the communities do not even try, the smaller rural 

communities. They do not even try. It is just too difficult for them. 

EPA, or not EPA but the Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality, really does help a lot with those as well as the Council of 

Governments. 

I would say they probably would not have much a chance at all 

without our help. One of the problems that we are facing, I would 

think the biggest barrier in Idaho is, to run the Revolving Loan 

Fund Program, we only have a budget that accommodates one fulltime employee. And we have 10 counties and 42 cities. 

Senator CRAPO. Wow. 

Ms. KENYON. So, that one employee does all the marketing, all 

the public relations, all of the education, they do the grant writing, 

they have to coordinate EPA, DEQ, the contractors and the owners. 

They have to be the project manager and they have to oversee the 

work and then report to DEQ and EPA. And then we have to make 

sure we act as bank and so we need to look at whether the person 

can pay back the money and we have to do our due diligence on 

the lending side as well as writing all of the reports and the compliance aspects. That is one FTE for 10 counties. That is a big challenge. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, you make your point very well. I have got 

one more question for Dr. Kenyon. I do not mean to ignore you, Mr. 

Anderson. We really appreciate Smart Growth America but we 

have limited time here. 

But before we do that, I want to ask a special request of the 

Chairman and that is we have a number of students from Idaho 

who are here from the TRiO Program observing Congress in action 

and I was wondering if we could allow Casey, our assistant here, 

to show them these pictures of what the Brownfields Program is 

doing in Idaho because I do not think they can see it in the audience. So, if he could show those pictures to the audience while I 

am asking my last question I would really appreciate it. 

Senator UDALL. That would be fine. Without objection. Please. 

Senator CRAPO. Just stand right there, if you would, and turn 

them around. 

Senator UDALL. Turn them around. 

Senator CRAPO. I did not want our kids from Idaho to miss the 

opportunity to see some of beautiful Idaho as we have portrayed it 

in this hearing. 

And my last question to you, Dr. Kenyon, oh, by the way, we are 

going to have a picture with these students out in the hallway 

which I hope that you will join us for, Dr. Kenyon. 

Ms. KENYON. Absolutely. 

Senator CRAPO. And you are welcome, too, Mr. Chairman. I do 

not mean to interrupt your schedule. 

My last question is with regard to the economic and employment 

impacts, I think it was one of the projects that you showed a picture of, your favorite, you said, of the Treasure Valley Institute for 

Children’s Art in the city of Boise. Do you have any estimate of the 

economic and employment aspects that project has had? 

Ms. KENYON. Yes. And it is quite amazing. We lent the nonprofit, 

an organization, $250,000 on the Revolving Loan Fund and with 
74 

that, they set a goal of raising $2.7 million to help restore the 

church. And in less than 2 years, they have raised $2.4 million and 

they are $300,000 short. So, in approximately 500 days that is a 

return on investment of 356 percent. That is pretty outstanding. 

And I think if we look further than just a mere dollar on dollar 

return on investment, if you look at what an institution like this 

can do, this was a meth lab. And so, you think about these children 

being exposed to drug dealers in the neighborhood. Now, they are 

exposed to arts education. And No Child Left Behind shows that 

arts get equal billing with math, reading and science in terms of 

performance metrics in school. 

So, these kids now have an opportunity to learn more, improve 

their education and in addition, there is research that shows that 

SAT scores, there is a direct correlation between the more art 

classes you take, the higher SAT score you get. 

So, I think we need to look at a bigger picture. 

Senator CRAPO. Can I interrupt you for a second and just let the 

audience know this is the former meth lab that Dr. Kenyon is taking about. 

Ms. KENYON. It was a mess. 

Senator CRAPO. Go ahead. I did not mean to interrupt. 

Ms. KENYON. No, that was all. I grew up in this neighborhood 

in the north end, so this is near and dear to me and it was not 

only, you can see, a blight, really an environmental hazard, but you 

can imagine drug dealers in the middle of the night going in and 

out with children around. This was not a good situation. 

So this, I think, really speaks volumes for the program again 

above and beyond the dollar for dollar investment. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I know I went over in my time, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. No, no, no. Thank you. 

Mr. Anderson, you talked a little bit about leveraging and I think you used the number for every Federal dollar bringing in $18. 

Could you talk a little bit about how that works and do you see 

any way that we can increase that leveraging? I mean, it is pretty 

doggone good leveraging from what we see there, but could you 

give us an example, concrete examples, of what happens in this 

leveraging process? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Absolutely. And I think the leverage ranges from 

the kind of situation that was just described by Dr. Kenyon to, you 

know, pretty large-scale real estate redevelopment projects. One I 

worked on personally was one called Atlantic Station, redeveloping 

an old steel mill in downtown Atlanta, or actually mid-town Atlanta. 

It was a 138-acre site, lots of contamination from almost a century of industrial use. You know, not a great tax base. As the steel 

industry was having more trouble, less and less activity was happening at the plant. It occupied sort of a key location is mid-town 

Atlanta. 

And the net result after, you know, and for really economic and 

market reasons, a developer came in and eventually came in and 

eventually put in about a $4 billion redevelopment of that project, 

10 million square feet of commercial and retail, I believe 6,000 

housing units, bringing tax base, bringing jobs, bringing, you know, 
75 

terrific environmental benefits in terms of shorter car trips, in 

terms of taking better care of the water runoff from those places. 

But really an economic driver and that is, you know, bringing the 

private sector dollars to leverage the kind of cleanup and redevelopment that we are looking for. 

Senator UDALL. In your testimony, you highlight a recent study 

by the National Association of Realtors that revealed that approximately half of Americans prefer walkable communities with easy 

access to jobs, to parks and entertainment. 

Could you expand on ways we can work in public-private partnerships to make this happen through the Brownfields Program? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, and that is a trend. The realtors study really verifies, I think, what many other studies are finding and what 

we are observing in the market itself. And if you talk to any of the 

developers, if you go to the International Council of Shopping Centers meeting or the Urban Land Institute, you find there is a clear 

recognition that the market is different and particularly different 

in the wake of the real estate bust. 

And what I think the opportunities for the Brownfields Program 

are to really try to match up in intelligent ways the brownfields opportunities with broader redevelopment plans. I mean, I think that 

is where you really get the bang for the buck is when you can look 

at a place that might be sort of at the edge of market viability and 

use specific investments on the Government’s part to catalyze a tipping point in the market and take advantage of the market demand that it out there to bring all of that force to bear not only 

for the specific site but for broader neighborhood revitalization. 

It also means in many cases coordinating it closely with your 

capital and infrastructures and investments and thinking about it 

not just as a site but as a neighborhood effort that you are trying 

to bring the whole neighborhood up and using that as a catalytic 

investment. 

Senator UDALL. The EPA has said it supports the Brownfields 

Program because of its dual land use benefits. Can you expand on 

the dual land use as you see it from a smart growth perspective 

of brownfields redevelopment and how does brownfields redevelopment protect open space? 

Mr. ANDERSON. You heard Assistant Administrator Stanislaus 

cite the statistic that came from an EPA study that for every acre 

of brownfields redeveloped, you are basically saving 4.5 acres of 

green space. So, that is not only green space that is out there doing 

its watershed functions, it is also green space that you are not running police and fire service to, that you are not building extra utilities to, that you are not trying to service with all of the amenities 

and all of the urban services that those kinds of places require. 

So, it is a win-win in that sense from a local government fiscal 

standpoint, from bringing tax base from something that, as I said, 

is not generally doing a great job in paying taxes, often tax delinquent properties, instead making them good taxpayers and that 

has an effect, as the church I am sure did, on the surrounding 

property values. 

So, you not only get the improved property value and property 

revenues from that property, but everything around it sees an improvement and, whether you are talking about large-scale devel-
76 

opers or individual homeowners and neighbors in that area, it 

changes the investment environment and it changes the way people 

invest in their property and in their real estate. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Do you have additional questions? 

Senator CRAPO. I have none. 

Senator UDALL. OK. I think that this has been very helpful and 

I think it is going to help the two of us work with the other Senators you have heard about earlier that have signed on to this reauthorization as to how do we move this forward and make it a 

better program for both rural and urban areas. 

I just want to thank all of you again for joining us here today. 

We will keep the record open for 14 days and we will submit any 

further questions in writing to our witnesses. 

With that, we will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ