Rural counties, states say paperwork, grant structure and revolving‑loan practices slow Brownfields work; witnesses propose administrative reforms
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
County and state witnesses told the subcommittee that administrative burdens and current grant structures limit rural participation in Brownfields programs, and identified fixes including higher cleanup ceilings, administrative caps, elimination of match requirements and limits on RLF interest rates.
Witnesses described how administrative requirements and grant design affect the ability of small or rural communities to use Brownfields funds. Officials said existing reporting and application burdens, grant ceilings and revolving‑loan fund (RLF) practices can slow or block remediation and redevelopment in communities with limited staff.
Why it matters: Small counties and rural communities frequently lack grant writers, environmental legal counsel and in‑house accountants, witnesses said. Those capacity limits make it harder to apply for competitive EPA grants, administer awards and meet reporting rules, which in turn reduces the number of remediated properties in those jurisdictions.
Terry Wilbur, Oswego County clerk, described staffing limits and administrative strain: “We have a small staff ... we have 1 county attorney to work on this, and we have 1 chief accountant in the whole county.” Wilbur asked Congress to increase program authorization levels, raise cleanup grant ceilings to $1,000,000 with flexibility to award up to $2,000,000 for complex cleanups, and to permit a modest portion of grant funds to cover administrative costs.
State officials described how federal‑state partnerships function in practice. Lisa Shook of Ohio EPA described the agency’s role as a front door for smaller communities: state 128(a) funds and technical assistance help communities prepare for competitive grants and match state cleanup dollars with EPA funding, while voluntary cleanup programs establish standards and long‑term oversight.
Revolving loan funds drew scrutiny. Michael Goldstein said some RLF grantees were slow to deploy capital because they set interest rates too high; he recommended congressional direction and tighter program rules to reduce rates and increase deployment. In response to a committee question asking what cap he would favor, Goldstein said the “best case scenario would be a 0% interest loan.”
Other proposals discussed at the hearing included allowing EPA grants to cover demolition and environmental insurance, eliminating match requirements for some grants, expanding allowable administrative costs and moving more Brownfields dollars to state block grants so states can distribute funds quickly to communities in need.
No committee votes were held. Witnesses were asked to supply written details and cost estimates for legislative options; the hearing record remains open for follow‑up materials.