House subcommittee hearing emphasizes Brownfields program’s role as redevelopment seed; reauthorization and funding debated

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing to examine U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields program funding, its outcomes on redevelopment, and options for reauthorization and program improvement. Witnesses from county, state and private-sector perspectives testified about local projects, program metrics and the effects of federal budget uncertainty.

Why it matters: EPA estimates more than 450,000 brownfield sites nationwide and says the Brownfields program has prepared more than 10,800 properties for productive reuse, leveraged over $40.4 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding and helped create or leverage more than 270,000 jobs. Subcommittee members framed reauthorization and annual appropriations as the mechanism that determines how many future projects can move from idle or contaminated sites back onto tax rolls.

County and state witnesses described local results and needs. Terry Wilbur, Oswego County clerk, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Counties, said, “The EPA brownfields program is a highly effective federal program that helps counties redevelop underutilized contaminated sites to reinvigorate communities and their economies as well.” Wilbur described projects in his upstate New York county that used assessment grants to identify 25 brownfield sites and to leverage private investment for riverfront housing that returned properties to the tax base.

Lisa Shook, assistant chief of the Environmental Response and Remediation Division at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, said Ohio used a mix of federal and state funds to expand assessments and reuse planning: “Last federal fiscal year, Ohio funded 20 assessments through our standard allocation and 63 through our supplemental allocation provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.” She described state voluntary cleanup programs and long-term oversight to keep remediated sites protective of health and environment.

Federal program context: Lance Larson of the Congressional Research Service summarized the statutory framework: Brownfields authorities are tied to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Congress has used reauthorization and appropriations to fund competitive assessment and cleanup grants as well as formula grants to states and tribes. Witnesses noted that the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided an additional $1.5 billion for Brownfields over five years, and that Congress has discretion to reauthorize programmatic caps and grant criteria.

Budget concerns and local consequences were raised repeatedly. Ranking Member Wilson noted that proposed administration cuts to EPA risked halting projects and warned of consequences for communities that rely on seed federal funding to attract private investment. Michael Goldstein, a managing partner at Goldstein Environmental Law Firm, described how EPA and state grants can trigger much larger private investments when paired with local incentives; he urged Congress to preserve and expand funding that leverages private capital.

The subcommittee left the hearing record open for follow-up questions and for 15 days of supplemental material from members and witnesses. No formal legislative action was taken during the hearing; lawmakers said reauthorization would be considered in future committee work and that annual appropriations will determine program scale going forward.