[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISCUSSION DRAFT: BROWNFIELDS REAUTHORIZATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 4, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-23
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-874 WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILLY LONG, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILL FLORES, Texas Massachusetts
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, CaliforniaL RUIZ,
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina SCOTT H. PETERS, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
Subcommittee on Environment
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOE BARTON, Texas RAUL RUIZ, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio TONY CARDENAS, California
BILL FLORES, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina DORIS O. MATSUI, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
TIM WALBERG, Michigan officio)
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Witnesses
J. Christian Bollwage, Mayor of the City of Elizabeth, New
Jersey, on Behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors............. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Answers to submitted questions............................... 108
Salvatore J. Panto, Jr., Mayor of the City of Easton,
Pennsylvania, on Behalf of the National League of Cities....... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Answers to submitted questions............................... 111
Parris N. Glendening, Former Governor of Maryland and the
President of the Smart Growth American Leadership Institute.... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Answers to submitted questions............................... 114
Robert Martineau, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation, on Behalf of the Environmental
Council of the States.......................................... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Answers to submitted questions............................... 117
J. Meade R. Anderson, Brownfields Program Manager, Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, on Behalf of the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials, ASTSWMO............................................. 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Answers to submitted questions............................... 120
Submitted Material
ASTSWMO paper.................................................... 103
DISCUSSION DRAFT: BROWNFIELDS REAUTHORIZATION
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Shimkus, McKinley, Blackburn,
Harper, Olson, Johnson, Flores, Hudson, Cramer, Walberg,
Carter, Walden (ex officio), Tonko, Ruiz, Peters, Green,
McNerney, Cardenas, Dingell, Matsui, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Grace Appelbe, Legislative Clerk; Ray Baum,
Staff Director; Zachary Dareshori, Staff Assistant; Paul
Edattel, Chief Counsel, Health; Wyatt Ellertson, Research
Associate, Energy/Environment; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach
and Coalitions; Giulia Giannangeli, Legislative Clerk, Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection/Environment; Tom
Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy/Environment; A.T.
Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor/Professional Staff, Energy/
Environment; Alex Miller, Video Production Aide and Press
Assistant; Tina Richards, Counsel, Environment; Chris Sarley,
Policy Coordinator, Environment; Dan Schneider, Press
Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Energy;
Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs; Andy Zach,
Professional Staff Member, Environment; Jeff Carroll, Minority
Staff Director; Jacqueline Cohen, Minority Senior Counsel;
David Cwiertney, Minority Energy/Environment Fellow; Jean
Fruci, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Rick
Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Matt
Schumacher, Minority Press Assistant; Tuley Wright, Minority
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; and C. J. Young,
Minority Press Secretary.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Environment
will now come to order.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
I would like to welcome everyone as we roll up our sleeves
to continue to work to reauthorize and improve EPA's
Brownfields Program. The EPA Brownfields Program is vital to
states and local communities, as they try to address
contaminated industrial and commercial properties and return
them to productive use.
Cleaning up these sites is great for the economy because
brownfields grants can be directly leveraged into jobs,
additional redevelopment funds, and increase residential and
commercial property values. At this subcommittee's first
hearing earlier this year, we also heard how important
brownfields funding and cleanup is to promoting investment in
new infrastructure and to better utilize our existing
infrastructure.
Last year the subcommittee held a hearing to look at what
works in the Brownfields Program and what we could do to
improve it. I know that our friends on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee have held similar hearings, and I
think we can all agree that the Brownfields Program is
essential to protect.
I think we can also agree that a primary goal is to fully
fund the program and get as many cleanups done and get as many
people involved in the cleanup process as we can. To that end,
there were some legislative fixes identified in previous
hearings that would further this goal and make the program even
better, which brings us to this morning.
We are looking at a discussion draft that incorporates the
fixes suggested by our witnesses. In fact, I see a couple of
familiar faces from our hearing last year. Welcome back, Mr.
Anderson and Mayor Bollwage.
The discussion draft contains improvements to the
Brownfields Program such as creation of multipurpose grants
that can be used for multiple purposes, including brownfields
assessment and cleanup, and which will provide flexibility to
communities trying to clean up multiple brownfields sites
within an area in the community
The discussion draft also provides liability relief to
municipalities who involuntarily acquire a brownfields property
by virtue of its function as a sovereign, which will allow
local units of government to address contamination on the
property they acquire through tax delinquency, bankruptcy, and
abandonment.
The legislation also increases the limit for mediation
grants from $200,000 to $500,000 which, as we heard from
witnesses, will make it easier for brownfields sites to get
cleaned up. The bill provides for a limited amount of the grant
funds to be used for administrative costs, which will allow
small and rural communities to be able to receive and utilize
grant funds.
We have confidence that these provisions and the others in
the discussion draft will make the Brownfields Program even
more successful, and we hope that our witnesses today will tell
us what they like about the bill and, also, tell us what
improvements we should make.
If there are additional legislative provisions that would
help further the goal of getting more sites cleaned up, we hope
that we can work with the stakeholders here today and with our
colleagues to think creatively about how to incorporate such
changes into the discussion draft going forward, including
looking at Good Samaritans, people who volunteer their services
or capital to get brownfields sites cleaned up and ways to
encourage them to participate in the cleanup process.
I would like to welcome our panel of state and local
brownfields experts who will share with us firsthand knowledge
and experience with the Brownfields Programs. I hope that
together we can take a closer look at the discussion draft and
figure out what else we can do to improve the Brownfields
Program and the brownfields law.
I have a minute-and-a-half left. Does anybody wish for some
time? The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs.
Blackburn.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
The subcommittee will now come to order. The Chair
recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
I would like to welcome everyone as we roll up our sleeves
and continue our work to reauthorize and improve the EPA's
Brownfields Program.
The EPA Brownfields Program is vital to states and local
communities as they try to address contaminated industrial and
commercial properties and return them to productive use.
Cleaning up these sites is great for the economy because
brownfields grants can be directly leveraged into jobs,
additional redevelopment funds, and increased residential and
commercial property values. At this subcommittee's first
hearing earlier this year we also heard how important
brownfields funding and cleanup is to promoting investment in
new infrastructure and to better utilizing our existing
infrastructure.
Last year the subcommittee held a hearing to look at what
works in the Brownfields Program and what we could do to
improve it. I know that our friends on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee have held similar hearings and I think
we can all agree that the Brownfields Program is essential to
protect. I think we can also agree that a primary goal is to
fully fund the program and get as many cleanups done, and get
as many people involved in the cleanup process, as we can. To
that end, there were some legislative fixes identified in
previous hearings that would further this goal and make the
program even better.
Which brings us to this morning. We are looking at a
Discussion Draft that incorporates the fixes suggested by our
witnesses--in fact, I see a couple familiar faces from our
hearing last year--welcome back Mr. Anderson and Mayor
Bollwage.
The Discussion Draft contains improvements to the
Brownfields Program such as the creation of multipurpose grants
that can be used for multiple purposes--including brownfields
assessment and cleanup--and which will provide flexibility to
communities trying to clean up multiple brownfields sites
within an area in the community. The Discussion Draft also
provides liability relief to municipalities who involuntarily
acquire brownfields property by virtue of its function as a
sovereign, which will allow local units of government to
address contamination on property they acquire through tax
delinquency, bankruptcy, or abandonment. The legislation also
increases the limit for remediation grants from $200,000 to
$500,000--which, as we heard from many witnesses, will make it
easier for brownfields sites to get cleaned up. The bill
provides for a limited amount of the grant funds to be used for
administrative costs, which will allow small and rural
communities to be able to receive and utilize grant funds.
We have confidence that these provisions and the others in
the Discussion Draft will make the Brownfields Program even
more successful and we hope that our witnesses today will tell
us what they like about the bill and also tell us what
improvements we should make. If there are additional
legislative provisions that would help further the goal of
getting more sites cleaned up--we hope that we can work with
the stakeholders here today and with our colleagues to think
creatively about how to incorporate such changes into the
Discussion Draft going forward. Including looking at Good
Samaritans--people who volunteer their services or capital to
get brownfields sites cleaned up--and ways to encourage them to
participate in the cleanup process.
I would like to welcome our panel of state and local
brownfields experts who will share with us their first-hand
knowledge and experience with the Brownfields Program. I hope
that together we can take a closer look at the Discussion Draft
and figure out what else we can do to improve the Brownfields
Program and the Brownfields Law.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member Mr. Tonko for 5
minutes for his opening statement.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
the hearing.
And I welcome our witnesses.
The chairman has talked about the need for the Brownfields
Program, talked about the success of the Brownfields Program.
In Tennessee we have had the Voluntary Cleanup, Oversight, and
Assistance Program since 2001. This has been successful.
We look forward to making certain that communities have the
tools that they need and that there is the proper participation
between the EPA, the grants that are given, and also the
communities that are trying to clear up these distressed
properties. The negative effect that they have on real estate
values in the area we all know. We know those stories.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the hearing. I welcome
the witnesses. I yield back my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back her time.
Anyone else seeking the final 40 seconds? Seeing none, the
Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee,
Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Shimkus, for holding this
hearing on the committee's discussion draft to reauthorize
EPA's Brownfields Program.
I thank our witnesses for being here to provide feedback on
this draft, including a few familiar faces, including Mayor
Bollwage--thank you for joining us again--and Mr. Anderson, who
both testified at our brownfields hearing last year, which I
believe was very productive. I am glad they can join us again
as we begin to look at legislative text.
There is no denying how successful EPA's Brownfields
Program has been. Over 44,000 acres of idle land have been made
ready for productive use. Over 106,000 jobs and $23.3 billion
have been leveraged.
Cleaning up brownfields leads to nearby residential
property value increases of anywhere from 5 to 11.5 percent.
One dollar of the EPA's brownfields funding leverages between
$17 and $18 in other public and private funding sources, and
redeveloping a brownfield, instead of a greenfield, has
significant environmental benefits.
We are dealing with a program that has produced results
since 2002. Brownfield cleanup is critical for environmental
revitalization and economic redevelopment efforts. There is a
reason why so many mayors support this program. It is about
making a community healthier and safer while returning an
underutilized property to the tax rolls. If cities and towns
are unable to expand, want to preserve greenspace, or breathe
new life back to an old downtown or waterfront area, there is
no choice but to reuse these properties. It is fundamental to
sustainable development.
When the Brownsfield Act was passed in 2002, there were an
estimated 450,000 brownfields sites. According to EPA, more
than 25,000 properties have been assessed. That is a great
start. These assessments and remediations have made huge
improvements in communities all across our country. The EPA has
already made a number of improvements to the program, including
introducing areawide planning grants based on New York State's
Brownfields Opportunity Area, or BOA program.
But, with so many properties remaining, it is clear we
still have much more work to do. Today we will discuss changes
to the law that give communities added flexibility and
resources to continue to build upon the success of this
program.
Regulars at this subcommittee will know that we often
disagree on legislation, but this discussion draft illustrates
just how much consensus there is around what steps we need to
take to improve the program, which has historically enjoyed
strong bipartisan support.
More flexibility in grants, increasing the size of
individual grants, and expanded eligibility for nonprofits and
sites publicly owned prior to 2002 are just a few of the
improvements before us today. This draft would increase the cap
on individual projects, currently at $200,000. Many remaining
sites are complex and will require more funding to remediate
properly.
Today's limit for assessment and cleanup grants is not
enough in many cases. The language before us would also give
grant recipients additional flexibility. Multipurpose grants
allow for assessment, cleanup, and planning on a community-wide
basis. It also would make it easier for nonprofit stakeholders
to get involved. It would allow a small portion of grants to be
used to cover administrative costs. These are great and
necessary improvements to the law.
However, this draft does not answer the questions on
funding levels. The program administers two types of grants:
direct financial assistance for the assessment and cleanup of
properties and assistance to states to aid them in carrying out
their own programs, both of which have been underfunded for
years. I believe we need to reauthorize both accounts at higher
levels.
I must also mention the President's proposed fiscal year
2018 budget cuts to EPA. It should become clear this morning
that these cuts would hurt local and state governments. These
governments are trying to do the right thing, clean up their
communities and get land back into productive use, but it will
be difficult to do without EPA's support. Rather than cutting
EPA's budget and staff, we should be providing more federal
support, dollars as well as capacity-building and technical
assistance.
Ultimately, this program has proven its worth many times
over, and we should think very carefully before reducing it.
Due to the success of this program, communities are beginning
to realize that we can turn a liability into an opportunity. I
see it in my own district, where many mill towns once thrived.
All along the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers, factories manufactured
items like carpets, collars, and leather products. Sadly, many
of those manufacturers are gone, but the baggage of
contaminated or the perception of contaminated land remains.
Local governments want to turn those underused factories
and waterfront properties into parks, restaurants, clean energy
producers, or the next great regional employer. We can help
them do that.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I
thank Chair Shimkus for providing us with a good starting point
to begin our discussion.
With that, I yield back my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman for the hearing.
I want to welcome our witnesses for being here. We
appreciate your input and counsel.
Nearly every Oregon city and county, whether rural or
urban, has vacant underuse of potentially contaminated
properties that, if left unchecked, can be a nuisance on the
community. If these sites are cleaned up, however, they could
have meaningful economic impact on jobs, wages, and additional
property tax revenue for our small towns.
The EPA Brownfields Program has changed the way we perceive
and manage contaminated properties. Grants and assistance
provided through the program empower states, communities, and
other economic redevelopment stakeholders to work together to
assess, remediate, and substantially reuse these properties.
Recently, this committee and our colleagues on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have begun
reexamining this important program. The discussion draft before
us is a first step to addressing some of the issues we have
heard about in our previous hearing in this committee. The bill
we review this morning makes needed improvements to the
Brownfields Program to ensure that, working together, we can
continue to promote infrastructure and economic development and
return contaminated property to productive use.
Now in my home state of Oregon we have had a very active
Brownfields Program and we have seen some great successes,
including in my district where, last year in The Dalles, Google
broke ground on an expansion to their data center on 26 acres
of former mill land that was cleaned up under this program, a
$600 million investment expected to create 50 new jobs.
In my home town of Hood River, the Port of Hood River just
finished a brownfields cleanup of another former mill site,
opening up over 12 acres of land for future business
opportunities in that area.
Oregon is also on the leading edge of brownfields cleanup.
In fact, in 2015, the Oregon State Legislature took steps to
encourage local governments to acquire and redevelop
contaminated properties through the creation of the Land Bank
Authorities. These land banks would purchase or acquire
brownfields properties, promote development in ways that meet
the local community's particular needs.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality supports
fully funding the Brownfields Program and enthusiastically
supports many of the revisions that we are making in this
discussion draft.
We hope that the witnesses here today will let us know if
we are on the right track with the discussion draft and, if
necessary, that they will help us identify other ways to
improve the Brownfields Program and the brownfields law.
Our new EPA Administrator has stressed the importance of
getting contaminated sites cleaned up, and the Brownfields
Program is a vital component of this process. Therefore, we
remain committed to working with our colleagues across the
aisle and on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to
ensure that the Brownfields Program will continue to encourage
EPA, states, and local governments to work together to
redevelop brownfields properties and create new jobs, leverage
private investment, and provide for economic development.
I am thankful the witnesses are here today. We appreciate
the input and your thoughts on this discussion draft as we work
to move this legislation along.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time,
or to any other committee members, if they want it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Every Oregon city and county, whether rural or urban, has
vacant, underused and potentially contaminated properties that
if left unchecked can be a nuisance on the community. If these
sites are cleaned up, however, they could have meaningful
economic impact on jobs, wages, and additional property tax
revenue. The EPA Brownfields program has changed the way we
perceive and manage contaminated property. The grants and
assistance provided through the program empowers states,
communities, and other economic redevelopment stakeholders to
work together to assess, remediate, and sustainably reuse these
properties.
Recently this committee and our colleagues on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have begun re-
examining this important program. The discussion draft before
us is a first step to addressing some of the issues we heard
about in previous hearings. The bill we review this morning
makes needed improvements to the Brownfields Program to ensure
that, working together, we can continue to promote
infrastructure and economic development and return contaminated
property to productive use.
My home state of Oregon has a very active Brownfields
Program and we've seen some great recent success in my district
in particular. Last year in The Dalles, Google broke ground on
an expansion to their data center on 26 acres of former mill
land that was cleaned up under this program. A $600 million
investment expected to create 50 new jobs. In my hometown of
Hood River, the Port of Hood River just finished a Brownfields
cleanup of another former mill site, opening up over 12 acres
of land for future business opportunities in the area.
Oregon is also on the leading edge of brownfields cleanup.
In fact, in 2015 the Oregon state legislature took steps to
encourage local governments to acquire and redevelop
contaminated properties through the creation of Land Bank
Authorities. These Land Banks would purchase or acquire
brownfields properties and promote development in ways that
meet the local community's particular needs.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality supports
fully funding the Brownfields Program and enthusiastically
supports many of the revisions made by the discussion draft.
We hope that the witnesses here today will let us know if
we are on the right track with the discussion draft and if
necessary, that they will help us identify other ways to
improve the Brownfields Program and the brownfields law.
Our new EPA Administrator has stressed the importance of
getting contaminated sites cleaned up and the Brownfields
Program is a vital component of this process. Therefore, we
remain committed to working with our colleagues across the
aisle and on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to
ensure that the Brownfields Program will continue to encourage
EPA, states, and local governments to work together to
redevelop brownfields properties and create new jobs, leverage
private investment, and provide for economic development. And
I'm hopeful the witnesses here today can provide us their
thoughts on the discussion draft before us today and other ways
to improve the Brownfields program as we continue our work.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. I thank the chairman for holding this hearing
on draft legislation to reauthorize EPA's important Brownfields
Program. This discussion draft reflects input from the
Democratic staff, and I thank the chairman for working with us.
I hope we can craft a strong bill that can become law because
the Brownfields Program has always been bipartisan and it
should continue to enjoy bipartisan support.
At the outset, I would like to express my frustration that
the Environmental Protection Agency was unable to provide a
witness for this hearing. It is particularly important to have
the views of the administration represented at hearings where
we are reviewing legislation. There is also important work to
be done. So, I hope that the Trump administration can finally
get around to nominating people for senior leadership positions
at the EPA.
I also want to note at the start that there are serious
concerns hanging over this hearing because of recent reports
that the Trump administration wants to defund or significantly
cut the Brownfields Program. Brownfields funding is so
important for communities around the nation, and the return on
investment is substantial. Congress will have the final say on
funding levels, and I hope that all of my colleagues will join
me in calling for robust brownfields funding.
Now, with regard to the hearing, it is great to see
Elizabeth Mayor Chris Bollwage, who is a good friend. He has
advocated for the Brownfields Program before Congress many
times, dating back to when we passed the original brownfields
bill in 2002. And I was the ranking member of the subcommittee
then and I worked with the Republican chairman of the
committee, the late Paul Gillmor of Ohio, to create the
Brownfields Program. It is fitting that Mayor Bollwage is back
today as we take the first formal step toward reauthorizing the
program. Thank you for being here.
The Brownfields Program has been an incredibly important
tool for protecting public health and spreading economic growth
in New Jersey and throughout the country. With financial help
from the federal government, communities can clean up
contaminated sites and prepare them for development for parks,
commerce, housing, or a number of other uses that can benefit a
local community. Though these contaminated sites do not warrant
listing on the National Priorities List like Superfund sites,
they still have negative environmental and economic impacts.
By almost any metric, the Brownfields Program has been
remarkably successful. Since the program's inception, more than
25,000 contaminated sites have been remediated, allowing
communities to create new developments, reduce health risk,
decrease pollution, and reduce stormwater runoff.
And this is not just a program that provides environmental
and health benefit, it is a job creator that primes the pump
for local investment and development. All told, the Brownfields
Program has leveraged over $22 billion in investments around
these sites, which is a stunning return on the federal
government's modest investment in the program. And simply put,
it provides tremendous value to the federal government and a
boost to the economy of local communities.
There is no question that brownfields has been successful,
but I still think there is a lot of important cleanup work that
needs to be done. When this subcommittee held a hearing on the
Brownfields Program last year, we heard from witnesses about
the staggering number of brownfields properties that needed
remediation and the increased complexity of the remaining
sites. Stakeholders also indicated a need for increased funding
and flexibility to allow states and local communities to use
their resources effectively to address the new challenges
presented by these cleanups.
And the legislation we are considering today is a good
start toward achieving the goal of making the Brownfields
Program work better for communities across the country. It sets
up more flexible multipurpose grants, increases caps for
individual grants, and extends program eligibility to nonprofit
organizations.
But, despite the growing need for resources and broad
support on both sides of the aisle, this program has never been
reauthorized. And while the program has continued to receive
appropriations, unfortunately, funding levels have declined.
Now I have introduced legislation, the Brownfields
Authorization Increase Act, which would make many of the same
changes reflected in today's discussion draft, but would also
increase authorization levels for the program because we can't
continue to expect the same success from a program that is
underfunded and lacking the necessary to tools to be effective.
So, as we work to determine how we can strengthen this program,
Mr. Chairman, I think we have to ensure that funding and
increased funding is part of the conversation.
But today's hearing represents encouraging progress on
finally reauthorizing the Brownfields Program. If
infrastructure is, indeed a priority of this administration,
they should look no further than the Brownfields Program as a
way to create jobs and spur local investment, all while
cleaning up contamination in our local communities.
So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the
witnesses. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing on draft
legislation to reauthorize EPA's important Brownfields program.
This discussion draft reflects input from the Democratic staff,
and I thank the Chairman for working with us. I hope that we
can craft a strong bill that can become law. [The Brownfields
program has always been bipartisan, and it should continue to
enjoy bipartisan support.
At the outset, I would like to express my frustration that
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was unable to provide
a witness for this hearing. It is particularly important to
have the views of the Administration represented at hearings
where we are reviewing legislation. There is important work to
be done, so I hope that the Trump Administration can finally
get around to nominating people for senior leadership positions
at EPA.
I also want to note at the start that there are serious
concerns hanging over this hearing because of recent reports
that the Trump Administration wants to defund or significantly
cut the Brownfields program. Brownfields funding is so
important for communities across the nation, and the return on
investment is substantial. Congress will have the final say on
funding levels for this program and I hope that all of my
colleagues will join me in calling for robust brownfields
funding.
Turning to this hearing, it is great to see Elizabeth Mayor
Chris Bollwage from my home state of New Jersey here today.
Mayor Bollwage has advocated for the Brownfields program before
Congress many times, dating back to when we passed the original
Brownfields bill in 2002. I was the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee then and I worked with the Republican Chairman of
the Subcommittee, the late Paul Gillmor of Ohio to create the
Brownfields program. It is fitting that Mayor Bollwage is back
today as we take the first formal step toward reauthorizing the
program.
The Brownfields program has been an incredibly important
tool for protecting public health and spurring economic growth
in New Jersey and throughout the country. With financial help
from the federal government, communities can clean up
contaminated sites and prepare them for development for parks,
commerce, housing, or a number of other uses that can benefit a
local community. Though these contaminated sites do not warrant
listing on the National Priorities List like Superfund sites,
they still have negative environmental and economic impacts.
By almost any metric, the Brownfields program has been a
remarkable success. Since the program's inception, more than
25,000 contaminated sites have been remediated, allowing
communities to create new developments. EPA has found that
cleaning up underutilized or abandoned brownfields properties
reduces health risks, decreases pollution, and reduces storm
water runoff.
But this is not just a program that provides environmental
and health benefits--it is a job creator that primes the pump
for local investment and development. All told, the Brownfields
program has leveraged over $22 billion in investment around
these sites, which is a stunning return on the federal
government's modest investment in the program. Simply put, it
provides tremendous value to the federal government and a boost
to the economy of local communities.
Brownfields has been a major success, but there is still so
much important cleanup work that needs to be done. When this
Subcommittee held a hearing on the Brownfields program last
year, we heard from witnesses about the staggering number of
brownfields properties in need of remediation and the increased
complexity of the remaining sites. Stakeholders also indicated
a need for increased funding and flexibility to allow states
and local communities to use their resources effectively to
address the new challenges presented by these cleanups.
The legislation we are considering today is a good start
toward achieving the goal of making the Brownfields program
work better for communities across the country. It sets up more
flexible multi-purpose grants, increases caps for individual
grants, and extends program eligibility to nonprofit
organizations.
Despite the growing need for resources and broad support on
both sides of the aisle, this successful program has never been
reauthorized. And while the program has continued to receive
appropriations, unfortunately, funding levels have declined.
I have introduced legislation, the Brownfields
Authorization Increase Act, which would make many of the same
changes reflected in today's discussion draft but would also
increase authorization levels for the program. We cannot
continue to expect the same success from a program that is
underfunded and lacking the necessary tools to be effective. As
we work to determine how we can strengthen this program, we
should ensure that funding is part of the conversation.
Today's hearing represents encouraging progress on finally
reauthorizing the Brownfields program. If infrastructure is
indeed a priority of this administration, they should look no
further than the Brownfields program as a way to create jobs
and spur local investment, all while cleaning up contamination
in our local communities.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
We now conclude with members' opening statements. The Chair
would like to remind members that, pursuant to committee rules,
all members' opening statements will be made part of the
record.
We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and
taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Today's
witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening statements,
followed by a round of questions from members. Of course, your
full opening statements will be submitted for the record.
On our witness panel today, and I will introduce you all
right now and, then, we will just give you the 5 minutes time.
We have, as mentioned before, the Honorable Mayor Bollwage,
Mayor of the City of Elizabeth, New Jersey, on behalf of the
U.S. Conference of Mayors. We are thinking about getting you a
punch card for testimony and, after the fifth time, you get a
free sandwich or something.
[Laughter.]
Don't you think, Ranking Member? We could split the cost on
that maybe.
[Laughter.]
The Honorable Salvatore Panto, Mayor of the City of Easton,
Pennsylvania, on behalf of the National League of Cities; the
Honorable Parris Glendening, former Governor of Maryland and
the President of the Smart Growth American Leadership
Institute; Mr. Robert Martineau, Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation, on behalf of the
Environmental Council of the States; and Mr. Meade Anderson,
who has testified before, also a brownfields Program Manager at
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, on behalf of
the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials, ASTSWMO.
We appreciate you all being here. We will begin the panel
with Mayor Bollwage, and you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Again, welcome.
STATEMENTS OF HON. J. CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF
MAYORS; HON. SALVATORE J. PANTO, JR., MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
EASTON, PENNSYLVANIA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF
CITIES; HON. PARRIS N. GLENDENING, FORMER GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND
AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE SMART GROWTH AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
INSTITUTE; ROBERT MARTINEAU, COMMISSIONER OF THE TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION, ON BEHALF OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF THE STATES, AND J. MEADE R. ANDERSON,
BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM MANAGER, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE
AND TERRITORIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, ASTSWMO
STATEMENT OF HON. J. CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Tonko. It is good to see you gentlemen again and my
friend from New Jersey, Congressman Pallone.
I have been the Mayor since 1993 in the City of Elizabeth.
I serve as a trustee and the Brownfields Co-Chair for the
Conference of Mayors. As you stated, I have been here many
times on this issue.
As we all know, brownfields redevelopment helps build our
community, creates jobs. And I want to thank the committee for
the draft bill.
For many people, brownfields is just a neighborhood
eyesore, former industrial site, but for mayors they represent
unrealized potential. We see the redevelopment of brownfields
as a chance to bring back jobs to our community and
revitalization.
Congressman Tonko, you talked about 26,000 brownfields
sites that have been assessed, 5,700 properties, 66,000 acres
are ready for reuse, 123,000 jobs created, and $23.6 billion
leveraged. Last time I was here, I told you about the Jersey
Gardens Mall, one of our most successful brownfields
redevelopment stories, 2 million square feet of retail space,
over 200 stores, 5 hotels, 1,700 construction jobs, 4,000
permanent jobs.
Another successful project we did in brownfields
redevelopment, the Elizabeth HOPE VI Project, this former
industrial spot has a new $15 million townhouse development
made up of 55 market-rate luxury housing waterfront views. It
also includes a federally-funded HOPE VI Program which has
assisted in the removal and the replacement of public housing
complexes into townhomes. Individuals previously residing in
old, dilapidated facilities now have the opportunity to become
homeowners in a new residential neighborhood.
The Brownfields Program has a proven track record,
leveraging private sector investment, creating jobs, and
protecting the environment. And as all of you have noted, there
is more work to be done.
I have included in my testimony a letter on behalf of the
USCM, NACO, NLC, and the NARC encouraging you to reauthorize
this bill.
Some of the recommendations we would like to make, we
notice you didn't list an appropriations amount, but, as you
all know, we can't stress enough it is a very successful
program; it can always use more funding.
EPA estimates that in the past 5 years over 1,600 vital
projects/applicants were funded. An additional 54,000 jobs
would have happened with more than $10.3 billion in leveraged
funding.
So, our thoughts are increasing the cleanup grant amounts.
We commend you for going up to $750,000. We think, if at all
possible, to go $1 million, and in special circumstances on
occasion some people may need $2 million for the additional
resources.
We are very pleased your discussion draft creates a
multipurpose grant, so that we can be more market-friendly. We
are supportive of the $1 million authorization levels. How
detailed would the overall plan be? One of our visions for this
type of grant is to be flexible enough to meet market needs. An
applicant may have a certain vision for an area, but a
developer may have other ideas. We wouldn't want the applicant
to not be able to use the funds if the funds do not correspond
with the initial vision.
Ownership. We are currently checking to see if having to be
an owner before expending remediation funds would be an
impediment. We would like to get back to you at a later date on
that issue.
Removing barriers to encourage redevelopment mothball
sites, it is a big problem in some communities where owners are
just not willing to sell or give up their property. So, we
believe that the additional liability protection that you have
included may potentially address some of these types of sites,
and for that, we are grateful. We are, however, awaiting some
additional feedback from other cities and would like the
opportunity to provide the committee with some of our findings.
We are also pleased that you have included administrative
costs. We are grateful that you are acknowledging that this is
a need in the bill.
Clarifying eligibility of public-owned sites acquired
before 2002, we thank the committee for developing what we
think is a very good solution.
Encouraging brownfields cleanups by Good Samaritans, it is
a situation that we think we should address in order to have
additional help in cleaning up those sites. We will welcome the
opportunity to bring in some of our experts to work with you on
a further solution.
I once again want to thank the subcommittee for having me
testify here today and give our initial comments. And, Mr.
Chairman, I can tell you this is about my 12th time testifying
on brownfields between the House and the Senate.
Mr. Shimkus. That is two sub sandwiches.
Mr. Bollwage. That is two sub sandwiches.
[Laughter.]
Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Tonko and Members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Hon. J. Christian Bollwage
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
Now we would like to recognize the Honorable Mr. Panto,
Mayor of the City of Easton, Pennsylvania, on behalf of the
National League of Cities.
Today is election day, municipal election day, in Illinois.
So, we don't know who our mayor is going to be until tonight.
You are welcome to be recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. SALVATORE J. PANTO, JR.
Mr. Panto. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking
Member Tonko. We appreciate the members of the subcommittee
holding this hearing today.
I am here on behalf of the National League of Cities, the
oldest and largest organization, representing 19,000 cities and
towns of all sizes across America.
I appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on
the importance of this Brownfields Program and recommendations
to strengthen it, as the committee considers reauthorization.
While Easton is a very small city in comparison to many,
with a population of 29,000 and 5 square miles, our industrial
legacy has left us with two brownfields sites that were blight
on our community for over 30 years. For nearly 100 years, the
Simon Silk Mill was an economic powerhouse for our city and the
region, employing more than 2,000 workers. The mill closed in
the 1970s, because of the heavy contamination of asbestos, lead
paint, sludge, and underground pipes. Developers were unwilling
and unable to invest the necessary financial resources into
cleaning up and revitalizing this important parcel in the
middle of our city.
It wasn't until the city received a brownfields cleanup
grant in the amount of about $300,000 in 2009 that the
redevelopment became an option for the city. Today the cleanup
is complete. A new mixed-used development is starting to come
online, providing new residential, retail, and commercial
opportunities along with arts and entertainment.
We have had tremendous success revitalizing this property
in the heart of our city with over $100 million of private
investment, but we have another brownfields site that remains a
public safety hazard and is economically unviable for
development unless additional grants and incentives are
available.
As a local government official, like our Mayor to my right,
I could attest to the fact that brownfields developments can be
a powerful economic tool. Turning polluted properties back into
productive real estate helps create jobs in distressed
communities like my own while simultaneously improving the
public health and safety of our neighborhoods.
But brownfields redevelopment involves a lot of risk for
cities as well and for developers. Greenfield development is
cheaper, it is faster and more economical. But what better way
to create sustainable, permanent jobs than reinvest in our
civic infrastructure of our urban core and our neighborhoods.
In order to support our cities and towns who are leading
this charge, NLC urges Congress to reauthorize the Brownfields
Program and make key improvements, many of which are already
included in the discussion draft we are talking about today.
As our first priority, we would urge Congress to increase
or maintain the current level of authorization of the program.
NLC has reviewed the committee's discussion draft, and we are
pleased to offer some preliminary comments, but also appreciate
more time to give it a thorough review.
Regarding remediation grant amounts, we are pleased that
you are increasing it, but we, too, like the USCM, feel that a
million dollars, with a possibility of $2 million--some of
these sites are very complex, very complicated, and very large.
Just to the west of me is Bethlehem Steel Plant, which is the
largest brownfields site in the country. So, sometimes more
money is needed to make it viable for development.
For most brownfields sites, the only chance of
redevelopment is through public acquisition, like we did with
this 18 acres. But hidden liabilities can arise after cities
acquire a property, even if the city had no role in creating
the contamination.
Thank you for addressing this issue by allowing governments
to be eligible for grant funding for properties that were
acquired prior to January 2002 as well, where local government
has not caused or contributed to the contamination, but
certainly we have the responsibility, as stewards of our
environment and of our cities.
Thank you for addressing the issue of voluntary acquisition
of property in Section 1 by removing the term ``involuntary''
in describing the protected activities. We would like
additional time to review the impacts of this section to
determine if the language goes far enough to resolving
municipalities. We are a target; we have deep pockets. So, we
become a target for lawsuits.
In closing, Easton and cities across the country are
investing in their downtowns, urban cores, and neighborhoods.
They are growing our economies and creating all kinds of
communities with families that want to live, work, and play
there, creating jobs, moving the country forward.
But, even together and even though so much progress has
been made across the country, the work is nowhere near
finished, by your own estimates. The federal government needs
to continue its commitment to the Brownfields Program and to
the cities, to work and protect the citizens from pollution and
also allow us to build economic opportunity. To increase the
income of our residents is a real priority for most of our
cities, enhancing their ability to work in sustainable jobs
like the ones that we are creating at this former silk mill.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue and the
opportunity to speak on behalf of America's cities and towns. I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Salvatore J. Panto, Jr.
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Parris Glendening,
former Governor of Maryland and President of the Smart Growth
America's Leadership Institute. You are recognized for 5
minutes. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. PARRIS N. GLENDENING
Mr. Glendening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this.
Ranking Member Tonko as well and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and for
holding this hearing to discuss EPA's Brownfields Program.
I was Governor of Maryland from 1995 to 2003 and, prior to
that for 12 years, County Executive in Prince George's County.
I say that because we have hands-on experience with using the
brownfields in all of those different positions.
Smart Growth America is a national nonprofit organization
dedicated to bringing better development strategies to
communities across the country. We are the home to the National
Brownfields Coalition, which represented diverse economic,
community, environmental, and development interests that share
a common mission, that is, promoting brownfields redevelopment
as a core strategy for achieving job growth, community
revitalization, and sustainable growth objectives.
It is estimated, as has been noted, that more than 450,000
sites in the United States are contaminated and abandoned.
These brownfields blight neighborhoods, they breed
disinvestment, and they impose a cost on local government and
their taxpayers. Cleaning up these sites can be cost-
prohibitive for public agencies and private developers alike.
As the subcommittee considers ways to encourage the
redevelopment of brownfields, I offer two key points to keep in
mind. First, the changes in the market demand are favorable to
brownfields redevelopment. Second, brownfields redevelopment
sparks public and private investment.
Today's discussion comes at a critical time. For decades,
Americans and businesses moved away from downtowns to suburban
and exurban markets. This trend has reversed. Our largest
population groups, the millennials and the baby-boomers, and a
range of businesses from large Fortune 500s to lean startups,
to independent manufacturers, are all now looking for vibrant
neighborhoods to live and to locate. These are the very places
where brownfields are located.
To accelerate private investment, we must ensure that we
get regulatory and financial frameworking right. EPA estimates
that every dollar of federal funding invested in brownfields
redevelopment leverages $18 in total investment. This is a real
opportunity right now for communities to draw investment and to
grow their economies because the market forces are moving in a
supportive direction.
In Maryland, a Brownfields grant helped us to redevelop
sites along Baltimore's Inner Harbor, which became one of the
first major redevelopments, and also to bring major companies
to be headquartered in the Harbor East neighborhood of
Baltimore as well.
I commend the work that was done in the discussion draft.
These changes in the program are discussed in my written
testimony. These are big wins for communities.
Specifically, I am pleased to see that the discussion draft
increases the funding ceiling for remediation grants from
$200,000 to $500,000 and allows EPA to waive the limit up to
$750,000 based on the level of contamination, the size, and the
ownership status of the site.
I am also pleased to see the discussion draft includes
provisions eliminating the prohibition on communities using
grant funding to cover administrative costs. We would like to
see the percentage, however, used to pay administrative costs
increased from 5 to 10 percent. This increase will reduce the
administrative burden to distressed communities that do not
have the capacity, such as rural communities as well as those
in financial difficulties. We are working with smaller rural
communities all over the country and see them unable to use the
tools and the money available because of this challenge.
Brownfields redevelopment is a win-win development
strategy. Hundreds of communities, big and small, urban and
rural, will benefit from this program.
In conclusion, Smart Growth America stands ready to help
these communities and the private sector realize the potential
of the program to repurpose brownfields into assets.
I reiterate my appreciation for this hearing and for the
subcommittee's support of the brownfields redevelopment and the
leadership and work that you have done to date. We look forward
to working with you as well.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Parris N. Glendening
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Robert Martineau, Commissioner
of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, on
behalf of the Environmental Council of the States. You are
recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MARTINEAU
Mr. Martineau. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Tonko, and Members of the Subcommittee, Congresswoman
Blackburn.
My name is Bob Martineau. I am here on behalf of the
Environmental Council of the States, a national organization of
my fellow counterparts in the states across the country. New
York and Illinois and Tennessee and most all the states are
proud members.
We really appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk
about the reauthorization and the discussion draft. The subject
of today's hearing is a program from which states like mine
benefit greatly. Since the inception of our Brownfields Program
in 1995, Tennessee has received over $12 million that has
helped us spur economic redevelopment and bring jobs back into
communities, both urban and rural.
Brownfields redevelopment is at its heart economic and
community development with improved environmental outcomes.
Legislative approaches like these embedded in the discussion
draft will make this already successful program even better.
Brownfields programs represent the full spectrum of a win-
win, something we rarely find these days. On the environmental
side, they will transform blighted properties that pose
environmental risk into clean residences, commercial space, and
open greenspaces and parks, new manufacturing facilities, and
other economically-productive assets.
On the economic front, they can serve as significant
sources of revenue, increased property taxrevenues to local
communities, and bring jobs to those communities. For example,
Nashville is home to an area known as The Gulch. It was a once
bustling railroad yard that dates back to pre-Civil War days.
When passenger service was discontinued in 1979, The Gulch
became the victim of blight and neglect, despite it being right
in the middle of downtown Nashville.
In the late 1990s, some visionary business folks looked and
saw an opportunity for economic development as Nashville was
growing and created a master plan of 25 acres. With our
department's work and through the voluntary Brownfields
Agreements Program, we were able to protect their liability by
taking on this economically-blighted area.
The Gulch was able to expand those redevelopment activities
well beyond what was originally envisioned. And now, through
several additional redevelopment activities, The Gulch and the
North Gulch area is one of the most bustling parts of downtown
Nashville. There are individual residences. It is mixed-use. It
has become a tourist destination for the community. A brand-new
hotel just opened up in the last year.
The funding available for these Brownfields grants allows
states to take on larger projects with positive economic
results for the communities they redevelop. Expanding
eligibility to nonprofit organizations and certain government
entities, as well as allowing multipurpose grants like provided
for in the discussion draft, can increase these positive
results.
Additionally, allowing some administrative costs,
particularly for those local communities to help bear the cost
of moving forward with these grants, is a welcome change. The
Brownfields grants represent the seed money for private
investment. As others have noted, a dollar invested through the
Brownfields grants yields at least $18 in leveraged private
investment.
In Knoxville in east Tennessee, $400,000 of EPA grant
assessment was awarded for a south waterfront property area. It
has already leveraged more than $150 million in private
investment at a former hospital site and a $8 million public
park. Working together with a variety of parties on remediation
allows a far greater capacity for revitalization by allowing
these partnerships.
Legislation that expands the ability for organizations to
partner and investment in brownfields projects would allow
communities to leverage greater resources and greater amounts
of capital for improved outcomes. A common goal of brownfields
program is to make contaminated sites safe for reuse that
creates jobs and spurs economic development.
Legislation that reduces the risk for the investors in
remediation efforts would only enhance these opportunities and
allow investors to reuse existing infrastructure properties
that might otherwise go wasted or folks would have to look for
a greenfield site.
For example, in rural Tennessee in Sparta there is an old
lighting facility there that closed in 2012. It was sitting
vacant. Jackson Kayak, one of the largest goods exporters in
Tennessee, identified the plant as a potential expansion
location and, with the help of the local development district
and an EPA Brownfields grant, they were able to renovate the
existing facility by giving them liability protection for the
preexisting conditions, but allowing $6.5 million investment in
property in a small town of 5,000 people that created 250 new
jobs.
States are seeking ways in which organizations can safely
invest in remediation efforts without being restricted by
liability concerns. Responsible legislation that helps that is
greatly supported.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Subcommittee,
I thank you again for the leadership in preparing this
discussion draft and for the opportunity to present to you
today on behalf of ECOS.
[The prepared statement of Robert Martineau follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Meade Anderson, Brownfields
Program Manager at the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, on behalf of the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials. Again, you are recognized for
5 minutes. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF J. MEADE R. ANDERSON
Mr. Anderson. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking
Member Tonko, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak to you today.
I think I am going to be an echo of everything that you
have heard already today.
Mr. Shimkus. If you could, pull the microphone down just a
little bit?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
My name is Meade Anderson, and I am Chair of the
Brownfields Focus Group of the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, ASTSWMO. I am
here today representing ASTSWMO. ASTSWMO is an association
representing the waste management and remediation programs of
50 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia.
ASTSWMO was a strong supporter of the Brownfields Program.
Brownfields are evidence of our country's private, industrial,
commercial, and social heritage. These once thriving
properties, now abandoned, contribute to the economic, social,
and environmental decline in places we live, work, and play.
However, their 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 barriers to
redevelopment. 128(a) funding has allowed states to build a
buffet of services particular to their specific needs. Services
can be assessed and combined, depending upon the project and
the entity pursuing the project.
At any given time, you will find state program staff across
the country providing environmental site assessments, assisting
communities to apply for brownfields grants, providing
education on brownfields redevelopment, assisting entities to
manage environmental risk and liability, providing crucial
technical support, and managing voluntary cleanup programs that
are the basis for safe reuse of these properties.
Properties going through our programs may use one or all of
our services, but the underlying theme is that we could not
provide them with a 128(a) grant. While many envision
brownfields as an urban problem, we would like to highlight the
important role we play in small cities, towns, and rural areas.
Due to limited resources, these smaller local governments can't
afford to have an environmental professional or grant writer on
staff, so they require a higher level of project assistance. In
many cases, redevelopment in these towns would not happen
without 128(a)-supported services.
Since the beginning of the 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 requested funding, including 50 states, 4
territories, the District of Columbia, 109 tribes, 8 of which
were new applicants. The awards in 2003 averaged $618,000,
while in 2016 they averaged $293,000, less than half.
A result of this budgetary slide and inflation, states have
increasingly resorted to cost-saving measures such as cutting
brownfields staff, cutting or eliminating the amount of
assistance provided, increasing fees, and reducing the number
of environmental assessments. This particularly impacts our
rural partners, as they frequently require more support
services than some of our urban projects.
We are at a critical juncture in our national history where
expansion of our municipal boundaries, while attractive short-
term, leads to increased infrastructure cost 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.
Brownfields redevelopment and economic development go hand-
in-hand. Keep in mind brownfields investment is a good one.
Funding provided for brownfields redevelopment multiplies in
our communities and attracts additional private and public
investment. According to the studies indicated in my written
testimony, $1 of brownfields investment generates in Delaware
$17 in return on the initial investment. In Wisconsin, that $1
leverages $27 in total funding and resources. In Oregon, $1
equals $15, according to a 2014 study. And in Michigan in 2016,
if you spent $1 on brownfields redevelopment, you received
about $34 in leveraged funds. And brownfields are the gift that
keeps giving by increasing the tax base and improving the very
neighborhoods we live in or near.
Since 2015, Oklahoma has garnered over $10 million in new
state and income taxes annually on remediated sites. In 2014,
Oregon's program found that 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
national economic and social and environmental health. We have
a position paper that is filed with our written testimony.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and we will be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of J. Meade R. Anderson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, and I want to thank all of you for
your testimony. We will now move to the question-and-answer
portion of the hearing. I will begin by questioning and
recognizing myself for the first 5 minutes.
So, I want to lay out a couple of points and, then, I am
going to ask for answers, as I kind of was thinking about this
in kind of tight shot group.
But, first, we want to reauthorize the program. We are
always struggling with how do you appropriate money that in our
system there is no authorization for; the authorization has
lapsed. So, there is a desire to move reauthorization. The
benefit of the reauthorization is it allows us to do oversight,
look at the things that are positive, that have been
successful, but also look at some of the barriers that may
inhibit success or the proper functioning of the program.
There is always a caution. Everybody always wants more
money. And the leveraging is great if we could get a return, if
the federal government got a return on that, not that I am
proposing that, but it is just we have to be smart in what we
are asking for, even though the benefits are clearly spoken by
you all on the leverage of funds.
This is a question to the entire panel. There are two of
them. One is, based upon the discussion draft, what can be
improved just in the language of the draft itself? The next
question will be, what is your wish list on things that are in
it?
Again, I want, if I can, to just go down. Many of you
testified this in your opening statements, but, of course, they
are woven in the story of all the benefits and the challenges
and stuff. So, I just want to try to get a close shot group on
things you can improve in the language of the discussion draft
and, then, we will follow up to what is on a wish list.
So, Mayor Bollwage, if you want to start?
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On your one statement when you talked about the federal
government getting return, if you look at the Jersey Gardens
Mall and the 4,000 jobs and the federal income tax that is
being paid on all those jobs, it is some return. I am sure I
and others can quantify that return to the federal government,
if requested, Mr. Chairman. But I think that is a really good
point that you just made.
As far as the language goes on things to help better to
clarify, we are very pleased with the creation of the
multipurpose grant. To clarify the term in an area under the
criteria section, the requirement is to submit an overall plan.
We would like for local governments to be able to use this
grant based on a market need citywide and would hope that it
becomes eligible this way.
We would also wonder if the EPA would be flexible if the
original vision did not materialize and, instead, another one
is implemented. If a developer comes in and they say, ``Mayor,
you know, we want to build a flex warehouse on this 20-acre
parcel,'' and then, somebody else comes in and says, ``We want
to do an office building,'' and we already have the grant,
can't we just switch the grant to do the office building?
Mr. Shimkus. Mayor Panto?
Mr. Panto. I would agree exactly with my colleague. The
flexibility is very important to us. And as far as funding, I
understand; we make those decisions every day. I understand the
needs that are nationwide versus what we have as resources.
But I will also agree, I wrote down also about the federal
income taxes. Again, the whole reason for these brownfields is
to increase the amount of good jobs that are in our
communities. That means more taxes not just for us, but for you
as well. So, I would point that out as well.
And I would also say that the wish list is reauthorization.
If we get reauthorization just in the form that it is in, we
think the flexibility issue is important, especially in change
of use or change bundling up the different sites in a
community.
But I would certainly agree that this authorization is
needed immensely. Without this authorization, I really wonder
where we are headed environmentally in this country.
Mr. Shimkus. OK, great. Thank you.
Governor Glendening?
Mr. Glendening. Thank you.
As our colleagues have indicated here, I think one of the
major issues is increase the amount of money that can be used
for administrative expenses. I know that sometimes sounds like
a little bit of bureaucracy, or whatever, but we, Smart Growth
America, work very aggressively across the country with small
and medium-sized communities as well as some of the larger
areas. What we find more than anything is that, generally, they
do not have the internal capacity, nor in many cases do they
even have the financial capacity to engage an appropriate
consultant firm or something of this type.
I just returned several days ago from Concord, New
Hampshire, where we had a major effort working in terms of
bringing senior housing in, and they identified several sites
that were being delayed because they were the old mill sites.
I also was in upstate New York with Governor Cuomo not long
ago, working in Buffalo and surrounding communities, where we
are going through the same type of thing: how do we make it
flexible for the smaller community? Buffalo will be able to do
it. The smaller communities around there are having a harder
time. And so, I think that this flexibility in the
administrative cost is a major issue.
I would also add, to the extent that anything can be done
to make it more flexible, as my colleagues here indicated,
because plans change. What is happening in a really big way
right now is the mixed-used development. People wants residence
and housing and employment opportunities all together. When you
put together a mixed-use project, what you start with when you
apply for a brownfields is often not what you end up with by
the time you get your private financing and all. So, I think
that point becomes very important.
Lastly, with the mixed-use development, one of the other
major things that is going on across the country is the
transit-oriented development. And I think the ability to
somehow or other link these programs, because a lot of the
transit-oriented sites are old brownfields sites as well. They
were train stations, just like in the case of Santa Fe with
that tremendous redevelopment that occurred there.
The bottom line is I think you are all on the right track,
and we appreciate that very much and lend whatever support we
can, either technical or when we come to the discussions of the
appropriations.
Lastly, on the appropriations point, this administration is
emphasizing jobs and return on investment and effective use of
money. This is a model program to do just that.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. My time has expired. So, I
apologize to the last two panelists. I am sure they will get a
chance to respond.
I would now like to turn to the ranking member, Mr. Tonko,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
We heard this morning that some low-hanging fruit, as I
said, that are easier to assess and clean up have already been
addressed. Generally speaking, remaining brownfields sites may
be more difficult, which is another word for expensive, to
clean up.
With that in mind, is it important to increase the
potential size of grants? I would ask our entire panel. We
could perhaps start with Mayor Bollwage.
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you, Congressman Tonko.
Yes, increasing the amount of grants is always helpful from
a mayor's point of view. The panel has done that in going from
$200,000 to $500,000 in the remediation grants. And we have
suggested that even raising the limits on that is possible
because there are some of these sites that can be extremely
complex. At times, if we have it and we come back and say,
``Hey, listen, for another $100,000, we might be able to get
this done,'' we would hope that the EPA or the bureaucracy
would be responding in a quick way.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mayor Panto?
Mr. Panto. I would agree again with my colleague. We both
are mayors, so we both have the same vision of what we need.
And I think the million dollar threshold is a much better
threshold because things are getting more--you said it
directly--the low-hanging fruit is gone. These are tough sites
with BCPs and a lot of soil remediation that is needed. The
asbestos and lead is recognizable. It is the soil remediation
that really takes a lot of cost.
So, I would say, as I said, we all make these tough
financial decisions today, no matter what level of government.
But, if there is any program that the federal government does
that shows the return on investment, this is it. A $300,000
grant to our mill; we have $100 million of private investment
creating jobs that are going to be very sustainable. That comes
back to all of us.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Governor Glendening?
Mr. Glendening. Thank you.
I concur with my colleagues here and also suggest that, as
we look at larger amounts, that we keep almost a parallel mind
thought about the flexibility, because a number of the
developers that are coming in and successfully using these
fields have a sophistication and have some deeper-pocket
connections. And so, if they can be flexible in the upfront
portion, I think we are going to see more complex and more
expensive projects increasingly addressed.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Martineau?
Mr. Martineau. I think, one, the liability protections to
governmental entities is key and others, because whether state
or local governments being risk-averse don't want to get in
that chain of title unless they end up being the owner of an
abandoned property for liability purposes. So, doing that; the
grants increasing, but, of course, the challenges, then,
increase in front of you for the overall program. Obviously,
the original $200,000 was almost 20 years ago, and just the
cost of doing the investigation is important. But you trade off
less total sites if you don't increase the funding. So, that is
the challenge.
And then, for particularly the rural communities, the small
communities, some administrative costs just to help them fund
it. As the governor said, they don't have the resources in
house to hire the consultant and oversee that thing. But making
that site available and already doing the study is important to
get a prospective buyer in there.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. The larger grant amounts will be helpful to
some of these very challenging sites. They are quite dark brown
and there is no economic driver. Since real estate is cheap in
some of these areas, these rural areas, the large grants are
extremely important. However, as you realized, the larger
grants means less that we have to give out in the way of awards
out there with capped amounts.
Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Right, and that is where I wanted to take this
next question.
Mayor Bollwage, your testimony states in the past 5 years
over 1600 requests for viable projects were not awarded money
because of limited funding and 30 percent of the application
can be accepted. But what would be the impact of increasing
grant awards without increasing overall funding for the
program? Is there a concern that you have?
Mr. Bollwage. Not really. I mean, increasing the grant
awards would be helpful throughout the many cities in this
nation in order to accomplish the goal. I mean, I recognize
there's limited funding, and talking about the overall funding
of the bill is another thing that is never discussed. I mean,
one of the targets is $250 million, which is a reauthorized
number. I think we would like to see it at $1 billion, if
possible, over the time. But, naturally, that is not going to
happen, either.
Mr. Tonko. Well, it is your input that is valuable here.
Anyone else on that question or concern?
Mr. Glendening. I think it is important, just a discussion
of the standard amount of money. We have really brewing an
equity problem in this country, and this is one of the
opportunities for reinvestment and development in areas that
most desperately need it. They are more expensive. The truth of
the matter is, if you want to do more in the size and more on
the opportunities, you need more money in the bottom line.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
Now the Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia,
Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Glendening, you made a very interesting remark in
your prepared testimony and your remarks about 450,000
contaminated sites across the country. I travel through your
area twice a week, back through Frostburg and Cumberland and
Frederick and Hagerstown. I see those sites. They are still out
there, these abandoned sites.
It is my understanding that we probably remediate something
less than a thousand a year. So, we are talking about 450 years
ahead of us, and these are the sites that are the prime sites
that over the years companies took because they had access to
river, rail, and roads. And they are sitting there as a stigma
in that community without be developed.
So, I don't think there is any appetite in this panel for
us to cut the funding. If anything, I think we are going to try
to increase it, get back to the appropriated level of $250
million and not less than that.
My concern is, in part, with it, not only is the 450 years
ahead of us, but I want to build off what Congressman Shimkus
raised. That was he is walking on eggshells on this; I am
willing to talk about it. That is, why aren't we talking about
turning it into a revolving fund that we can provide monies as
an option? In lieu of putting 20 percent of a cost-share, you
return the investment back to the federal government, so that
we can reward some other community over the years with this.
Because if we are going to make up the pace of 450 years, we
have got to find another funding source.
Is there a problem, do any of you see a problem with
turning it or evolving it as an option to go to a revolving
fund where you return some? Mr. Anderson, you said it could be
as much as $34-$35 for every dollar. Just imagine if we could
return that money to a rural community that doesn't have the
20-percent share. And I will venture to guess, even though it
is in the law that you can waive your 20 percent, I guess that
there aren't too many that are waived. So, having said that,
does that make any sense to look at it as an option? Would that
be an incentive to do this?
Mr. Glendening. Congressman, if I might add real quickly,
first of all, as a good neighbor, I appreciate West Virginia as
much, to be sure. My son is a graduate of the University, and I
regularly go through the same communities in West Virginia, way
up there, and a lot of parallels in terms of needs as well.
Mr. McKinley. Right.
Mr. Glendening. We have used in Maryland some recapture
efforts to go into a revolving fund on parallel programs, and
they have worked well. And I think one of your basic theses is
absolutely correct. That is, as we move ahead and as we look at
the list of what is there, we have to examine every way, I
think, to help both expand the bottom-line amount, but also to
recapture and to be able to put some funds into the future of
this.
Mr. McKinley. In terms, Governor, of the timeframe, we had
some testimony a year ago about go monthly rather than annual.
Would being able for communities to be able to do it on a
monthly basis, to try, would that help increase participation
in this, rather than annual application grants?
Mr. Bollwage. Congressman, some cities do do revolving loan
funds, and it was a staple of efforts to renew their grant,
which is no longer existing. But a lot of cities and counties
will do revolving funds, but, in all honesty, no mayors want to
give money back to the federal government.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McKinley. I do understand that.
Mr. Panto. Congressman, I am going to go way off script
here. I think the whole idea of brownfields is what is
happening with the greenfields. It is so much easier and
cheaper to develop outside the urban cores. There is where you
need to get your impact fees.
Mr. McKinley. OK.
Mr. Panto. Put an environmental impact fee on taking our
agricultural lands away and creating more industries. And they
are not industries; they are distribution centers.
Mr. McKinley. Mayor, if I could on that, I am hearing from
other people that I have talked to about this that they are
still abandoned, some of these, for whatever reason. Is there
an appetite, do you think, with developers or so to look for
tax credits for people to locate in these brownfields sites?
That is, would that be part of an incentive that might get
people to locate there? Because it goes to the heart of the
issue about creating jobs, especially in downtown areas.
Mr. Panto. And we are doing that with incentives from the
state and local government. This mill, if you move there, until
2023 you don't pay any local or state income taxes. The
developer doesn't pay any real estate taxes. So, we are doing
those incentives, and they do work. And maybe that is something
that can work at the federal level. I would be more than happy
to look into that.
Mr. McKinley. OK. I am sorry, I went over my time. I yield
back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back the time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman, the ranking member
of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses also.
Because I really think this is an issue that we can work on
in a bipartisan manner, so I am going to continue to stress
that. The committee process so far has been productive, and I
want to continue working with my colleagues to craft a bill
that becomes law.
I do want to say, though, before I get to questions, that I
feel strongly about we should not open up liability under
Superfund in this bill, which is the cornerstone of the
Superfund Program. The 2015 Gold King Mine spill showed us the
serious risks that could come from creating carveouts for Good
Samaritans in the law, when EPA unintentionally caused the
release of toxic wastewater near the entrance of the mine. So,
if Good Samaritan protections have been in place, people in
communities harmed by that spill might not have been able to
recover their cleanup costs.
The other thing is that my colleagues have already touched
on the change in individual grant caps, and that change is
included in my bill to reauthorize the Brownfields Program and
it is also in the discussion draft. But that change has to be
done in a balanced manner.
So, let me get to some questions. Mr. Anderson, you
mentioned that competitive brownfields grants are in high
demand and, due to lack of sufficient funding for the program,
many applications go unfunded. My question is, increasing the
cap on individual grants under current funding levels will,
indeed, lead to even fewer applications being funded, is that
correct?
Mr. Anderson. I would think so.
Mr. Pallone. And so, we really need to pair these changes.
We want to increase the cap to allow more flexibility, but we
need to raise the overall funding level at the same time, which
is, obviously, what I advocate. Do you agree with that? Or do
you want to comment on that?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, I think you are absolutely right. The
blanks that are in the legislation are probably the biggest
issue. The legislation as a whole provides new flexibility, and
I think it is good.
Mr. Pallone. All right. This will be to Governor
Glendening--the discussion draft, like my bill, also includes
language to allow nonprofits to apply for brownfields grants.
Governor, do you support that change? Do you want to comment on
that?
Mr. Glendening. I think there is a good change affected by
written comments. It does elaborate a little bit upon that. In
a number of areas, a nonprofit is not only an active partner,
but in some cases is the only partner, and particularly when
this is used for things like turning into a workforce and
affordable housing and addressing communities where inequity
has been pretty severe in the past and they do have the private
sector funding at this moment. And so, the nonprofit partners
have worked, and there are numerous cases, and again I must
stress particularly for affordable housing.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you, Governor.
Mr. Chair, I wanted to very quickly mention two other
important changes that are both in my bill and the discussion
draft to clarify the eligibility of governments that acquired
land through eminent domain or before the Brownfields Program
was authorized in 2002.
I guess I will ask Mayor Panto about those changes and
whether you would support those changes.
Mr. Panto. Not only do we support them, we encourage you to
keep them in the bill.
Also, when it comes to the eminent domain, the one thing in
there I did like was the word ``purchase''. Because oftentimes,
in order to clean up your community, you have to do an outright
purchase, like we did. The city of Easton purchased that mill
site. We used state dollars for it, but we did purchase it. We
became the owner. So, the liability portion that Mr. Anderson
talked about and, then, this portion, we believe that you are
absolutely right on target there. It would be a big help.
Mr. Pallone. OK. I haven't asked my New Jersey mayor to
comment. All right, I will ask you for lunch.
[Laughter.]
Thanks for being here.
It seems to me that there is a lot of support among the
stakeholders for reauthorizing the Brownfields Program and for
making the clarifying changes included in the discussion draft.
And there is also unanimous support among the stakeholders for
increasing the funding level. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can
not only continue to move forward with this legislation, but
also that we can do something to increase the funding levels,
which I think is important.
And I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Olson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair.
And welcome to all of our witnesses.
My hometown is Houston, Texas. We have the world's largest
petrochemical industry. We have the world's largest medical
complex, the Texas Medical Center. We have America's No. 1
exporting port, the Port of Houston. And we have a lot of
brownfields sites all across our region. They are all over.
Put that slide up, please. This is the best example of how
a brownfields can work. This is smack-dab in downtown Houston.
It is an old railroad station, a dilapidated industrial
facility with many, many, many corrugated metal buildings in
complete decay.
Next slide, please. Here's that brownfields today. That is
the 42,000-seat Minute Maid Ballpark.
Mr. Shimkus. Is that a Minor League park?
Mr. Olson. No, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. A semi-pro team?
[Laughter.]
Sorry.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
want to comment. I appreciate that, and I want to remind you
the Astros won their opener last night.
Mr. Olson. My comment is about that. As you can see from
the little placard here, according to Sports Illustrated, on
June 30th of 2017, that stadium will be the home of the
Baseball World Series Champions, our Houston Astros.
[Laughter.]
And I am proud to say, after yesterday, we are on track to
win 162 games and have nobody score one against us. Go Astros.
But, to be a little serious, this was a true public/private
partnership with private in uppercase letters; public in
lowercase letters. EPA spent about $800,000 to have this
brownfields take and made into Minute Maid Park. Houston, local
Houston people raised over $800,000 versus $500 million.
And so, my question for the whole panel is, who would do
these projects like Minute Maid Park without federal
assistance? Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. Thank you.
Often the real spur of a development like that is that
initial investment of cash. The developers look at these
properties and they don't know whether they want to spend their
own. They want to get before they own the property--allowing
the local government or the state government or the federal
government to come in and actually do an assessment of that
property, figure out how bad it is, put the yardstick up
against it, is critical to these projects. And you can see the
leveraging.
Thank you.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Martineau?
Mr. Martineau. I would second that. I think that is exactly
right. The site assessment dollars by somebody as the city or
the community investing those dollars, so that they can attract
maybe a myriad of prospective purchasers. Because if you don't
know what the site has got, it is an old railroad site--and our
Gulch was the same thing, an old CSX site. Why are you going to
spend half-a-million dollars to do a site assessment to only
find out it is way beyond the thing, when you can go somewhere
else and find a greenfield site? So, that initial site
investment, it gives the prospective buyers a sense of what the
additional cost to use that facility is as opposed to something
else.
Mr. Olson. You have to have federal, don't you, it sounds
like?
Governor Glendening, sir?
Mr. Glendening. Congressman, first of all, I agree entirely
with the premise, and you are exactly on target. And I
appreciate that.
But let me also add, if I might, the Baltimore Orioles
Stadium, which became the model for the modern baseball
stadium, used the exact same approach. It was a combination. It
was a brownfield. And right next to it now is the Ravens'
stadium as well.
And so, I think what we ought to do is, as creatively as
the Baltimore Orioles and the Houston Astros play in the World
Series for, we could call this ``the Brownfields Series,'' and
put the publicity on this where it should be, as the Orioles,
indeed, of course, go on to win.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Olson. We have one problem. I love that, sir, but a
couple of years ago they moved us to the American League. So,
it has to be an American League Champion Series, but I would
love to have the Orioles----
Mr. Glendening. You have to make more of an impact then. I
had forgotten about----
Mr. Olson. Well, we are planning to this year, the World
Series Champs.
Mr. Glendening. Right.
Mr. Olson. Mayor Panto?
Mr. Panto. In light of time, I would concur with all my
colleagues as well.
Mr. Olson. And last, sir, Mayor Bollwage.
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you, Congressman.
When we built the Jersey Gardens Mall on a 166-acre
landfill, it was the same process. We used an assessment grant,
and the developers asked me to go to the city council to build
a road, which cost $10 million to get to the dump, in order to
get the heavy equipment in for remediation. So, the public
investment and that combination led to about $500 million of
investment.
Mr. Olson. As you guys know, more about the stadium, we
built a basketball team. The big Rockets auditorium stands
right across the street from that; a soccer stadium for our
Dash and our Dynamos across the freeway from that, all new
hotels, a little park out there. Downtown is thriving again. It
was going----
Mr. Shimkus. All right, the gentleman's time has expired. I
will remind him that the American League still doesn't play
real baseball because they have the DH.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Olson. It wasn't our choice.
Mr. Shimkus. With that, I will recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Ruiz. He was a baseball player. He would
appreciate that.
Mr. Ruiz. I do appreciate that, and the American League is
definitely the league to follow and watch. That is where my
favorite teams are.
I want to focus on the important role that this program
plays in improving and protecting the health of the surrounding
communities. Often these contaminated sites are located in low-
income or underserved communities which shoulder a
disproportionate burden of the health effects from the
pollution. Clean up of these contaminated sites is a public
health equity issue because it will provide these underserved
communities who bear the greatest brunt of the disproportionate
burden of disease with safer air to breathe and water to drink
and a cleaner outdoor environment where the residents can work
and play and raise a family, and know that their health will be
protected.
As an emergency physician, I have seen firsthand how these
hazardous sites have affected the public's health, especially
children who are too young to recognize the dangers of playing
near contaminated sites.
This question is for Mayor Panto. In your testimony you
share your experiences with the abandoned R&H Simon Silk Mill
in your community of Easton. What type of pollutants were
present at this site?
Mr. Panto. Lead, asbestos, primarily in the buildings that
the kids used to go into. You are absolutely right, it is in
our low/moderate area of the city. It is our highest-density
population. So, the kids are looking for--there are no
playgrounds around and there is not a lot of greenspace--so
they find attractive older buildings like this to play in. And
so, I would say the biggest obstacles were the lead and
asbestos.
Mr. Ruiz. And we know that there are well-documented
negative health effects, including lung cancer, mesothelioma
from breathing in asbestos, and problems with development of
the brain and nervous system with lead exposure, especially in
children. So, how did the Brownfields cleanup grant you
received help you address these pollution problems?
Mr. Panto. We removed and all the lead paint is now gone.
All the asbestos is gone. Matter of fact, I should point out my
mother worked in that mill when I was a child. So, that
asbestos was getting into her lungs as well. But those are gone
now. So, the kids who were frequenting them, had we done that a
long time ago, they wouldn't be exposed to that, but they were
definitely exposed to the asbestos and the lead.
Mr. Ruiz. And so, tell me more about the community around
these sites. Who remains most at risk from the pollution
remaining at the abandoned sites? And why is there now a new
threat there?
Mr. Panto. The people or individuals who were most exposed
were the kids. It wasn't the type of pollution where adults
were going down and playing on the soils. We have one right
down the site which was an old iron and metal scrap yard, and
that is another site. It is just not as large. And the city is
looking at possibly putting a park there.
Mr. Ruiz. Are these affluent communities who can afford the
care?
Mr. Panto. No, no, no, no. No, these are poverty level, 80-
percent median income----
Mr. Ruiz. Tell me about the healthcare services around
there. Are there big hospitals? Is there concierge medicine?
Mr. Panto. Concierge medicine? No, no. We are very
fortunate; we just got our first primary care group that is
opening up in that neighborhood, the first.
Mr. Ruiz. Your very first one after all these years?
Mr. Panto. Yes.
Mr. Ruiz. So, disproportionately, the rural, hard-working,
poor families that struggle to make ends meet are the ones that
have to deal with these types of abandoned contaminated sites,
correct?
Mr. Panto. Congressman, I am glad you brought that up. We
always try to look toward the positive of economic development,
but you are absolutely right, it negates the health hazards.
And, yes, there definitely were health hazards exposed to all
the children who used to play in those buildings, including the
homeless.
Mr. Ruiz. Well, clearly, this is an issue of fairness.
Clearly, this is an issue of the fair distribution of resources
to meet the needs of those that oftentimes have the weakest
political muscle to have a voice for themselves. And so, this
brownfields reauthorization is an issue of environmental
justice as well.
Having said that, we also know that tribes constitute a
large and increase in the application process for these grants.
And we know that we had the discussion of whether the amount of
grants, where if we were to increase the amount of grants, we
would perhaps have to limit the amount of awardees. But, if we
keep the awardees the same, the grant dollars will go down.
This is one argument why we need to increase the pool or the
pie of these grants, so that the grant money can be actually
effective and we can get some significant changes in these
communities that are needed.
Mr. Anderson, talk to me about the technical assistance
that these grants provide for tribes and other rural
communities.
Mr. Anderson. The technical assistance, there are a number
of different ways to provide and gain technical assistance out
there. The states, through their 128(a), as I mentioned,
provide brownfields assistance. We go out. We brainstorm. We
help with public meetings. Some states have grant-writing
programs that they actually help write the grants, review them.
There is also the TAB contractors through EPA, Technical
Assistance to Brownfields. I believe there are five around the
nation that can lend at no charge assistance to some of these
local communities. There is also a similar-type setup for the
tribes out there.
These are excellent programs and work quite well.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you very much. I appreciate this
conversation.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was going to mention to my colleague, Mr. Olson, some of
us talk baseball; others of us actually still play baseball.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Chairman, you are from Illinois, the great home state
of the Chicago Cubs. I am from Ohio.
Mr. Shimkus. Wait, wait. Don't go that far.
Mr. Johnson. I'm from Ohio, the home of the Cleveland
Indians. But, just like his beloved Astros, Mr. Olson left the
tournament early. So, I will have to mention this to him later.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Martineau, your testimony states that the discussion
draft removes statutory barriers to brownfields revitalization.
Would you please tell us what you mean by that?
Mr. Martineau. I think a couple of things. The removal of
the barrier to allow nonprofits and non-governmental entities
there; the opportunity to increase the cap; the opportunity to
increase those who could get liability protection, particularly
governmental entities. Sometimes governmental entities, like in
economic development, may be looking for sites that they can
then market if they take ownership and do the assessment and
prepare it for market, essentially. I think all of those things
can be helpful; the administrative cost thing.
Several folks mentioned those rural communities,
particularly where we are trying to bring jobs back into the
poor rural--we talk a lot about the urban, which are very
important, but some of these rural jobs. In our state there
were a lot apparel and denim facilities and stuff. Those
industries are gone.
So, having the Technical Assistance Grants or the ability
to have the administrative cost to those small communities
where $25,000 or $50,000 in a small city's budget may be the
difference between getting that site marketable or not.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, I represent one of those rural areas
like you are talking about.
In addition, your testimony states that legislation that
reduces risk in remediation efforts would create opportunities
for investors to reuse existing infrastructure at properties
that would otherwise be wasted. Would you elaborate on that as
well?
Mr. Martineau. Yes. I think the provisions in some of it
have been discussed here earlier today. The impediment to
these, at the bottom it is the financing. It is the banks or
the lenders that are going to want that certainty that they are
not going to end up with a contaminated site or the prospective
buyer that wants to do that redevelopment; that they want that
liability protection from whatever preexisting conditions are
there or the prior owners.
The ability in Kayak example I used was perfect. They
wanted to renovate that existing building instead of build a
greenfield site. The square footage was already there. The
infrastructure, water, and sewer was already there. But they
didn't want to become the owner/operator of a contaminated
site.
So, allowing that existing facility to be renovated and
ensuring through the grant that liability protection for that
thing, when they went in and continued to operate; if you
demolish the building and start cleaning, it is a little easier
to clear it out and you get the soil samples. But this is the
ability, rather than build a greenfield building, they were
able to use an existing building that had been sitting vacant.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Finally, staying with you, Mr. Martineau,
your written testimony notes that states are seeking ways in
which organizations can safely invest in remediation efforts
without being restricted by liability concerns. Do you have any
suggestions on how to deal with the liability concerns that you
are referring to?
Mr. Martineau. We can offer the committee some specific
language through ECOS, and we will look at some specific
language. But I think the kind of general concepts in the
discussion draft about enhancing the liability protection,
particularly for governmental entities who may want to take
title, as we have talked about, the city really ends up being
the owner of the property because it has been abandoned. And
then, if they can ensure their protection, they can market that
and pass that on.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back a whole 40
seconds.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the other gentleman from Houston,
Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would never say that you were a Cubs fan. I know you
are the St. Louis Cardinals because, when we were in the
National League, we battled you many times. And I appreciate
that relationship.
Mr. Olson. Will the gentleman yield briefly?
Mr. Green. Briefly.
Mr. Olson. Remember they hacked internal baseball accounts
to save those Cardinals.
Mr. Shimkus. Reserving the right to object----
Mr. Green. Yes, reclaiming my time, the Cardinals actually
paid for that, I think, the owners.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
having the hearing today because brownfields is so important in
my area, in Houston, a very urban area. At one time these were
just abandoned, bankrupt businesses that we wished we could
keep the liability there, but when they are not there, you
can't do it. But we do have a few cases where companies are
bought and they just forget about that that is in their
inventory. And we have a responsible party, whether it be a
Superfund site or even brownfields.
But what I have seen has happened--and I appreciate the
effort to try to have nonprofits because in my area, a very
urban area, just east of that baseball park, by the way, we
have a number of nonprofits who could benefit from that in
there. But we have been fortunate with grants and brownfields
in both Houston and Harris County.
In our area and around the country, some small,
disadvantaged communities do not have the capacity to
undertakes revitalization projects. That area that you saw in
that baseball park was actually the city of Houston, which is
big enough to deal with it. But I have some smaller cities
further out in our industrial area that may not be able to deal
with that.
I hope that our reauthorization will provide those
authorities and resources necessary to benefit communities. But
I am concerned with President Trump's recently released 2018
budget which calls for a 30-percent cut in the EPA and reported
40-percent cut in Brownfields Redevelopment Grants. Brownfields
is such a critical part for communities in Texas and throughout
the United States. I hope this hearing and its continued
attention to brownfields will show it is bipartisan support in
Congress by the American people.
Mr. Anderson, in your testimony you talk about your
organizations helping smaller cities, towns, and rural areas.
Could you describe some of that assistance your organization
provides to these types of communities? Like I said, I have
incorporated cities, but they are very small and may not have
the local tax base or the local resources.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. Thank you.
A great example I think is Lynchburg, Virginia, a small
city. And there was an abandoned factory at the site. The city
took it over. Adjacent to that was abandoned greenhouse
complex. A nonprofit took that over.
We were able to get grant money in to assess that property
to give the first read on it that helped the city get through a
voluntary cleanup program and to assess the greenhouse that
helped the greenhouse. The nonprofit that employs some disabled
adults and allows children to come out to an urban farm, to
allow them to get that data and move forward with a cleanup
program through our voluntary cleanup program, that is one of
my finest examples out there. There are many others that I have
around the state.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Mayor Panto, as mayor of a small city, do you agree that
some additional forms of assistance from EPA would be
beneficial? I would like to turn to administrative costs.
Currently, Brownfields Grant funds cannot be used for
administrative costs. Allowing recipients to use a portion of
EPA funds to offset some of the administrative burden could
help these communities, particularly in these smaller and,
then, sometimes financially-disadvantaged communities. Again, I
am talking about a city, a very urban area of 10-12 thousand
people.
Mr. Panto. Congressman, I agree with you 100 percent. I
think Mr. Anderson pointed out that our small city of 29,000
doesn't have a grant writer, doesn't have a specific
environmental department, let alone an environmental person.
So, those types of administrative grants, 5 percent is fine,
but we would like to see it be 10 percent because, on a
$300,000 grant, let's say the average is--you can go up to
$500,000, but let's say $300,000. That is a $30,000 opportunity
for us to have oversight of professionals doing what needs to
be done, and we don't have one on staff.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of
questions, but I can't get into them now because I don't have
the time. But I would be glad to submit them. I appreciate it.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Walberg for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
committee, and to the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Anderson, based on your extensive experience with
brownfields, can you give us your thoughts on whether it would
be a good idea to create an exemption or defense to liability
for parties interested in redeveloping brownfields?
Mr. Anderson. I think that is a two-part question, sir. The
exemption might conflict with CERCLA laws. The defense is out
there right now. The phase 1 environmental assessments, the due
diligence can be and should be completed before you buy
properties. It is the ``termite inspection'' of commercial real
estate.
And to do that, that will give you the protections under
the law. Do the environmental assessments to go along with it,
to find out how bad the termites are. Put a dollar figure on
that site before you actually purchase that property.
We have had very few problems with people moving forward
with that process in Virginia. On a national level, I am not
real sure, but I think it is an excellent model and it does
provide the liability protections out there.
Mr. Walberg. In this ``termite test'' that you say, would a
party who caused or contributed to the contamination be
eligible?
Mr. Anderson. Since it is set up for purchasers of that
property, no. However, we do have the voluntary cleanup
program, as most of the states do. That would allow a PRP, a
potential responsible party, to actually enroll that site into
the cleanup program, complete a cleanup that is protective of
human health and the environment. With that, under Virginia,
you get enforcement immunity. We have a Memorandum of Agreement
with EPA. We just re-upped it in March of 2017. That means
that, once we complete it, the EPA has no further interest in
that property. The lawyers really like that.
Mr. Walberg. And you have found this proactive effort to be
very productive in cleaning up?
Mr. Anderson. I think so. Yes, sir, it has been very
successful in Virginia, I believe. Well, there are two
different types of sites in Virginia. You have got the type of
sites that happen in the Beltway, up this way where properties
have a lot of value and the properties are worth a lot once
they are cleaned up.
But, once you get out into the rural areas, the properties
are upside-down, and you really need to work with the local
government to figure out how to redevelop that property in a
manner that is consistent with what they need and with what
they have in that community itself. So, those can be a real
challenge, but those liability protections are there for the
local government, and we have talked about expansion of that
here today.
Thank you.
Mr. Walberg. Your written testimony, Mr. Anderson, notes
that the Section 128(a) funding for states, territories, and
tribes has remained at just under $50 million for more than 15
years. Can you explain to us why that is a problem, other than
more money is always good money, it seems like?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir, I believe I can. As I mentioned, in
2003 there were 80 applicants for that pool of money. Today
there are 166 applicants in 2016. So, basically, you have got
double the amount of applicants for that money and you have got
the same pot of money. The pie can only be sliced thinner. It
is the only way to equal that out. The awards these days are
half of what they were, less than half of what they were when
the program started in 2003.
Mr. Walberg. Does ASTSWMO--you say it better than I do----
Mr. Anderson. ASTSWMO.
Mr. Walberg. ASTSWMO.
Mr. Anderson. It took me a while.
Mr. Walberg. Do they have an opinion as to the appropriate
level of funding?
Mr. Anderson. If we were to look at that $50 million in
today's dollars, I am not an economist, but I have been told
that that $50 million is worth about $66 million. So, that
alone could make a significant difference. If you just do the
math and look at what we were getting on average in 2003 and
you look at 2016, it would be significantly different, an
increase.
Mr. Walberg. Any of the rest of the panel care to add to
that from your own experience?
Mr. Glendening. If I could add a very quick comment here,
part of what is going on, I think, is that the sites that are
left are not only more difficult, they are also significantly
about health in the neighborhood, in the poor areas, and things
of this type. And so, the program has been successful. You can
see that by the number of applications as well as the results
afterwards. But what we are looking at now is, just as the poor
and the smaller and the areas that are most impacted by the
health considerations realize what is going on, the money, just
in terms of the sheer numbers, is becoming very, very
difficult.
I always emphasize to people to just look around the
neighborhood. You don't see the $600,000 home right next to the
abandoned steel mill. You do see the rental properties where
people really don't even want to live and their children are
ill next to the steel mill. That is part of what we have got to
keep in our mind when we think about the total amount of money.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you.
This is very bipartisan. In fact, it is a little too
bipartisan. We need to find some areas to disagree on.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, don't spread that around too much. It is
not going to be helpful.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
But there are some common things here. You all seem to want
to have the individual grant size increased, maybe as much as a
million dollars. You like the administration costs covered,
maybe up to 10 percent. Those seem reasonable.
But, with regard to the mayors, I am a little confused
about why you think the brownfields in-fill is a better
opportunity than a greenfield for small towns. I mean, I like
to hear that, but I am not sure what the reasons are.
Mr. Panto. Well, in Pennsylvania we are very parochial. So,
I have 5 square miles. But, if you came to my city, you would
think were seven municipalities. There are three boroughs and
three townships that border us that we provide water and sewer
for, but we don't have the abilities to increase our population
the way they do. Therefore, we are stagnant.
The same way with the brownfields. The brownfields are
located in the cities. They are not located in the townships
that are relatively new. That is all greenfield development.
It is a matter of fairness to me. We have the tax-exempt
properties, the schools, the churches, the county seats. They
don't have that. They have a much higher income tax base than
we do. We have the poor, the poverty, the senior citizens. We
need that.
These brownfields sites in cities of our size are really
important economically. They are important, as Congressman Ruiz
said, for health and safety. Absolutely. But, just as
importantly, they are the economic engines of our city. They
could provide jobs for our residents. Increasing their earning
capacity is really important to us. Because if we increase
their earning capacity, they get sustainable jobs that help
them with their family. Their kids don't go to school hungry.
They have the laptop at home or the computer to do their
homework. We don't have the kind of wealth that they have in
the suburbs. So, I would say that this is a fairness issue,
economically and from a health and safety point.
Mr. Bollwage. Congressman, from my point of view, we are
the county seat in New Jersey, in Union County. Forty-seven
percent of our land is tax-exempt because of Newark Airport,
the seaport, churches, the county buildings. And the only way
we can grow our tax base is by looking at these underutilized
properties and convert them to a productive use, in supporting
what my colleague from Pennsylvania just said.
Mr. McNerney. And Mr. Anderson remarked that it is a better
use of infrastructure. I assume you mean electrical
infrastructure, water infrastructure, broadband, all those
things?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir, I do. As you are aware, once you
extend services out, you have to maintain those. And the core
of cities will continue to deteriorate unless efforts are made
to revitalize those cores themselves. Those were the stimulus
for the development in that area itself to begin with.
Mr. McNerney. Well, the city of Stockton, California, in my
district, was one of the recipients of a pilot grant in 1996,
and it used it to revitalize areas near the Stockton Deepwater
Channel. And it has been very successful.
I am turning my interest toward the repowering portion of
this legislation. Mr. Glendening, I would like to ask, what do
you think the benefits to the communities of the repowering
initiative would be?
Mr. Glendening. I am sorry, can you repeat the last part of
the question?
Mr. McNerney. Well, what are the benefits to the community
that the repowering portion of this legislation would be as
opposed to not including that?
Mr. Glendening. Oh, most definitely. Part of what we as far
as Smart Growth America, but in communities all across the
country, it is to bring investment into existing communities.
We do that in part because we are interested in supporting
efforts to protect the greenfields, the farming, the
agriculture, the timber, the open spaces. And the best way to
do that is to have a thriving existing community.
Also, your point is well-taken in terms of the whole equity
issue as well. If everything continues to grow outward and the
housing wealth and everything moves outward, then you have
people who are left behind. I think this is one of the big
challenges facing the country. And so, this is about
revitalization in areas that really need the jobs, the tax
revenue, and the investment.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Martineau, do you think that the states would be able
to pick up the slack if the EPA budget cuts of 30 percent
filter down to the Brownfields Program?
Mr. Martineau. Sir, I think the challenge, no, would be
those states are already strapped. They are often part players
in that. But those grants provide the seed money for those
investments. And so, that is an important partnership there, to
have those federal dollars available to states and local
communities for those grants.
Mr. McNerney. So, the kind of fundings we have seen
proposed from the administration would be very detrimental to
our cities?
Mr. Martineau. Yes, I think that, obviously, the number--we
are already short, as the ranking member said, the number of
sites that are still waiting on the list. And the money that
has currently been budgeted, if it goes backwards, there are
just going to be fewer sites, particularly if we increase the
cap of what an individual grant could be. Yes, you would just
do a lot fewer sites, if we are trying to reinvest in that
infrastructure, in existing communities that have blighted
facilities and return them to productive use.
And back to the chairman's comment about how do you measure
it, you can do the economic analysis. It is not a direct
dollar, but if you put 200 jobs back in a rural community and
take people off of unemployment and other assistance programs,
and they are paying state and federal taxes, and the property
values in those communities go up, that benefits both the
federal government and the state government and local
communities.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Carter, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for being here. This is very interesting.
I was a mayor in another life, and I can tell you these are
the type of things that I think the government does well and
that we utilized. In fact, in the state of Georgia we have been
very successful in a number of projects, particularly in the
Atlanta area.
If you look at Atlantic Station, that to me has to be one
of the best examples anywhere in the nation. I mean, that is
multi-use and it is such a vibrant place now, kind of a
centerpiece, if you will, of the whole area.
And not only Atlantic Station, but Ponce City Market. That
is another example of a great project. My son actually works in
that building. So, I see it firsthand quite often. Again, that
is the kind of thing that builds up my confidence or makes me
feel good that we are doing some things good, and we do from
time to time.
I want to ask you because I want to understand, what are
the challenges, if you will, that you face when you are working
with third-party developers and when you are working with
third-party developers on a prospective purchase or something?
What is the biggest challenge that you face with that, because
this has to be a partnership?
Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. Probably time. Developers move at a different
rate of speed as to what the government does. And that is just
the way life works.
To respond to it, we have to have the staff in place
knowledgeable and staff that are able to respond and do, at
least in my program, handle the cleanup that is associated with
those sites or to provide that advice to the local government
and the developer itself.
Mr. Carter. Yes, we know that the wheels of the federal
government move slow.
Mr. Anderson. They do, but, surprisingly, in this program
if you compare it to other programs, because most of the
developers or the cities that are enrolling properties, they
have an end goal in mind to finish this development, they have
money on the line, they are ready to move.
Mr. Carter. Right. Anybody else? Yes, sir, Mayor Bollwage?
Mr. Bollwage. Congressman, thank you.
The biggest problem is, first of all, the developer needs
to make money. And therefore, taking that aside, how does he do
that or how did they do that. And when they are looking at
their revenue item, they want to know if there is grounds to
cover the assessment cost, if there is a grounds to cover the
cleanup costs, if there is a grounds for tax abatement from the
local municipality and/or whatever state grants could be
available. So, you start off from wherever the developer's
number is and how do you get to that developer's number, and
then, they are looking for all types of other areas. And one of
the ways we can help is through assessment and cleanup, with
the help of the federal government.
Mr. Carter. You brought that up, and I appreciate it very
much because that segues exactly into my next question. And
that is, you mentioned yourself about some of the projects are
easier than others, and we understand that.
The projects in urban areas are very different from
projects in rural areas. And I have some urban area, but mostly
rural area in my district. I have got one example of a high-
risk, high-reward project, if you will. It is a paper mill that
is on pristine property. It is just located on deepwater, but
it is doing to take a lot of cleanup, and we are struggling. It
is in St. Mary's, Georgia. And we are really struggling with
getting someone interested in taking on that high risk.
Any experiences with that? Any suggestions?
Mr. Panto. What we did, Congressman, is on this mill I
worked for a developer before I became mayor. In the 16 years I
was out of office, I worked for two different developers.
My economic development director and I knew that we would
never get anyone interested in this building in the private
sector in this 18 acres, 16 buildings of blight and
environmental contamination. So, what we did is we put together
a package to go out and get all the grants that we could,
including Brownfields grants, to clean the property up. Then,
we offered it to the third party by doing an RFP.
Now we are giving them a piece of property that their
liability is gone. The lead on the abatement; the soil
remediation is done. Everything is done right on down to
structural analysis of the buildings.
I believe that is government's role. How do we get it to a
point where a private sector will--they had baseball. Well, I
will use a football analogy. It is that we handed it off. We
handed it off to the next person, the private sector, to invest
$100 million. Whereas we spent probably about $7 or $8 million
in grant money to clean the entire site, put in the
infrastructure because there was no infrastructure left. And in
many of these brownfields the infrastructure is a complete
reinvestment.
Mr. Carter. Right.
Mr. Panto. That alone was a couple of million dollars.
Mr. Glendening. Congressman, can I say real quickly in the
few seconds that are left that I worked with the developer Jim
Jacoby on a number of aspects down with the Atlantic Station. I
remember when it was just a huge slag field of abandoned
material.
And one of the things that was so clear to me--and this is
a very innovative gentleman, as you know--he is trying to solve
one problem and, then, he immediately moves to the next section
and the next section, which is why I go back to we really need
to be flexible on this, so that one part, in fact, is moving
and you are just doing the assessment over on this part. He is
a tremendous example of what can be done.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely. Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms.
Dingell, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member Tonko, for holding this important hearing today
about reauthorizing EPA's Brownfields.
It is a bipartisan issue and it is great to see us all work
together because we need to be doing it more.
By the way, I am a Detroit Tigers fan and I always be. I
mean, I just couldn't let that go. We haven't played. We got
rained out yesterday. So, we will win today.
But EPA's Brownfields Program has had a long history of
empowering states, local communities, and other stakeholders to
work together to prevent the contaminated sites from
endangering public health and the environment. The program has
got merits.
As I am sitting here listening to this discussion, I am
struck. I really agree with my colleague who just spoke, Mr.
Carter, about some of the impediments that we all face.
We have a success story in my district which is one of the
best brownfields sites in the country, which we have the
Downriver Community Conference that received a grant of $6.4
million for the revolving loan fund. It has actually yielded
$103 million return on investment, adding over 800 jobs and
significantly increasing the tax base of local downriver
communities.
Then, we got another grant, and we are very proud of this,
Willow Run, which was once the site of the Arsenal of Democracy
and the original Rosie the Riveter for World War II. It is now
the home of the American Center for Mobility, a national DOT
proving ground for testing and validation of connected and
automated vehicles. And there are a ton of stories like this.
And I am going to ask questions, unscripted again. I always
go off-script and make my staff get upset.
We have got McLouth Steel, which is where the problems are,
and Superfund is way too slow. I want to talk about that in a
minute.
But let me ask you this: the overall EPA budget is critical
to the success of brownfields programs across the country.
Mayor Panto, on behalf of the National League of Cities, how
would budget cuts to EPA impact any of your current or future
brownfields projects and what are you hearing from other
mayors?
Mr. Panto. Well, they won't get done. So, the health and
safety will continue to rise. The economic losses will continue
to go to the suburban areas of our city, not to the city
itself. So, it would be devastating not just to Easton, but all
of our cities and towns across America.
I will tell you that we have been very resilient not just
in climate and environment, but also in finances. Mayors and
council members at a local level have had to do exactly what
Congress has had to do. Just all we remind you is, like a
mayor, I propose my budget to city council; city council
disposes the budget, and so do you.
So, I am asking you to prioritize. This is an important
ingredient for creating jobs. This will move the cities
forward, which moves the country forward. And it would be
devastating without it.
Mrs. Dingell. I agree.
This question is for the entire panel. In the event EPA is
no longer able to provide brownfields projects funding to the
cities, could current multi-year cleanup projects experience
significant delays or complete cancellations? And if so, what
is the impact on public health and the environment? Any of you?
Because I know you all have got a not-good answer or an answer
with not good consequences.
Mr. Glendening. Well, I would just say part of the
challenge is all of the different discussions here have
focused, appropriately and for obvious reasons, on the dollar
return on investment or on the number of jobs created or on
revenues going in. All of those are very reasonable
justifications.
However, when you start getting into the other questions
like the health of the community, like the whole equity issue
situation, like having affordable properties for development of
affordable housing, like having attraction for private sector
investment into older communities that desperately need
revitalization, that is not on the balance sheet when we look
at it right now. And it must be really part of the
consideration, which is why I agree so much with the mayor,
hoping the committee clearly understands these issues and makes
this as part of the prioritization of doing that. You do
understand, of course, that I am equally concerned about some
other areas, but I am here on behalf of brownfields.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Anybody else want to comment in the 10 seconds left?
Mr. Panto. Congresswoman, I would just say one thing.
Return on investment is very important, and that is what it is
all about. It is about trying to do those things that
government can do from a businesslike manner. We can't do
everything like a business.
But, for example, right now, our city is looking to invest
$30 million into a $130 million aquarium science center. The
only way we can do that is looking at what is our return. And
if our return is greater than the debt service, we are there.
If our return isn't greater than the debt service, it is we are
not there. The return on investment on this program, you can't
even question it. It has been phenomenal.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms.
Blackburn, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you so much.
And I want to stay right with that line of questioning and
thought. Mr. Martineau, I think you should know I am coming
straight to you, buddy.
[Laughter.]
Yes, I know you do, and I know you have got such a great
story to tell. As I said in my opening statement, we are really
pleased with the program in Tennessee and what you have been
able to accomplish.
And so, as we go through this bill and look at the
discussion draft and look at how we make certain that we
continue on the road where there is that return on investment--
and you were saying phenomenal; you almost said fanatical. And
I tell you what, I think that that may not have been such a
misnomer because people would never have expected some of the
revitalization that has come from the work that you have done.
But I want you to talk, if you will, sir, about two
projects, and you referenced each of them. One is The Gulch
project. Talk about the public/private partnership, the
incentivizing that the state did.
And then, I don't know if you have for the record what the
estimated property value now of The Gulch is as compared to
what it was 10 years ago, 15 years ago.
And then, the Jackson Kayak story I think is also so
important to not lose track of because this was a small
business and they sought to expand. And you all helped them
find a place that was basically deemed not worthy of
development and replaced them, and then, bringing those jobs
into that community where you now have a large percentage or a
significant percentage of the community's workforce.
So, I am going to turn it over to you, and you have got
about 2 minutes.
Mr. Martineau. I will highlight those couple and even one
in your district as well I think that is even a good story. The
Kayak one, briefly, I will start with that. Again, it was an
existing facility or existing company manufacturing kind of
high-end kayaks and coolers. They were looking to expand. There
was an abandoned old lighting facility that had some
contamination from the historical operations there.
We worked together with them to give the community an
assessment. The local development district wanted to keep them,
Kayak, from moving somewhere else to expand their facility. In
the end, that partnership and giving the Kayak company the
immunity protection from the existing contamination without
having to tear down the building allowed that existing facility
that already had the infrastructure there in place for water
and sewer and things.
And again, it is a small town of 5,000 people and 250 new,
kind of high-end jobs, because they are kind of specialty
manufacturing jobs. It is not a warehouse or anything. So, that
is a great success story. So, the return on that investment in
that community, I am pretty sure that is probably the largest
employer in that small town, and it stayed right there.
The National Gulch, it started as a small piece on the
south end of The Gulch. It has now expanded to several other
brownfields properties investment. HCA, the large hospital
corporation, moved a part of their corporate headquarters
there. There is a new capital redevelopment. And I don't have
the total dollar values of the real estate there, but----
Mrs. Blackburn. Could you get that and submit that for the
record?
Mr. Martineau. Yes, we will do that.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you.
Mr. Martineau. Just to give you an example of some of the
high-rise condos and stuff that are there, we went from an
abandoned property that nobody wanted to be there after dark to
600-square-foot condos that are selling for half-a-million
dollars in a high-rise building and a brand-new premium hotel
that rooms are $400 a night there. So, the tax base has been
generated in that community and we will get that.
Another on the small end and really important to the rural
communities people have mentioned is in Saltillo, which I
believe is in Hardin County, on the Tennessee River. The Main
Street was kind of abandoned. It had had some old apparel
factories.
Through that assessment grant, we worked with them to
provide some technical assistance. They actually attended one
of our workshops and said, ``Hey, we should try to get one of
these assessment grants.'' They got a small assessment grant.
They took an old, abandoned school and some old abandoned
buildings. The school became a senior citizens center to serve
this community.
They actually leveraged some FEMA funds because it is right
on the banks of the Tennessee River and subject to flooding in
the area, and they used some FEMA funds to leverage to turn
into a storm center for evacuation, regional evacuation.
And they are working with some of those other abandoned
buildings to try to bring businesses back down. They also built
some marina and docks on the Tennessee River, so the people had
access for their boats, which brings people into the town,
then, to spend money as they come in and out.
So, three great success stories of that program.
Mrs. Blackburn. And we appreciate hearing those and we
appreciate the stellar job that you do.
Mr. Martineau. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back her time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Like a number of other members on the committee, I have
seen the Brownfields Program's significant impact in my
district in California. The cities of Sacrament and West
Sacramento in my district have received a combined $4.4 million
in Brownfields Program assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan
fund grants. In Sacramento alone, that has leveraged over $1
billion in redevelopment funding.
One of my favorite projects in Sacramento, spurred by the
EPA Brownfields grant, is a warehouse artist loft. The Artists
Lofts are a converted former industrial building that is now a
mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-oriented development for
artist and their families. The lofts are at the center of
Sacramento's historic R Street Corridor, which is now one of
the most popular areas in the city.
The redevelopment of R Street could not have happened
without federal partnership and funding. But, for the
Brownfields Program to utility to its full potential, including
projects in the pipeline in my district, it must receive
adequate funding. I am encouraged to see the numbers proposed
by Ranking Members Pallone and Tonko in the reauthorization
bill. And I urge my Republican colleagues to replace the
bracketed reauthorizations in the draft with identical funding
levels.
In Mr. Anderson's written testimony, he highlights the fact
that the average Brownfields grant award today is less than
half of what it was in 2003. Mayors Bollwage and Panto, have
you seen this same pattern?
Mr. Bollwage. Yes.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Now both the Pallone and Tonko
reauthorization bill and the Republican draft reauthorization
raise the funding cap for individual cleanup grants. In my
district, I have heard that the current grant sizes make the
program ineffective for larger projects that require more
funding. Is this consistent with any of the witnesses'
experience?
Mr. Bollwage. Yes.
Mr. Martineau. It is? OK, great.
Now another way of questioning here, many of the
brownfields sites in West Sacramento are contaminated with
petroleum. So, I am particularly interested in provisions in
this discussion draft related to petroleum cleanups.
Under current law, there is a cap on the funds that can be
used for petroleum cleanups and that cap has no relationship to
the number of sites with petroleum contamination. The
discussion draft would eliminate that arbitrary cap.
This question is for the mayors on the panel. Do you
support eliminating that cap so that funds can go to petroleum
cleanups where needed?
Mr. Panto. Yes.
Mr. Bollwage. Yes.
Ms. Matsui. The discussion draft also removes the
requirement in current law that states and the EPA find a
petroleum site to be, ``relatively low-risk,'' in order to
access brownfields funding. This is a difficult determination
to make and might have the unintended consequence of leaving
very risky sites unaddressed.
This question is for Mr. Anderson. Do you support removing
that requirement, so that state agencies do not have to perform
a burdensome analysis? In general, do you support more
flexibility to allow states to address petroleum-contaminated
sites? Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. The short answer is, yes, we do want more
flexibility. Quite often, that runs into a statutory issue in
the state itself if there is a requirement for petroleum
cleanup.
In Virginia we do have the Virginia Petroleum Storage Tank
Fund, which is very beneficial and it is actually one of our
unknown brownfields champions by helping to clean up so many of
these sites.
But we have also tried to work together with other
regulatory-based programs and with our voluntary programs, so
that we come up with a solution that is timely and you are
dealing with one project manager.
Thank you.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Any other comments from the rest of the
witnesses?
[No response.]
OK. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back her time.
The Chair now recognizes the very patient Mr. Cardenas for
5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
opportunity to have this public discussion about this important
issue that, quite frankly, most Americans don't think twice
about because it is out of sight, out of mind. But, when you
are a mayor, it is front and center. So, I want to thank
specifically the mayors for being here today and sharing what
it is like literally on the ground on trying to make policy and
trying to literally clean up our communities.
I would like somebody to take a crack at giving a
simplistic definition or differential between what is a
brownfields and a Superfund. I mean, what makes one what it is
and the other one what it is?
Mr. Martineau. They are both contaminated. The Superfund
site would be listed on the formal National Priorities List for
Superfund Funding and, then, the cost-share there. Brownfield
sites are many sites that may not qualify or being assessed
under the Superfund Program, but have some nature and extent of
contamination.
Mr. Cardenas. Now what might be the reason why a site would
end up on a Superfund list versus just remaining a plain, old
brownfield?
Mr. Bollwage. Congressman, severity of the contamination.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. And then, of the brownfields, by and
large, and the Superfunds, it just so happened that those
grounds were contaminated by natural millions of years of
accumulation? Or are they pretty much manmade results?
Mr. Bollwage. Manmade, Congressman.
Mr. Cardenas. OK, manmade. And usually not like an
individual man or a person, but usually a corporation that
perhaps was having some kind of activity, maybe dealing with
certain kinds of chemicals, and in many cases probably making
some products that society benefitted from tremendously.
However, are most of these Superfunds and/or brownfields,
were they created before the EPA was created or most of them
were created after? I mean, is there like a time where, oops,
we finally realize we are messing up the ground and our
groundwater, et cetera, and now, we have got to stop doing
those kinds of things?
Mr. Bollwage. I had the good fortune of having a Superfund
site in my city.
Mr. Cardenas. Or the bad fortune. Anyway, I get what you
are saying. You are knowledgeable. Thank you.
Mr. Bollwage. It is called Chemical Control Corporation,
which is on the water and it stored chemicals. In 1980, it blew
up and the barrels went into the air. And the result of that,
after getting funding for a Superfund site, was capping it with
cement and it has to be in that position for the next 99 years.
Mr. Cardenas. All right. OK.
Mr. Bollwage. There is no use, no tax revenue, nothing.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. To my question, by and large, Superfund
sites became Superfund conditioned sites or brownfields
conditioned sites before or after the EPA was created?
Mr. Panto. Well, I happened to work for the company that
owned a Superfund site that was a dump. Now it is a sanitary
landfill, and they have cleaned it up and it is off the
Superfund site. They have done groundwater collection. They
have done methane gas recovery. We are making it into
electricity. They have done a great job of cleaning up the
site.
But it was definitely done way before EPA was even--the
real contamination was when it was not owned by the current
owner, but when it was a dump, when people just dumped things
back there. That was before the EPA took place.
Mr. Cardenas. So, there was a time where us, as human
beings, we kind of like, to be honest, we were kind of ignorant
to the long-term effects of certain practices. I remember I was
born in 1963. I was probably about 5 years old and I am
carrying this little bucket of oil, and my dad told me, ``Just
go bury it in the backyard.'' I don't begrudge my father for
doing that. This is in the 1960s. My dad didn't realize, oops,
maybe we shouldn't bury it; maybe we should do something more
appropriate with that.
I am sorry, you were going to----
Mr. Panto. I don't blame him and I don't blame corporations
or anyone else.
Mr. Cardenas. Exactly.
Mr. Panto. But, still, I feel it is our responsibility and,
wherever possible, to go back to that contaminating body,
whether it was a corporation or an individual, and try to clean
up the environment.
Mr. Cardenas. Yes.
Mr. Glendening. Mr. Congressman, your point, though, is
very well-taken. I like the way you laid that out. Were you a
prosecutor?
Mr. Cardenas. No, I am an engineer.
Mr. Glendening. Well, I like the way it was laid out.
Mr. Cardenas. I take it as a compliment.
Go ahead.
Mr. Glendening. The point is absolutely essential, and that
is, the number of new brownfields has declined dramatically
because of the standards, the enforcement, and the public
education coming from EPA overall. And the real solution is not
to have more brownfields constantly created, which means that
we have got to fund the cleanup and we have got to fund those
things that have caused the dramatic decline in the number of
brownfields. So, I like that presentation.
Mr. Cardenas. Well, thank you.
In my 11 seconds, I just want to say I am now a grandfather
and I don't want my grandson to go through what the previous
generation has gone through. So, right-sizing the EPA and
making sure that the funds for brownfields cleanup, et cetera,
that we right-size it. Because, with all due respect, if you
allow me, Mr. Chairman, 10 more seconds, what we are talking
about, as we delay and we don't get to these sooner, our
groundwater and many precious things that we depend on continue
to be contaminated and affected negatively.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your generosity.
Thank you, and thanks for having this hearing.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
Seeing no further members wishing to ask questions of the
first and only panel, I would like to thank all our witnesses
again for being here today.
Before we conclude, I would like to ask unanimous consent
to submit the following document. There is only one: this
ASTSWMO position paper agreed to by the minority. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. I would also like to end by asking Mr.
Martineau and Mr. Anderson, both from ECOS and ASTSWMO, if you
would be willing to work with us diligently on language and
stuff over the next--obviously, there is a lot of bipartisan
interest and excitement about moving, but we want to really
start engaging you closely in language.
Mr. Martineau. Yes, sir, absolutely, we would be happy to.
Mr. Shimkus. And really, the same question for the mayors
and Governor Glendening, with your organizations, the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and, also,
your organization, Governor, if you would work with staff on
both sides for us to finetune the language, so we can get
moving on what you see as a very bipartisan, very interesting
time.
Mr. Bollwage. Most definitely.
Mr. Shimkus. We want to thank you also for just being in
the fields working away and helping communities. We are all
from communities. We all know the challenges that governing
has, and we appreciate you stepping up to the plate, and look
forward to being helpful and not harmful in the process. With
that, seeing no other questions or requests for time, I will
adjourn the hearing and thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]