Brownfield Redevelopment

BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT
December 2004 GAO

Congress passed the Brownfield Act in 2002 to aid in the cleanup of contaminated sites. The EPA issues Site assessment grants to identify contaminated sites, and revolving loan grants to aid in cleanup efforts. The Act, itself, reflected a Republican-dominated Congress which estimated nothing is worth doing, unless Business interests made money from the doing of it. The trouble with the Act was it did not offer Business enough incentive to get involved substantially.

States, Local communities, and Tribal areas exploited the Site assessment grants, using Such to employ expertise and Labor. This aspect of the Act worked well, and contamination area identification has made great inroads:

EPA’s fiscal year 2003-2008 Strategic Plan states that the
specific objectives and targets for the Brownfields Program for this period
are to (1) assess, clean up, and redevelop 9,200 properties; (2) leverage
$10.2 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding; and (3) leverage 33,700
jobs. In its fiscal year 2003 annual report, EPA reported to the Congress on
the cumulative (1) sites assessed, (2) jobs generated, and (3) cleanup and
redevelopment funds leveraged. However, EPA did not report the number
of properties cleaned up or redeveloped under the program.

EPA reportage was delinquent undoubtedly because of the lack of participation beyond Site assessment. Loaned funds actually equated to about 17% of the monies allocated to the revolving loan grants. The GAO cites:

1) lack of Fund management experience of those given revolving Grants.
2) A blocking pre-date of ownership for qualification.
3) Lack of complete immunity from liability for poor cleanup efforts.
4) And lack of a Federal Tax credit for such expenditures as incentive to participation.

This Author would suggest the Grant system only works where there exists local area established enterprise with competent experience. He also expresses likelihood EPA obligations and checkup are too stringent, when combined with lack of complete immunity from liability. The GAO report cites many professionals in the field stating the majority of such Cleanup projects are conducted without EPA funding; i.e., without Site evaluation according to EPA standards. All Stakeholders want less regulation and lower Standards in EPA participation.

Stakeholders, EPA, and GAO all agree there are far more contaminated Sites, than Federal funding could correct; it being far too expensive. A Republican Congress has curtailed EPA funding and investigative sources to determine whether there are contaminating Industries. Business might seem paid to contaminate, and paid to clean it up, if they wish to do either. lgl