With the first session of the 111th Congress just about over—a session that grappled with significant issues unrelated to brownfields—members now prepare to head home for the holidays. But the first session set the tone for policy and spending decisions for 2010 that could significantly impact a range of brownfield efforts.

Brownfield program reauthorization
By early October, members and committees in both House and Senate were beginning to focus on key brownfield proposals, preparing them for possible introduction early in 2010. Considerable spadework has been done, by the national brownfields coalition and other groups, to vet issues and lay the good foundation to advance a legislative proposal next year. While the Hill is more interested in only modest modifications to the existing EPA brownfields program, there seems to be sentiment for:

• Permitting larger grant amounts for cleanup (up to $1 million);
• Making non-profits eligible for all types of grants, including assessment; and
• Increasing the overall funding authorization level for the brownfields program. Proposed changes for which more effort will be needed to encourage their inclusion, or are outright show-stoppers, include:
• Authorizing multi-purpose grants (for comprehensive assessment, cleanup, demolition and removal projects);
• Clarification of eligibility for publicly-owned sites acquired before 2002;
• Eliminating the petroleum set-aside;
• Allowing administrative costs to be claimed as part of the grants;
• Expanding sites eligible under the “enforcement bar.”

Proposals linked to revitalization efforts
Several members have drafted bills to address specific brownfield needs or to advance brownfield-type efforts. What’s currently in the hopper includes:

• HR 1724, introduced by Rep. Michael Turner, would provide tax incentives for cleanup of contaminated sites, to cover 50% of the costs of pollution abatement or control, demolition and removal of hazardous property, and the reconstruction of utilities at contaminated sites;
• HR 3260, introduced by Rep. Xavier Becerra, would make permanent authorization of the existing brownfield cleanup expensing incentive (without any changes, such as elimination of the recapture provision);
• HR 3518, introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter, would target grants to promote revitalization of waterfront brownfields, including green infrastructure and sediment cleanup;
• S 1462, introduced by Sen. Jeff Bingamon, would provide significant resources to deploy clean energy technologies, with priority given to projects carried out on brownfield sites.
  Members have also introduced bills reflecting the growing interest in “sustainability” and sustainable development. Several of these proposals could have important, on-the-ground applicability to brownfield situations, including:
• HR 932, introduced by Rep. Tim Ryan, would authorize HUD to provide demonstration grants and technical assistance to promote vacant property reclamation policies, strategies, and projects; Sen. Charles Schumer has introduced a companion bill, S 453, in the Senate.
• HR 2336, introduced by Rep. Ed Perlmutter would encourage energy conservation and deployment of renewable energy sources for housing and commercial structures, and require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to develop loan products and underwriting guidelines to facilitate development of a secondary market in energy-efficient and location-efficient mortgages; Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has offered a companion bill, S 1379, in the Senate.
• S 1619, introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd, would establish an Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities at HUD, and authorize $4.2 billion over three years for sustainable planning and project challenge grants.

What’s on tap
The new Administration has settled in, significant proposals have been introduced and debated, and many in Congress are beginning to turn to the more nuts-and-bolts issues with immediate impacts in their districts—and this includes brownfields. As noted above, a number of bills have been introduced with direct or potential impact on brownfield revitalization; more are sure to come early next year.

So far, these proposals are at the beginning stages of the enactment process. They have been introduced, a few co-sponsors have signed on, and staff have begun to work more seriously to refine ideas and defuse controversies. No brownfield hearings were held in 2009, but a couple of committees have promised them for 2010—a necessary step towards an ultimate bill signing.

How these proposals fare next year, as election campaigns gear up and Congress moves to tackle sweeping issues such as health care and climate change, depends on a range of factors: How vigorously they are pushed, what vehicles emerge that they could be attached (such as tax reform, for the credit and expensing, or auto industry support to deal with abandoned plants and dealerships), how they might be wrapped in the “green cachet” that has captured the attention of the moments, and what other unrelated priorities end up consuming time on the congressional agenda.

Charlie Bartsch is Senior Fellow with ICF International, FairFax, Va.