Congress began to look at ways to support the reuse of contaminated properties and in each congressional session from 1993 onward members introduced more then 25 bills from both sides of the aisle in both houses. Some were aimed at providing tax incentives for redevelopment, others would provide money directly, and other bills were designed to deal with the liability issues that affect brownfield redevelopment. Some of the bills were directly related to brownfields, others had brownfield provisions within and still others offered aid that could be used for brownfields.

In general, the bills had widespread bipartisan support and many had long rolls of co-sponsors. But in spite of that it wasn’t until 2001 that a brownfield bill passed both houses of Congress. It wasn’t that the previous bills were bad. Many offered the liability protection the market was clamoring for. Others provided much-needed money to states and cities. Some did all of that and more. A changing group of legislators submitted a consistent set of bills that seemed to have the support for passage—passage that was much longed for by the brownfield community. They offered liability protection, removal of the concerns about “reopeners” and a number of tax and direct incentives. They had Democratic and Republican sponsors and there were matching bills in both the House and Senate. Still they didn’t pass. Why? ...

You need to register to view the rest of the article. Click here to subscribe.