Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Federal Brownfields Program: Background

and Issues for Congress

July 31, 2026

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

R49055

SUMMARY

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and

Issues for Congress

R49055

July 31, 2026

Lance N. Larson

Analyst in Environmental

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; 42

Policy

U.S.C. §§9601 et seq.) provides the federal framework for the cleanup of contaminated sites for

which the federal government is liable for cleanup and nonfederal sites elevated for federal

attention. This framework includes the authorization of the federal Brownfields program, which

provides grant assistance to state, local, and tribal governmental entities, and certain nonprofit

organizations and community development entities, for the assessment and cleanup of potentially

contaminated sites. CERCLA defines a brownfield site as a “real property at which expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may

be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant.” The Brownfields

program is the principal federal program for providing grants for the assessment and remediation of environmental

contamination on nonfederal lands where the federal government was not responsible for the contamination.

Established as a pilot initiative by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1993, the federal Brownfields

program was codified by Title II of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002 (P.L.

107-118). The Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development Act of 2018 (BUILD Act; P.L. 115-141,

Division N) amended CERCLA to change various programmatic elements of the Brownfields program and reauthorized

appropriations for the program from FY2019 through FY2023. Although the authorization for the Brownfields program

expired at the end of FY2023, Congress has continued to appropriate funding for it.

Congress provides annual appropriations for the federal Brownfields program for two types of grants: (1) those that EPA

awards on a competitive basis for the assessment and cleanup of eligible brownfield sites and (2) those that are

noncompetitively awarded on a formula basis to assist states and Indian tribes in carrying out their own cleanup programs.

Although the term brownfield has become somewhat synonymous in common usage with any potentially contaminated site,

only certain types of sites that fall within the CERCLA statutory definition are eligible for federal Brownfields grants

authorized under CERCLA. In general, Brownfields grant eligibility is limited to state, local, and tribal governments and

nonprofit organizations.

Between FY2002 and the enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), Congress annually

appropriated between $153.3 million and $173.40 million per fiscal year for the Brownfields program, including funding for

both types of grants and administrative expenses for EPA to carry out the program. Supplemental appropriations of $100.0

million were provided in FY2009 by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) for the

Brownfields program. IIJA also provided supplemental appropriations of $1.5 billion over five years for the Brownfields

program. According to EPA, the cumulative number of Brownfields properties assessed, cleaned up, and made ready for

anticipated reuse through April 1, 2026, were 42,999; 3,063; and 13,025, respectively.

Three bills have been introduced in the 119th Congress that would reauthorize the Brownfields grant authorization of

appropriations (H.R. 6432, H.R. 8739, and S. 347). In a similar manner to what was done with the enactment of the BUILD

Act in 2018, Congress may consider programmatic changes to the Brownfields program as part of reauthorization legislation.

Congress has held multiple hearings on the Brownfields program in the 119th Congress to discuss these issues and consider

other legislative proposals. Additionally, Congress may consider other issues associated with the Brownfields program,

including adequacy of past funding levels and future funding necessary to achieve program objectives, policies to estimate

future funding needs, and additional options for oversight.

Congressional Research Service

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Brownfields Program Background .................................................................................................. 1

Brownfields Program Legislation.................................................................................................... 3

Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002 .......................... 3

Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development Act of 2018 ............................. 3

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ..................................................................................... 4

Types of Brownfields Grants ........................................................................................................... 5

Competitive Grants ................................................................................................................... 5

Eligible Entities................................................................................................................... 5

Ineligibility of Liable Parties .............................................................................................. 6

Eligibility of Sites ............................................................................................................... 7

Ranking Criteria for Awarding Grants ................................................................................ 8

Types of Competitive Grants .............................................................................................. 9

State and Tribal Formula Grants ............................................................................................. 13

History of Brownfields Appropriations ......................................................................................... 14

Site Assessment and Cleanup Metrics ........................................................................................... 17

Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 18

Reauthorizing Legislation in the 119th Congress..................................................................... 19

Other Legislative Proposals .................................................................................................... 20

Adequacy of Funding .............................................................................................................. 21

Potential Number of Brownfield Sites .................................................................................... 22

Performance Metrics and Oversight ........................................................................................ 24

Figures

Figure 1. Appropriations for EPA Brownfields Grants, by Type of Grant and EPA

Administrative Expenses, FY1993 to FY2026 Enacted and the President’s FY2027

Request ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Tables

Table 1. Statutory Exclusions and Exceptions for EPA Brownfields Grant Eligibility ................... 8

Contacts

Author Information........................................................................................................................ 25

Congressional Research Service

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Introduction

The federal Brownfields program provides grant assistance to state, local, and tribal governments

and nonprofit organizations for the assessment and remediation of potentially contaminated sites

that largely are not addressed under other federal remediation programs or authorities.1 These

sites are abandoned, idled, or underutilized properties with known or suspected contamination

perceived as a deterrent to redevelopment by prospective purchasers who may be hesitant about

becoming liable for remediation once acquiring ownership. The Brownfields program is

administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. §§9601 et seq.).

In 2018, Congress reauthorized appropriations for the Brownfields program through FY2023 and

amended CERCLA to change various elements of the program. Although the program’s

authorization has expired, Congress has continued to fund it through annual appropriations bills.

Some Members of Congress have expressed ongoing interest in the implementation and outcomes

of the Brownfields program.2 Whether and how to reauthorize the program and whether

appropriations levels are adequate to meet the program’s objectives are the subjects of debate in

Congress.3 Congress is also considering oversight options to ensure the effective use of federal

resources dedicated to the Brownfields program.

This report provides background on the Brownfields program, including a review of legislation

that codified the federal program, subsequent amendments, and related legislation. Additionally, it

discusses details on the types of Brownfields grants available under the program, site and

applicant eligibility, and other aspects of the program. The report also provides a history of

Brownfields appropriations and recent budget proposals. It discusses program implementation,

with a focus on site assessment and cleanup metrics. Finally, the report concludes with a

discussion of policy issues for Congress.

Brownfields Program Background

The EPA Superfund program, authorized under CERCLA, is the principal federal program that

addresses the cleanup of nonfederal sites, elevated for federal attention, under cost-sharing

agreements with the states. The federal role in the cleanup of contaminated sites has focused

primarily on federal facilities and federal public lands for which the federal government is liable

for the cleanup, and nonfederal sites elevated for federal attention. States are primarily

1 For information on implementation of the Brownfields program, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

“Brownfields and Land Revitalization,” last updated June 24, 2026, http://www.epa.gov/brownfields. A searchable

database of competitive grant awards to individual recipients by fiscal year also is available on EPA’s website; see

EPA, “Brownfields and Land Revitalization Grant Fact Sheet Search,” https://java.epa.gov/acrespub/gfs/.

2 See, for example, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “EPW Committee Unanimously Passes

Brownfields, Recycling Legislation,” press release, February 5, 2025, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/

2025/2/epw-committee-unanimously-passes-brownfields-recycling-legislation:

“Our bill streamlines the application process to level the playing field. The legislation also

modernizes the [Brownfields] program’s grant amounts to match current construction costs and

project sizes, aligning them with the reality of doing business today,” Chairman Capito said.

“Cleaning up brownfield sites can be costly and burden our local communities,” Senator Blunt

Rochester said. “The Brownfield Reauthorization Act will help us reduce environmental hazards,

spur economic development, and support the health and safety of our people.”

3 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment Subcommittee, Ready for

Reuse: Legislative Proposals to Unleash the Potential of America’s Brownfield Sites, 119th Cong., 2nd sess., March 4,

2026.

Congressional Research Service

1

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

responsible for addressing cleanup at other nonfederal sites across the United States. Many states

have developed their own cleanup programs and funding sources.4 CERCLA gives substantial

deference to states in determining whether the cleanup of a nonfederal site is elevated for federal

attention. Sites elevated for federal attention tend to be higher risk, larger, or more complex sites

at which federal assistance is desired to augment state resources. While CERCLA generally

addresses the cleanup of hazardous substances, other federal programs may address other types of

substances.

Using the general response authorities of CERCLA, EPA established a pilot initiative in 1993

under the Superfund program to assist communities with the cleanup of certain lower-risk sites to

encourage or facilitate economic redevelopment or reuse.5 EPA referred to these properties as

brownfields to distinguish them from higher-risk sites that had been designated on the National

Priorities List (NPL) for priority attention under the Superfund program and to distinguish them

from other sites where federal response actions also were taken under the Superfund program to

address emergency conditions.

Prior to 2002 amendments to CERCLA (discussed in greater detail below), EPA used Superfund

appropriations to provide federal assistance to communities to aid them in financing the cleanup

of brownfield sites.6 Although there was relatively broad support within Congress for this

assistance, some contended the use of Superfund monies to clean up these sites diverted federal

resources from higher-priority sites where risks to human health and the environment were

generally greater. In the annual appropriations process, Congress continued to set aside funds

each fiscal year for brownfields assistance within the Superfund account until FY2002.7 Congress

then explicitly amended CERCLA to authorize separate appropriations in the 107th Congress by

enacting the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002,

discussed in the next section. These amounts, which were from annual Superfund appropriations,

accounted for less than 10% of annual Superfund appropriations during the pilot initiative.8

4 States also play a critical role in overseeing the cleanup of federal facilities administered and funded by federal

agencies.

5 There are no statutory or regulatory definitions for a relatively “lower risk” or “low-level contamination” site under

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This type of language has

been used in various instances in the legislative history associated with the 2002 amendments to CERCLA. For

example, in the Senate report accompanying P.L. 107-118, one group of Senators provided the following additional

view:

The bill includes important provisions specifying that only sites with low level contamination are

eligible for inclusion under this bill. Ineligible sites include those that are listed on the National

Priorities List or sites that have undergone a preliminary assessment and site investigation and have

received a ‘‘pre-score’’ under EPA’s site evaluation process that would indicate that the site could

qualify for inclusion on the National Priorities List. This distinction between high-level and lowlevel contamination is vital to ensure that liability relief and limitations on EPA enforcement are in

no way granted to ‘‘Superfund-caliber’’ sites.

See U.S. Congress, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental

Restoration Act of 2001, committee print, 107th Cong., March 2001, S.Rept. 107-2, p. 26.

6 For more information about the types of federal assistance during this time, see U.S. Government Accountability

Office (GAO), Brownfields, Information on the Programs of EPA and Selected States, GAO-01-52, December 2000;

and GAO, Superfund, EPS’s Use of Funds for Brownfield Revitalization, GAO/RCED-98-87, March 1998,

https://www.gao.gov/assets/rced-98-87.pdf.

7 According to GAO, funding for brownfields as received through Superfund appropriations between 1993 and 2002

totaled approximately $506 million (in nominal dollars). See Enclosure I in GAO, Hazardous Waste Programs:

Information on Appropriations and Expenditures for Superfund, Brownfields, and Related Programs, GAO-05-746R,

June 2005, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-05-746r.pdf.

8 See GAO, Hazardous Waste Programs, GAO-05-746R.

Congressional Research Service

2

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Brownfields Program Legislation

Beginning with the 2002 CERCLA amendments, Congress enacted legislation related to a

dedicated federal Brownfields program. Subsequent statutes include the Brownfields Utilization,

Investment, and Local Development Act of 2018 (BUILD Act) and the Infrastructure Investment

and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021.

Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act

of 2002

In the 107th Congress, Title II of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields

Revitalization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-118) amended CERCLA to authorize EPA to administer a

dedicated Brownfields grant program separately from the Superfund program. P.L. 107-118

authorized appropriations of $250 million annually from FY2002 through FY2006 for the

Brownfields program.9

P.L. 107-118 authorized a dedicated program similar in overall purpose to the EPA pilot initiative

under the Superfund program but also authorized grants for the assessment and cleanup of

petroleum contamination. CERCLA does not apply to the cleanup of releases of petroleum,10 but

instead focuses on the release or threatened release of hazardous substances that include several

hundred designated toxic chemicals and radionuclides.11

P.L. 107-118 authorized EPA to award two types of grants under the Brownfields program.

Subject to the availability of appropriations, EPA may award grants on (1) a competitive basis for

the assessment and cleanup of eligible brownfield sites to state, local, and tribal governmental

entities (and to nonprofit organizations in certain circumstances) and (2) a formula basis to assist

states and Indian tribes in carrying out their own cleanup programs. Eligibility for these grants is

discussed in “Types of Brownfields Grants.”

Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development Act of

2018

In 2018, the BUILD Act (P.L. 115-141, Division N) amended CERCLA to change various

programmatic elements of the Brownfields program and reauthorize appropriations for the

program, at previous amounts, from FY2019 through FY2023.12 Changes that the BUILD Act

made to the Brownfields program include

9 According to GAO, the highest annual funding level for the Brownfields pilot initiative was $95 million in 2002. See

Enclosure I in GAO, Hazardous Waste Programs, GAO-05-746R.

10 The CERCLA definitions of hazardous substances and pollutant or contaminant exclude petroleum for purposes of

response actions. See 42 U.S.C. §9601(14) and 42 U.S.C. §9601(33).

11 The list of hazardous substances designated under CERCLA is promulgated in federal regulation at 40 C.F.R.

§302.4. CERCLA Section 104(a) (42 U.S.C. §9604) also authorizes federal actions to respond to releases or threatened

releases of pollutants or contaminants that are not otherwise designated as hazardous substances, but that may present

an imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare. CERCLA Section 107(a) (42 U.S.C. §9607(a))

establishes liability for releases of hazardous substances but does not explicitly reference liability for releases of

pollutants or contaminants.

12 The BUILD Act was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, P.L. 115-141, Division N.

Congressional Research Service

3

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

no longer limiting Brownfields eligibility for sites contaminated by petroleum or

petroleum products and instead providing eligibility to “relatively low risk”

petroleum sites;

expanding the eligibility for Brownfields competitive grants to governmental

entities that acquired the property prior to January 11, 2002, even if the entity

does not qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser;13

expanding the eligibility for Brownfields competitive grants to certain nonprofit

organizations, limited liability corporations and partnerships composed entirely

of such nonprofit organizations, and qualified community development entities;

increasing the dollar amount limitation for a site-specific remediation grant from

$200,000 to $500,000, including the potential to receive a grant up to $650,000

based on a waiver for the anticipated level of contamination, size, or ownership

status of the site;

explicitly authorizing multipurpose grants that combine funding for both the sitespecific assessment and remediation into one grant;

allowing a Brownfields grant recipient to use up to 5% of the funds to pay for

administrative costs of a response action;

authorizing EPA to consider waterfront development, renewable electricity

projects, and energy efficiency improvement projects as land uses for prioritizing

site assessment and remediation grants; and

authorizing state and tribal formula grants to fund training, research, and

technical assistance for developing inventories of brownfield sites, site

assessments, site remediation, community involvement, or site preparation for

small communities (15,000 people or fewer), Indian tribes, rural areas, and

disadvantaged areas (communities with an annual median household income less

than 80% of the statewide annual median household income).

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

In 2021, IIJA provided emergency supplemental appropriations totaling $1.5 billion over a fiveyear period for the Brownfields program. Of that amount, $1.2 billion was provided for

competitive grants and $300.0 million for state and tribal formula grants, in equal amounts

annually over a five-year period from FY2022 through FY2026. For up to half of the total

funding for competitive grants under the IIJA ($600.0 million), Congress increased the maximum

amounts for an individual grant award for site assessment and characterization ($10.0 million per

grant), remediation ($5.0 million), revolving loan funds (RLFs) ($10.0 million), multipurpose

grants ($10.0 million), and job training ($1.0 million).

Out of these emergency supplemental appropriations, up to 3% of the total funding could be used

for salaries, expenses, and administrative costs, and 0.5% of the funding was to be transferred to

the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) for oversight of the total funding. IIJA also directed

EPA to submit an annual report to Congress on the status of funded projects.

13 42 U.S.C. §9601(40).

Congressional Research Service

4

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Types of Brownfields Grants

CERCLA authorizes EPA to award Brownfields grants on a competitive basis to various entities

and on a formula basis to assist states and Indian tribes in establishing or enhancing their own

programs.

Competitive Grants

CERCLA Section 104(k) authorizes EPA to award grants on a competitive basis for the

characterization, assessment, and remediation of eligible brownfield sites; job training for

remediation workers; related research and technical assistance; and site planning.14 Section

104(k)(7)(B) restricts the use of available funds for job training, research, and technical assistance

grants to a maximum of 15% of the annual appropriations, reserving the bulk of the funds for site

characterization, assessment, and remediation.15 Section 104(k)(5)(D) authorizes the use of a

portion of a site characterization, assessment, or remediation grant to purchase private

insurance.16 As a practical matter, such insurance can be a critical factor in completing a project,

if the site costs were to exceed the amount of the grant and the recipient were required to assume

responsibility for the difference. Section 104(k)(5)(E) allows a recipient of a Brownfields grant to

use up to 5% of the funds to pay for administrative costs of a response action funded under

CERCLA Section 104(k).17 For this purpose, administrative costs are defined to exclude the

“investigation and identification of the extent of contamination, design and performance of the

response action, or monitoring of a natural resource.”18

Section 104(k)(10) establishes several conditions for receiving a Brownfields grant, or a grant or

loan issued from an RLF19 capitalized with a Brownfields grant.20 The recipient must agree to

meet all relevant and appropriate cleanup requirements of CERCLA regulations under the

National Contingency Plan,21 comply with all applicable federal and state laws, and ensure that

the cleanup protects human health and the environment.

Eligible Entities

Section 104(k)(1) identifies the following entities that generally are eligible to apply for

competitive Brownfields grants:

•

•

state and local governments;

Indian tribes;22

14 42 U.S.C. §9604(k).

15 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(7)(B).

16 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(5)(D). For more information about environmental insurance, see EPA, Environmental Insurance

Helps Ensure Redevelopment, July 2003, https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2015-09/documents/

insurance.pdf.

17 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(5)(E).

18 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(5)(E)(ii).

19 For more information, see the section below entitled “Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs).”

20 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(10).

21 The National Contingency Plan (NCP) refers to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan, codified in federal regulation at 40 C.F.R. Part 300. For a discussion of the NCP, see CRS Report R43251, Oil

and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework, by David M. Bearden and Jonathan L. Ramseur.

22 In Alaska, tribal eligibility is extended specifically to the Alaska Native Regional Corporation and Alaska Native

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

5

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

•

•

•

•

•

redevelopment agencies chartered or otherwise sanctioned by a state government;

land clearance authorities or other “quasi-governmental” entities operating under

the supervision and control, or as an agent, of a local government;

501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations;

limited liability corporations and partnerships composed entirely of nonprofit

organizations defined in Section 501(c)(3); and

qualified community development entities defined in Section 45D(c)(1) of the

Internal Revenue Code.23

Ineligibility of Liable Parties

Another critical factor in determining eligibility for a Brownfields grant is the liability status of

the applicant. Section 104(k)(5)(B) prohibits the use of a Brownfields grant, or a grant or loan

issued from an RLF capitalized with a Brownfields grant, for certain costs to ensure that the funds

are not used to defray costs for which the recipient is to be held responsible.24

Section 107(a) establishes categories of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) who can be held

liable for cleanup costs.25 These parties may include past and current owners and operators of a

site, persons who arranged for disposal of hazardous substances at a site (often referred to as

generators of wastes), and persons who transported hazardous substances and selected the site for

disposal. The statutory prohibition on awarding Brownfields grants to liable parties is consistent

with CERCLA in holding liable parties responsible for the costs of cleanup, to minimize the

burden of these costs on the federal taxpayer who had no direct connection with the site.

Additionally, grants or loans may not be used for

•

•

•

•

payment of a fine or penalty (e.g., for violation of a cleanup requirement);

payment of a matching funds requirement;

cost of compliance with any federal law, but excluding laws applicable to

cleanup necessary to carry out the project; or

response costs for which the recipient is potentially liable under CERCLA.26

The bona fide prospective purchaser exemption is designed to work in tandem with the

Brownfields program to facilitate the redevelopment or reuse of potentially contaminated sites

that developers may be hesitant to acquire otherwise. The criteria to qualify for this exemption

from liability are specified in the definition of a bona fide prospective purchaser in Section

101(40) of CERCLA.27 To qualify for the exemption, a purchaser must have acquired the property

after January 11, 2002 (the date of enactment of P.L. 107-118); conducted “all appropriate

inquiries” into the prior uses of the property before acquisition to determine whether

contamination may be present; and taken “reasonable steps” after acquisition to stop or prevent

Village Corporation as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. §1601 et seq.). The Metlakatla

Indian Community also is specifically authorized in the statute as being eligible for these grants.

23 26 U.S.C. §45D(c)(1).

24 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(5)(B).

25

42 U.S.C. §9607(a).

26 42 U.S.C. §9607(a).

27 42 U.S.C. §9601(40).

Congressional Research Service

6

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

further release of contamination, prevent or limit exposure to the contamination, and satisfy

certain other conditions to maintain an exemption from liability.28

As noted previously, the BUILD Act provided for public entities (i.e., state or local governments,

local redevelopment authorities, or Indian tribes) that voluntarily acquired a contaminated

property for development prior to January 11, 2002, to be eligible to receive a Brownfields grant,

as long as they were not responsible for the release of a hazardous substance at the property.29

States and local governments that acquire a property involuntarily as a result of bankruptcy, tax

delinquency, abandonment, or other circumstances (regardless of the date on which the property

was acquired) generally are exempt from owner (and operator) liability under CERCLA if the

state or local government did not cause or contribute to the contamination. This exclusion is

provided in the definition of the term owner and operator in Section 101(20)(D) of CERCLA.30

Accordingly, state and local governments that involuntarily acquire properties with hazardous

substance contamination under these conditions generally are not barred from Brownfields grant

eligibility in existing law, regardless of the date of the acquisition of the property.

Eligibility of Sites

A site must possess certain characteristics to be eligible for a Brownfields grant. CERCLA

Section 101(39), as amended, defines the term brownfield site to identify the types of eligible

sites for Brownfields grants.31 Although the term brownfield has become somewhat synonymous

in common usage with any potentially contaminated site, only certain types of sites that fall

within this CERCLA statutory definition are eligible for federal Brownfields grants authorized

under CERCLA. Section 101(39)(A) generally defines eligible brownfield sites as “real property

at which expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential

presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.”32 Section 101(39)(D) also

authorizes the eligibility of sites contaminated by controlled substances (e.g., methamphetamine

labs) and mine-scarred lands.33

The definition of a brownfield site also includes properties contaminated with petroleum that are

not addressed under CERCLA because of the exclusion of petroleum from the definitions of

hazardous substance in Section 101(14)34 and pollutant or contaminant in Section 101(33).35

Section 101(39)(D) provides Brownfields grant eligibility at petroleum sites if there is no viable

responsible party and the site is not being addressed under any other federal law to remediate

petroleum contamination.36

Section 101(39)(B) also generally excludes an otherwise eligible site under Section 101(39)(A) if

the site already is addressed under the Superfund program or other related federal cleanup

programs or authorities, including federal authorities delegated to the states under various

28 For further discussion of these criteria, see the section on “Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers and Innocent

Landowners” in CRS Report R48630, Federal Environmental Remediation Under the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), a.k.a. “the Superfund Law”, by Lance N. Larson.

29 42 U.S.C. §9604(2)(C) and (3)(E).

30 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(D).

31 42 U.S.C. §9601(39).

32 42 U.S.C. §9601(39)(A).

33 42 U.S.C. §9601(39)(D).

34

42 U.S.C. §9601(14).

35 42 U.S.C. §9601(33).

36 42 U.S.C. §9601(39)(D)(II).

Congressional Research Service

7

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

statutes.37 These exclusions generally are intended to avoid potential overlap or duplication of

cleanup resources. In certain circumstances, Section 101(39)(C) does authorize EPA to allow

certain types of sites that are otherwise excluded from eligibility to compete for Brownfields

grants, subject to a site-by-site determination. To allow an exception for Brownfields grant

eligibility in such instances, EPA must determine that the financial assistance “will protect human

health and the environment, and either promote economic development or enable the creation of,

preservation of, or addition to parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational

property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.”38

Table 1 identifies each category of site that generally is excluded from federal Brownfields grant

eligibility under Section 101(39)(B), and those categories for which EPA may allow exceptions

on a site-by-site basis under the criteria specified in Section 101(39)(C) noted above.

Table 1. Statutory Exclusions and Exceptions for EPA Brownfields Grant Eligibility

Type of Site

Scope of Exclusion

Sites subject to a planned or ongoing Superfund removal action

Generally excluded, but subject to

exceptions on a site-by-site basis

Sites listed or proposed for listing on the National Priorities List for Superfund

remedial action

Excluded with no exceptions

Sites subject to a Superfund cleanup enforcement order or cleanup settlement

with potentially responsible parties

Excluded with no exceptions

Sites subject to an enforcement order or permit issued under the Solid Waste

Disposal Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Clean Water Act, or Safe Drinking

Water Act

Generally excluded, but subject to

exceptions on a site-by-site basis

Sites subject to a corrective action permit or order issued under Subtitle C of the Generally excluded, but subject to

Solid Waste Disposal Act

exceptions on a site-by-site basis

Land disposal units subject to closure requirements under Subtitle C of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act

Generally excluded, but subject to

exceptions on a site-by-site basis

Sites subject to the jurisdiction, custody, or control of a federal department or

agency (except for land held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe)

Excluded with no exceptions

Sites subject to remediation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) under the Toxic

Substances Control Act

Generally excluded, but subject to

exceptions on a site-by-site basis

Sites subject to cleanup of petroleum contamination financed from the Leaking

Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act

Generally excluded, but subject to

exceptions on a site-by-site basis

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on categories of eligibility for EPA Brownfields

grants, as specified in the statutory definition of the term brownfield site in Section 101(39) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C.

§9601(39)).

Ranking Criteria for Awarding Grants

CERCLA Section 104(k)(6)(C) directs EPA to establish a system for ranking grant applications

using the following criteria:

37 42 U.S.C. §9601(39)(B).

38 42 U.S.C. §9601(39)(C).

Congressional Research Service

8

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

the extent to which a grant will stimulate the availability of other funds for

environmental assessment or remediation, and subsequent reuse, of an area in

which brownfield sites are located;

the potential of the proposed project or the development plan associated with the

brownfield site to stimulate economic development upon completion of the

cleanup activities;

the extent to which a grant would address or facilitate the identification and

reduction of threats to human health and the environment, including threats in

which there is a greater-than-normal incidence of diseases or conditions that may

be associated with exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants;

the extent to which a grant would facilitate the use or reuse of existing

infrastructure;

the extent to which a grant would facilitate the creation of, preservation of, or

addition to a park, a greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or

other property used for nonprofit purposes;

the extent to which a grant would meet the needs of a community that has an

inability to draw on other sources of funding for environmental remediation and

subsequent redevelopment of the site because of the small population or low

income of the community;

the extent to which the applicant is eligible for funding from other sources;

the extent to which a grant will further the fair distribution of funding between

urban and nonurban areas;

the extent to which the grant provides for involvement of the local community in

the process of making decisions relating to cleanup and future use of a

brownfield site; and

the extent to which a grant would address or facilitate the identification and

reduction of threats to the health or welfare of children, pregnant women,

minority or low-income communities, or other sensitive populations.

The BUILD Act amended CERCLA to add waterfront development, renewable electricity

projects, and energy efficiency improvement projects to the ranking criteria for prioritizing site

assessment and remediation grants under the Brownfields program.39 Specifically, a waterfront

brownfield site means a site located “adjacent to a body of water or federally designated flood

plain.” Additionally, renewable electricity is limited to wind, solar, or geothermal energy sources,

and energy efficiency improvement projects include projects for a combined heat and power

system or a district energy system. The BUILD Act did not authorize any federal funding to

invest in or actually build site infrastructure or other redevelopment to support these land uses.

Types of Competitive Grants

Site Characterization and Assessment Grants

Site characterization and assessment grants are generally limited to $200,000 each, but EPA is

authorized to increase the grant up to $350,000 based on the anticipated level of contamination,

39 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(6)(C)(xi) and (xii).

Congressional Research Service

9

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

size of the site, or status of ownership.40 Site characterization and assessment grants are not

subject to matching funds requirements.

A portion of the funding made available by IIJA for brownfield site characterization and

assessment grants is not subject to the statutory grant limit described above, but rather a limit of

$10.0 million per grant. Congress provided IIJA Brownfields grant funding from FY2022 to

FY2026. Since the enactment of IIJA, EPA has offered three types of assessment grants:41

1. community-wide assessment grants, which are limited to $500,000 per grant;

2. assessment coalition grants, which are limited to $1.2 million per grant for

coalitions led by a state, local, or tribal government entity; and

3. community-wide assessment grants for states and tribes, which are limited to

$2.0 million per grant and are only available to states and tribes.

Community-wide assessment grants for states and tribes are funded by IIJA, so site

characterization and assessment activities at eligible sites may exceed $200,000 per grant. EPA

has limited community-wide assessment grants for states and tribes to $2.0 million per grant.

Recipients of community-wide assessment grants are required to assess a minimum of 10

brownfield sites.

Cleanup Grants

Cleanup (i.e., remediation) grants for individual sites are limited to $500,000 each, but EPA is

authorized to increase the grant up to $650,000 subject to a waiver based on the anticipated level

of contamination, size, or ownership status of the site.42 In addition to applicant and site eligibility

requirements,43 an ASTM E1903-1944 or equivalent Phase II environmental site assessment report

is required prior to application submission. The requirement is to perform an initial assessment

first to confirm whether remediation, and the funds provided for remediation, are in fact

warranted.

Recipients of a site remediation grant must provide at least 20% in matching funds as a condition

to receive the grant, unless EPA determines that the matching share would place an undue

hardship on the recipient. The matching share may be in the form of labor, material, or services as

long as nonfederal funds finance these contributions. A portion of the funding made available by

IIJA for Brownfields remediation grants is not subject to the statutory limit described above, but

40 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(5)(A)(i).

41 For more information, see EPA, EPA Brownfields Assessment Grants: Interested in Applying for Funding?, EPA-

560-F-22-309, August 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-08/

Program%20Overview_Assessment.pdf. Also, see entry for “Brownfields Multipurpose, Assessment, Revolving Loan

Fund, and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements” on the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) website at

https://sam.gov/fal/2eb0a1da098341fba22519631b14c82f/view. The associated Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance listing number for this program is 66.818.

42 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(3)(A). For more information, see EPA, EPA Brownfields Cleanup Grants: Interested in Applying

for Funding?, EPA-560-F-22-304, August 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-08/

Program%20Overview_Cleanup.pdf. Also, see entry for “Brownfields Multipurpose, Assessment, Revolving Loan

Fund, and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements” on the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) website.

43 For example, see EPA, FY26 Guidelines For Brownfield Cleanup Grants, Funding Opportunity Number EPA-IOLEM-OBLR-25-07, https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/e0217543-899c-48bd-89d6-4c8944ce7e97/

attachments/1319fa29-c740-425e-88de-7414700bc909/EPA-I-OLEM-OBLR-25-07.pdf.

44 ASTM International, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site

Assessment Process, ASTM E1903-19, updated January 8, 2020, https://store.astm.org/e1903-19.html.

Congressional Research Service

10

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

rather a limit of $5.0 million per grant. Additionally, grants awarded by such funding are not

subject to the cost share requirement described above.

Multipurpose Grants

EPA may award multipurpose Brownfields grants that combine a site assessment, remediation,

and planning grant into one grant for purposes of efficiency, if contamination at a site likely

warrants remediation.45 The objective of this provision is similar to a pilot initiative that EPA

established in FY2012 to combine funding for both assessment and remediation at individual

sites.46 The BUILD Act provided explicit statutory authority for this practice and established the

statutory criteria that would govern the conditions under which EPA may combine funding for

these purposes into one consolidated grant.

The total funding for multipurpose grants is limited to 15% of the annual appropriations for

activities authorized in Section 104(k).47 Additionally, the maximum amount of each

multipurpose grant is capped at $1 million per site. Recipients of multipurpose grants are required

to fully expend the funds within five years from the date the grant was disbursed. A portion of the

funding made available by IIJA for Brownfields multipurpose grants is not subject to the statutory

limit described above but rather is subject to a limit of $10 million per grant. EPA generally has

not awarded multipurpose grants using IIJA funding.

Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs)

RLF Brownfields grants allow recipients to capitalize an RLF that provides loans and subgrants

intended to finance the remediation of multiple sites.48 The recipient of the grant may issue loans

and subgrants to eligible entities who are not liable under CERCLA. Section 104(k)(5)(A)(ii)

limits all remediation grants to capitalize RLFs to $1 million each, without exceptions.49 The limit

for capitalization grants is higher because RLFs are intended to finance the remediation of

multiple sites. EPA may award additional grants to capitalize the same RLF in subsequent fiscal

years based on the number of sites and communities served, effectiveness of the RLF in

enhancing remediation, demand for annual grant funds, and other similar factors that EPA may

consider. Recipients of a remediation RLF capitalization grant must provide at least 20% in

matching funds as a condition to receive the grant, unless EPA determines that the matching share

45 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(4). For more information, see EPA, EPA Brownfields Multipurpose Grants: Interested in Applying

for Funding?, EPA-560-F-22-303, August 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-08/

Program%20Overview_MP.pdf. Also, see entry for “Brownfields Multipurpose, Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund,

and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements” on the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) website.

46 Prior to the BUILD Act, combining funding for these purposes into a single site-specific grant was neither explicitly

authorized nor prohibited. For information on this initiative, see EPA, FY2012 Guidelines for Brownfields MultiPurpose Pilot Grants: Request for Proposals, https://archive.epa.gov/region03/ebytes/web/pdf/epa-oswer-oblr-1201.pdf.

47 Under its pilot initiative, EPA specified a three-year limitation on the expenditure of multipurpose grant funds and

limited the funding for all multipurpose grants in FY2012 to $5.5 million (5.8% of the $94.8 million appropriation for

Section 104(k) grants).

48 See EPA, Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund RLF Grants, updated May 2026, https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/

brownfields-revolving-loan-fund-rlf-grants.

49 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(5)(A)(ii). For more information, see EPA, “Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund RLF Grants,”

updated May 10, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfields-revolving-loan-fund-rlf-grants; and EPA, EPA

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants: Interested in Applying for Funding?, EPA-560-F-22-305, August 2022,

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-08/Program%20Overview_RLF.pdf. Also, see entry for

“Brownfields Multipurpose, Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements” on the System

for Award Management (SAM.gov) website.

Congressional Research Service

11

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

would place an undue hardship on the recipient.50 A portion of the funding made available by IIJA

for Brownfields grants to capitalize RLFs is not subject to the statutory limit described above, but

rather a limit of $10 million per grant.

Job Training Grants

According to EPA, Brownfields job training grants provide funding for “trainings to unemployed

and under-employed residents from communities impacted by brownfields” in various aspects

related to sustainable cleanup and reuse, chemical safety, and waste management.51 Prior to the

enactment of IIJA, EPA limited Brownfields job training grants to $200,000 per grant. Due to the

availability of IIJA funding for the Brownfields program, EPA raised this limit to $500,000 per

training grant. IIJA limits a portion of Brownfields job training grants to $1.0 million per grant.

Technical Assistance Grants

Under CERCLA Section 104(k)(7), EPA offers different types of Brownfields technical assistance

grants, including

•

•

•

•

Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities grants;

Training, Research, and Technical Assistance grants;

Technical Assistance to Tribal Nations and Entities Addressing Brownfields

grants; and

Technical Assistance to Existing and Potential Revolving Loan Funds grants.52

EPA provides Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities grants based on geographic

areas associated with 10 EPA regions.53 Additionally, one such grant is intended to cover technical

assistance activities that cross all regions and that are not regional or state-specific in nature. EPA

Training, Research, and Technical Assistance grants generally are focused on topical areas (rather

than regional concerns), such as technical assistance to nonprofits, land banking strategies, and

antidisplacement strategies (i.e., gentrification).54

50 See EPA, Fiscal Year 2026 Frequently Asked Questions for Brownfield Multipurpose, Assessment, RLF, and

Cleanup (MARC) Grants, November 20, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-11/fy26-faqs_11-2025.pdf.

51 For more information, see EPA, “Brownfields Job Training Grants,” updated March 6, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/

brownfields/brownfields-job-training-grants; and EPA, EPA Brownfields Job Training Grants: Interested in Applying

for Funding?, EPA-560-F-22-302, August 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-03/brownfieldsjob-training-grant-help-sheet_fy26_508-compliant_final.pdf. Also, see entry for “Brownfields Job Training

Cooperative Agreements” on the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) website.

52 For more information, see EPA, “Brownfields: Technical Assistance,” updated April 8, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/

brownfields/technical-assistance. Also, see entry for “Brownfields Training, Research, and Technical Assistance Grants

and Cooperative Agreements” on the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) website.

53 For more information, see “Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities” at EPA, “Technical Assistance,”

updated April 8, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/technical-assistance#Technical_Assistance.

54 For more information, see “Nationwide Brownfields Technical Assistance Providers” at EPA, “Technical

Assistance,” updated April 8, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/technical-assistance#Nationwide.

Congressional Research Service

12

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

State and Tribal Formula Grants

CERCLA Section 128(a) authorizes EPA to award grants on a formula basis to assist states and

Indian tribes in establishing or enhancing their own cleanup programs.55 States and tribes may use

these grants to augment their own resources for the assessment and remediation of brownfields to

facilitate redevelopment or reuse. These grants provide funding for similar activities as

competitive grants authorized in Section 104(k). In addition, a state or tribe may use a Section

128(a) grant to purchase insurance or to develop other risk, indemnity, or insurance mechanisms

to finance remediation under its program, similar to the availability of competitive grants for the

purchase of insurance. There are no matching funds requirements for these uses of Section 128(a)

grants.

A state or tribe also may use a Section 128(a) grant to capitalize an RLF to finance the

remediation of multiple brownfield sites, similar to RLFs capitalized with competitive

Brownfields grants. Section 128(a) capitalization grants are subject to the same 20% matching

funds requirements as Section 104(k) capitalization grants.

Although Section 128(a) grants are awarded on a formula basis, states and tribes still must meet

the eligibility criteria to apply for this assistance. A state or tribe may demonstrate eligibility in at

least one of two ways outlined in Section 128(a)(1)(A).56 First, a state or tribe may demonstrate

eligibility by incorporating four specific elements into its cleanup program, or by taking

“reasonable steps” to incorporate these elements:

1.

2.

a “timely” survey and inventory of brownfield sites;

oversight and enforcement authorities, mechanisms, or other resources to ensure

that site cleanups are carried out, including long-term operation, maintenance,

and monitoring;

3. mechanisms and resources to provide “meaningful” opportunities for public

participation; and

4. mechanisms for approval of site cleanup plans, and verification and certification

when cleanup is complete.

Second, a state or tribe may enter into a Voluntary Cleanup Program Memorandum of Agreement

with EPA to demonstrate eligibility for a Section 128(a) grant. These agreements coordinate the

respective EPA and state roles in the cleanup of sites located in those states.

The formula for allocating annual appropriations for Section 128(a) grants among eligible state

and tribal applicants is not specified in statute. EPA develops the formula each fiscal year based

on the total funds available, the number of eligible states and tribes that apply, the demonstrated

need outlined in each application (i.e., the proposed amount and justification of need), and the

funding priorities that EPA may establish within its discretion for a particular fiscal year.

Although all eligible states and tribes that apply for a Section 128(a) grant in a fiscal year would

receive at least some of the funds (as the grant awards are not competitive), the formula that EPA

develops for that fiscal year would determine the specific amount that an eligible state or tribe

55 42 U.S.C. §9628(a). For more information, see EPA, “State and Tribal Response Program,” updated September 30,

2025, https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/state-and-tribal-response-program; and the entry for “State and Tribal Response

Program Grants” on the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) website at https://sam.gov/fal/

b3f3e6716750452c869735e34c2ba5fc/view. The associated Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance listing number for

this program is 66.817.

56 42 U.S.C. §9628(a)(1)(A).

Congressional Research Service

13

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

would receive based on the total funds available that year.57 Eligible states and tribes therefore

may not necessarily receive the same proportion of available funds each fiscal year, as they would

under some formula grant programs that allocate funds based on fixed percentages, such as Clean

Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants under the Clean Water Act.58

As added by the BUILD Act, CERCLA Section 128(a)(1)(B)(iii) authorizes EPA to provide or

fund training, research, and technical assistance for developing inventories of brownfield sites,

site assessments, site remediation, community involvement, or site preparation for small

communities (15,000 people or fewer), Indian tribes, rural areas, and disadvantaged areas

(communities with an annual median household income less than 80% of the statewide annual

median household income).59 Each of this type of grant is limited to $20,000.

History of Brownfields Appropriations

This section provides a history of annual appropriations for the federal Brownfields program

beginning in the early years of the pilot initiative in FY1993 through FY2002 and continuing as a

codified program in CERCLA from FY2003 through FY2026. In addition, this section provides

the President’s FY2027 budget request for the Brownfields program.

As noted previously, Congress initially allocated funding for EPA Brownfields grants within the

Superfund account as a pilot initiative that EPA developed using the general response authorities

of CERCLA. Subsequent to the enactment of dedicated program authorities in P.L. 107-118,

Congress has appropriated separate funding for Brownfields grants within the State and Tribal

Assistance Grants (STAG) account of EPA, and for EPA’s administration of the program within

the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account. In annual appropriations bills,

Brownfields competitive grants have been funded within the STAG account as Brownfields

“project” grants, and the state and tribal formula grants have been funded within that account as

Brownfields “categorical” grants. Congress has appropriated funding for EPA within the Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies annual appropriations bill since FY2006.

Figure 1 shows trends in annual appropriations from FY1993 to FY2026, including nominal

requested and enacted appropriations amounts broken out by competitive grants, state and tribal

formula grants, and administrative expenses by year. In the early years of the Brownfields

initiative from FY1993 through FY2002, annual appropriations ranged from $0.2 million for

FY1993 to $95.0 million for FY2002.

From FY2003 to FY2021, nominal total Brownfields appropriations (except in FY2009) ranged

between $153.3 million (FY2015-FY2018) and $173.4 million (FY2010). For FY2009, the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) provided $100.0 million in

supplemental appropriations, in addition to annual appropriations, within the STAG account for

EPA Brownfields competitive project grants. In that year, nominal total appropriations were $270

million. From FY2003 to the enactment of the BUILD Act, Congress continued to fund the

Brownfields program without renewing the authorization of appropriations. In addition to annual

57 For EPA guidance and additional information on Brownfields formula grants for State and Tribal Response

Programs, see EPA, “State and Tribal Response Program,” updated September 30, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/

brownfields/state-and-tribal-response-program-grants.

58 33 U.S.C. §1383.

59 42 U.S.C. §9628(a)(1)(B)(iii).

Congressional Research Service

14

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

appropriations, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provided emergency supplemental

appropriations of $5.0 million for the Brownfields program.60

Beginning in FY2022, the IIJA provided emergency supplemental appropriations totaling $1.5

billion over a five-year period for the Brownfields program.61 Of the amount provided in IIJA, a

total of $1.2 billion is to be allocated for the competitive grants authorized in Section 104(k) of

CERCLA, and $300.0 million is to be allocated for state and tribal response program grants

allocated on a formula basis authorized in Section 128(a) of CERCLA. These amounts are

appropriated equally from FY2022 through FY2026, providing $240.0 million for competitive

grants and $60 million for formula grants each fiscal year.

Of the $600.0 million out of the $1.2 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations, the IIJA

also increased the maximum allowable amounts for individual competitive grants funded. The

IIJA did not otherwise amend CERCLA to increase these amounts for individual competitive

grants funded with annual appropriations. Presumably, the other $600.0 million in emergency

supplemental appropriations are subject to the maximum allowable amounts for individual grant

awards specified in CERCLA.

For FY2026, enacted amounts for the Brownfields program were $98.0 million for competitive

grants, $46.3 million for state and tribal formula grants, and $25.7 million for administrative

expenses.62 On top of these amounts, IIJA supplemental appropriations for the Brownfields

program for FY2026 were $240 million for competitive grants and $60 million for state and tribal

formula grants. Taken together, FY2026 regular and supplemental enacted amounts totaled

$338.0 million for competitive grants and $106.3 million for formula grants. Including

appropriations for administrative expenses, total FY2026 funding for the Brownfields program

was $470.0 million. Enacted appropriations for the Brownfields program have been less than the

authorized levels, with the exception of supplemental appropriations for FY2009 in the ARRA

(P.L. 111-5) and for FY2022 in the IIJA (P.L. 117-58).

For FY2027, EPA requested $80 million for competitive grants, $0 for state and tribal formula

grants, and $12.5 million for administrative expenses. In Figure 1, FY2027 requested amounts

are illustrated as dashed bars.

60 P.L. 117-2, Title VI, §6002. The funding provided under P.L. 117-2 is treated as mandatory spending and not as an

emergency supplemental appropriation for discretionary spending. The funding authorized in P.L. 117-2 therefore is

not included in Figure 1 of this report, which provides a history of EPA appropriations for discretionary spending. See

Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 1319, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,

March 10, 2021, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57056.

61 P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title VI.

62 U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Joint Explanatory Statement, Division C—Department of the

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026, 119th Cong., 2nd sess., January 2026,

https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/rules.house.gov/files/documents/division-c-interior-environment.pdf. See the

amounts in the tables for Section 104(k) at p. 157 of the PDF, Section 128(a) at p. 158 of the PDF, and administrative

expenses at p. 152 of the PDF. FY2027 competitive grants and administrative expenses are requested amounts (dashed

bars).

Congressional Research Service

15

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 1. Appropriations for EPA Brownfields Grants,

by Type of Grant and EPA Administrative Expenses,

FY1993 to FY2026 Enacted and the President’s FY2027 Request

(in millions of nominal dollars)

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on funding levels presented in House, Senate, or

conference committee reports accompanying the annual appropriations bills that fund EPA, other acts providing

supplemental appropriations, and EPA annual congressional budget justifications. Amounts reflect applicable

rescissions and supplemental appropriations and include discretionary spending. FY2027 competitive grants and

administrative expenses are requested amounts (dashed bars).

Notes: For FY2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) provided $100.0

million in supplemental appropriations within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account for EPA

Brownfields competitive project grants. No supplemental appropriations were provided for state and tribal

formula grants.

For FY2022, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) provided $1.2 billion over a five-year

period in supplemental appropriations within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account for EPA Brownfields

competitive project grants. Additionally, P.L. 117-58 provided $300 million over a five-year period in

supplemental appropriations for state and tribal formula grants.

For each fiscal year from FY2022 through FY2026, IIJA appropriations provided $240 million for competitive

grants and $60 million for state and tribal formula grants. FY2026 was the last year of funding provided by the

IIJA.

The FY2027 President’s budget did not request funding for state and tribal formula grants.

Although the EPA Brownfields program is the principal federal program dedicated exclusively to

the assessment and remediation of eligible sites, numerous federal departments and agencies

administer other programs that may provide financial or technical assistance to facilitate the

redevelopment or reuse of such properties. Related programs of other federal departments and

agencies generally serve broader purposes under which brownfield redevelopment or reuse may

be among the range of eligible activities, such as Small Business Administration loans or

Community Development Block Grants administered by the Department of Housing and Urban

Congressional Research Service

16

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Development. EPA has developed a compendium of such programs in the Brownfields Federal

Programs Guide that is intended to identify potential sources of federal funds that may be used to

facilitate the redevelopment or reuse of brownfields.63 The type of assistance offered and the

criteria for eligibility vary widely among these programs. Federal assistance under any one

program, therefore, may not necessarily be available at certain sites or may be limited to certain

categories of public or private entities. The availability of federal assistance under any one

program would depend on the respective eligibility requirements, the availability of

appropriations, and the relative merit of the project if available funds are awarded on a

competitive basis, or potentially other criteria if awarded on a formula basis.

Site Assessment and Cleanup Metrics

EPA has developed several metrics to characterize and track the implementation of the federal

Brownfields program. Some of these metrics include the number of eligible sites that are

assessed,64 cleaned up (i.e., remediated),65 and made ready for anticipated reuse using federal

resources.66 Additional metrics track the number of acres that are ready for reuse. Some other

metrics are based on certain economic data in terms of the numbers of jobs and nonfederal dollars

“leveraged”67 among individual sites affected by the federal Brownfields program. Cumulative

data through April 1, 2026,68 for each of these metrics reported by EPA are summarized below.69

•

•

•

•

•

Number of brownfield properties assessed: 42,999

Number of brownfield properties cleaned up: 3,063

Number of brownfield properties made ready for anticipated reuse: 13,025

Acres of brownfield properties made ready for reuse: 186,869

Number of jobs leveraged: 228,917

63 EPA, 2025 Brownfields Federal Programs Guide, June 2025, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-07/

2025-bf-federal-programs-guide-6-30-25_508-compliant_2.pdf.

64 EPA, Fiscal Year 2025 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, EPA-190-R24-002, March 2024, pp. 1134-1135 (pp. 1135-1136 of the PDF), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/202403/fy-2025-congressional-justification-all-tabs.pdf. EPA states that “the number of properties that have been

environmentally assessed for the first time using EPA brownfields funding, as reported by cooperative agreement

recipients.”

65 EPA, Fiscal Year 2025 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, EPA-190-R24-002, pp. 1134-1135 (pp. 1135-1136 of the PDF). EPA states: “This measure tracks the number of properties that

have been cleaned up to a regulatory risk-based standard using EPA brownfields funding, as reported by cooperative

agreement recipients into the Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) database. Cleaning

up contaminated land reduces the environmental and health effects of exposure to contamination in communities,

especially overburdened communities, and contributes toward the Administration’s Justice40 goal.”

66 EPA, Fiscal Year 2025 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, EPA-190-R24-002, pp. 1134-1135 (pp. 1135-1136 of the PDF). EPA states: “This measure tracks the number of properties/sites

benefiting from EPA brownfields funding that have been assessed and determined not to require cleanup, or where

cleanup has been completed and institutional controls are in place if required, as reported by cooperative agreement

recipients. This activity results in additional sites available for productive reuse.”

67 According to EPA, “Leveraging is the use of existing resources or funding to attract additional resources or funding.”

See EPA, Setting the Stage for Leveraging Resources for Brownfields Revitalization,

https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2016-04/documents/final_leveraging_guide_document_4-1916.pdf.

68 The EPA Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) database includes Brownfields

information from 1994 to 2026.

69 EPA, “Brownfields: Accomplishments,” April 1, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/accomplishments.

Congressional Research Service

17

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

•

Number of nonfederal dollars leveraged: $45 billion

EPA also reported the following performance metrics for FY2025 for the following:70

•

•

•

Number of brownfield properties assessed: 2,197

Number of brownfield properties cleaned up: 224

Number of brownfield properties made ready for anticipated reuse: 782

EPA reports additional performance metrics tracked by states and tribes that receive Brownfields

formula grants to help support their own programs:71

•

•

•

Enrolled over 33,229 properties annually (on average)

Completed more than 232,228 cleanups

Made over 3,891,801 acres ready for reuse

EPA has evaluated various potential benefits associated with the assessment and remediation of

brownfield properties, including a study issued in 2020 by the EPA Office of Brownfields and

Land Revitalization that examined environmental benefits from brownfield redevelopment, such

as reductions in impervious surface and transportation-related air emissions.72

The EPA OIG has issued a series of reports that have examined various facets of the

implementation of the Brownfields program over the past two decades.73 Many of these reports

focused on the earlier years of implementation following the 2002 amendments to CERCLA that

authorized the Brownfields program separately from the Superfund program. EPA OIG reports on

the Brownfields program have focused on the management of Brownfields RLFs, including a

report issued in 2017 that outlined 23 recommendations for improving the management of these

funds74 and a follow-up report issued in 2022 on the status of EPA corrective actions based on

these OIG recommendations.75

Issues for Congress

In the 119th Congress, congressional activities related to the Brownfields program have included

the introduction of reauthorization legislation, congressional hearings,76 the consideration of

70 EPA, Fiscal Year 2027; Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, April 2026,

p. 551, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-04/epa-fy27-congressional-justification.pdf.

71 EPA, “Brownfields: Accomplishments,” April 1, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/accomplishments.

72 EPA, Environmental Benefits of Brownfields Redevelopment—A Nationwide Assessment, May 2020,

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P10110R0.txt.

73 For access to these reports, see EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG), “OIG Reports,” https://www.epaoig.gov/

reports, searchable by keyword using “brownfields.”

74 EPA OIG, Improved Management of the Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Program Is Required to Maximize

Cleanups, Report No. 17-P-0368, August 23, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-08/documents/

_epaoig_20170823-17-p-0368.pdf.

75 EPA OIG, Brownfields Program-Income Monitoring Deficiencies Persist Because the EPA Did Not Complete All

Certified Corrective Actions, Report No. 22-P-0033, March 31, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/

2022-04/_epaoig_20220331-22-p-0033.pdf.

76 U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment Subcommittee, Maximizing Opportunities

for Redeveloping Brownfields Sites: Assessing the Potential for New American Innovation, 119th Cong., 1st sess., March

11, 2025.

U.S. Congress, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee,

Cleaning Up the Past, Building the Future, 119th Cong., 1st sess., May 7, 2025.

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

18

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

legislative proposals, and the introduction of tax and other financial incentive legislation.77 If

Congress seeks changes to the Brownfields program or its implementation, Congress may

consider enacting policies proposed in these bills or related policies yet to be proposed.

Additionally, Congress may consider the adequacy of appropriations to carry out the Brownfields

program’s overall objectives. As with any policy considerations, Congress could choose to

maintain the status quo. Key issues are discussed in the following sections.

Reauthorizing Legislation in the 119th Congress

The authorization of appropriations for the Brownfields program expired at the end of FY2023.

The program authorities do not have a sunset date, and Congress has continued to appropriate

funding to implement the Brownfields program since that time. In considering whether and how

to reauthorize the Brownfields grants, Congress may consider assessing whether funds going

toward the Brownfields grants have achieved the intended purpose of the program.

In the 119th Congress, the Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025 (S. 347) would reauthorize

both the competitive grants under CERCLA Section 104(k) and the state and tribal grants under

CERCLA Section 128(a) through FY2030. On February 5, 2025, the Senate Committee on

Environment and Public Works reported S. 347 out of committee. If enacted, funding for

Brownfields grants under the bill would be subject to the enactment of annual appropriations. S.

347 would also add 501(c)(6) nonprofit organizations and Alaskan native tribes as eligible entities

to receive Brownfields competitive grants. In addition, S. 347 would eliminate the existing 5%

cap that Brownfields competitive grant recipients may use toward administrative costs and reduce

the cost-share requirements for such grants from 20% to 10%. Eligible entities located in a small

community or disadvantaged area would be exempt from cost-share requirements. S. 347 would

also direct EPA to submit a report to Congress that evaluates the Brownfields application process

and update its guidance to “reduce complexity of the application process while ensuring

competitive integrity.”

For state and tribal grants under CERCLA Section 128(a), S. 347 would increase the maximum

grant amount that EPA may award a recipient from $500,000 to $1.0 million for each remediated

site. Whereas the authorization level for competitive grants would remain the same at $200

million annually between FY2025 and FY2030, S. 347 would increase the authorization level for

state and tribal grants by $5.0 million per year from $50.0 million authorized in FY2025 to $75

million authorized in FY2030. On February 25, 2025, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

issued a cost estimate for S. 347 as reported.78

In the House, the Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025 (H.R. 6432) would also reauthorize

both the competitive grants under CERCLA Section 104(k) and the state and tribal grants under

CERCLA Section 128(a) through FY2030. For grants under CERCLA Section 104(k), like S.

347, H.R. 6432 would increase the maximum grant amount that EPA may award a recipient from

$500,000 to $1.0 million for each remediated site. That bill also would increase the authorization

level for competitive grants to $250 million. Unlike S. 347, H.R. 6432 would not increase the

authorization level for Section 128(a) grants.

U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment Subcommittee, Ready for Reuse: Legislative

Proposals to Unleash the Potential of America’s Brownfields Sites, 119th Cong., 2nd sess., March 4, 2026.

77 Other bills in the 119th Congress may use the definition of a brownfield site for other purposes. These bills are

outside the scope of this report and not discussed here.

78 CBO, Cost Estimate for S. 347, Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025, As Reported by the Senate Committee on

Environment and Public Works on February 5, 2025, February 25, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-02/

s347.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

19

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Additionally, in the House, the Brownfields Revitalization for a Better Tomorrow Act (H.R. 8739)

would reauthorize both the competitive grants under CERCLA Section 104(k) and the state and

tribal grants under CERCLA Section 128(a) from FY2027 through FY2031. That bill also would

decrease the authorization level for competitive grants from $200.0 million to $123.5 million and

would decrease the authorization level for Section 128(a) grants from $50.0 million to $46.25

million. Other provisions in that bill would increase the maximum grant amount that EPA may

award a recipient from $500,000 to $1.0 million for each remediated site and up to $2.0 million

for multipurpose grants. In addition, the bill would authorize grant recipients to use up to 10% of

their grant or loan for “demolition activities as needed to carry out the purpose for which the

grant or loan was provided.” Furthermore, the bill would add ranking criteria, require EPA OIG

audits or reviews within two years of enactment and every two years thereafter, and require EPA

to complete and submit multiple reports to Congress on activities related to the program, among

other provisions.

All three bills would increase the maximum grant amount for certain Section 104(k) competitive

grants. How these changes would alter the total number of grants would be uncertain, as EPA has

discretion over the number of grants and amounts awarded per grant.

Broadly speaking, it remains a policy consideration for Congress as to whether the program is—

or should be—providing relatively less funding to more sites or relatively higher funding to fewer

sites. One potential issue with increasing the maximum grant amount, and potentially decreasing

the number of annual grants, is that it would increase competitiveness of being awarded a grant.

This could favor applicants with more developed institutional capacity to compete for

Brownfields grant resources compared to entities with fewer resources. On the other hand, to the

extent a relatively lower-resourced community would be awarded a higher grant amount, it could

provide extra financial resources for a project where funding and partners may be limited.

Congress could consider policy options to balance these potential trade-offs through

modifications or expansion of the current statutory requirements for EPA grant assessment

criteria.79

Other Legislative Proposals

In the 119th Congress, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on

Environment held a hearing on March 4, 2026, to discuss and consider four legislative proposals

related to the Brownfields program.80 The provisions in these proposals vary in scope and

objectives. Some of the debates around these proposals have focused on the inclusion of the

concept of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Facility. Three of those proposals would amend

CERCLA to define the term Nationally Significant Infrastructure Facility as facilities for81

•

the fabrication, assembly, production, or research and development of

semiconductors, materials to manufacture semiconductors, or semiconductor

manufacturing equipment;

79 42 U.S.C. §9604(k)(6)(C)(vii).

80 The four proposals were (1) Brownfields Revitalization for a Better Tomorrow Act, (2) Brownfields Infrastructure

Finance and Innovation Act, (3) Brownfields Inventory and Permitting Efficiency Act, and (4) Brownfields

Reauthorization for an Affordable and Revitalized America Act. These legislative proposals did not have bill numbers.

See U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment Subcommittee, Ready for Reuse:

Legislative Proposals to Unleash the Potential of America’s Brownfields Sites, 119th Cong., 2nd sess., March 4, 2026.

81 See U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Energy Subcommittee, H.R. ____, the Brownfields

Revitalization for a Better Tomorrow Act, 119th Cong., 2nd sess., https://democrats-energycommerce.house.gov/

committee-activity/hearings/hearing-ready-reuse-legislative-proposals-unleash-potential-americas.

Congressional Research Service

20

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

•

•

•

the extraction, recovery, refining, or processing of critical minerals or rare earth

elements;

artificial Intelligence, including data centers and other infrastructure that supports

artificial intelligence; and

energy generation.

Proponents of this concept may argue these proposals would aim to utilize potential brownfield

sites as an opportunity to encourage the construction of Nationally Significant Infrastructure

Facilities on lands that may have been affected by previous activities, while minimizing the

development impacts to relatively undisturbed land.82 Some Members of the subcommittee

expressed concerns that the inclusion of this concept may expand the Brownfields program to

private entities, potentially limiting federal resources for communities.83

Adequacy of Funding

Congress may consider the adequacy of past funding levels and future funding necessary to

achieve program objectives. As discussed in the following sections, Congress may choose to

implement other policy options to evaluate funding needs and program oversight, which may

additionally inform decisions about funding.

The President’s FY2027 congressional budget justification requested $80.0 million for

Brownfields Section 104(k) grants, $0 for Section 128(a) grants, and $12.5 million for

administrative expenses.84 These amounts were similar to the amounts requested in the

President’s FY2026 congressional budget justification. Congress appropriated higher amounts

than requested for FY2026 by the Trump Administration, which were $98 million for Section

104(k) grants, $46.3 million for Section 128(a) grants, and $25.7 million for administrative

expenses.85 In the FY2027 congressional budget justification, EPA stated that its proposal that

Congress not provide funding for Section 128(a) grants was consistent with the Administration’s

priorities, “including promoting cooperative federalism by returning the responsibility of funding

local brownfields programs to state and local entities.”86 While Congress appropriated higher

amounts than EPA’s FY2026 requested amounts, funding levels for FY2027 and subsequent fiscal

years remain an issue for Congress.

82 See U.S. Congress, U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment Subcommittee, Ready for

Reuse: Legislative Proposals to Unleash the Potential of America’s Brownfields Sites, Chairman Gary Palmer, opening

statement, 119th Cong., 2nd sess., March 4, 2026.

83 See U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment Subcommittee, Opening Statement as

Prepared for Delivery of Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr., hearing on “Ready for Reuse:

Legislative Proposals to Unleash the Potential of America’s Brownfield Sites,” 119th Cong., 2nd sess., March 4, 2026.

Also see U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment Subcommittee, Opening Statement as

Prepared for Delivery of Subcommittee on Environment Ranking Member Paul Tonko, hearing on “Ready for Reuse:

Legislative Proposals to Unleash the Potential of America’s Brownfield Sites,” 119th Cong., 2nd sess., March 4, 2026.

84 EPA, Fiscal Year 2027; Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, April 2026,

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-04/epa-fy27-congressional-justification.pdf.

85 U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Joint Explanatory Statement, Division C—Department of the

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026, 119th Cong., 2nd sess., January 2026,

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy26_int_jes.pdf. See the amounts in the tables for Section

104(k) at p. 157 of the PDF, Section 128(a) at p. 158 of the PDF, and administrative expenses at p. 152 of the PDF.

86 EPA, Fiscal Year 2027; Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, April 2026,

p. 512, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-04/epa-fy27-congressional-justification.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

21

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

The Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment

Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-74)87 provided new requirements for Section 104(k) grants in

the bill language requiring that of the $98 million appropriated, “at least 10 percent shall be

allocated to persistent poverty counties.” P.L. 119-74 defined persistent poverty counties as any

county that “has had 20 percent or more of its population living in poverty over the past 30 years,

as measured by the 1993 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, the 2000 decennial census,

and the most recent Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, or any territory or possession of

the United States.”

Additionally, or alternatively, Congress could consider other financial mechanisms to assist

eligible entities with addressing brownfield sites. In prior years, certain tax incentives under the

Internal Revenue Code were available as a form of financial assistance to encourage the cleanup

and redevelopment or reuse of brownfield sites.88 Despite the expiration of these tax incentives,

federal taxpayers generally may deduct their environmental remediation costs as a trade or

business expense under Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code under certain conditions.89

There have been multiple bills introduced in the 119th Congress with similar scope and purpose

that would reauthorize certain Brownfields tax credits, including the Brownfield Revitalization

and Remediation Act (H.R. 5472) and the Brownfields Redevelopment Tax Incentive

Reauthorization Act of 2025 (H.R. 815). Additionally, the Economic Opportunity for Distressed

Communities Act (H.R. 2292) would establish special rules for capital gains invested in

brownfield sites.

Potential Number of Brownfield Sites

The question of the total number of sites that may be eligible for Brownfields funding has been an

issue. As discussed further below, while some estimates of the total number of brownfield sites

have been reported, the determination of site and applicant eligibility is dependent on site-specific

factors. The evaluation to establish a nationwide site inventory or needs estimate may be useful to

set policy and funding goals. Yet, developing such an inventory or needs estimate reliably may be

challenging and subject to uncertain underlying assumptions.

A nationwide comprehensive inventory is not available to identify all sites that may qualify as a

brownfield site as defined in Section 101(39) of CERCLA, nor is it available to identify a subset

of sites under any of the particular paragraphs in that definition. As discussed in the previous

section “Eligibility of Sites,” a site must meet certain statutory criteria to be eligible for a

Brownfields grant. EPA maintains an inventory of brownfield sites for which the agency has

awarded Brownfields grants under CERCLA, through its Assessment, Cleanup and

Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) database90 and an interactive mapping tool.91 An

inventory is not available to identify the broader universe of all sites that may qualify for the

definition of a brownfield in Section 101(39) of CERCLA.

87 P.L. 119-74.

88 For example, Section 941(a) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34, Title IX, Subtitle E; 26 U.S.C. §198)

allowed a taxpayer to fully deduct the costs of cleaning up a brownfield property in the year the costs were incurred.

Section 745 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312,

Title VII, Subtitle C) extended this brownfield cleanup tax incentive through December 31, 2011. Since the 113th

Congress, some legislation has been introduced that would reauthorize this tax incentive; none has been enacted to

date.

89

26 U.S.C. §162.

90 EPA, Brownfields Grant Fact Sheet Search, https://java.epa.gov/acrespub/gfs/.

91 EPA, Cleanups in My Community, https://www.epa.gov/cleanups/cleanups-my-community.

Congressional Research Service

22

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

In the legislative history of the 2002 amendments to CERCLA,92 which authorized the

Brownfields program separately from the Superfund program, the Senate Committee on

Environment and Public Works expressed its intent that the federal role in the remediation of

brownfield sites on nonfederal lands would be relatively smaller than the roles of states under

their respective laws.93 In its report on the Senate version of this legislation prior to enactment,

the committee cited an estimate at that time from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and others of

potentially 450,000 brownfield sites in the United States.94

To ensure a Brownfields grant application meets the statutory criteria at Section 101(39) (as

described above), EPA assesses the eligibility of a site for a Brownfields grant on a site-specific

basis. To attempt to develop a comprehensive nationwide inventory of the total number of

potential brownfield sites, the agency would be required to examine each site and whether it

meets the eligible statutory criteria. Such an effort could face multiple implementation issues such

as how the agency would establish the boundaries of a potential brownfield site, site ownership,

and information to ensure the applicant is not liable for contamination. Without such site-specific

eligibility information, the information obtained from an evaluation could be unreliable. Thus, the

question of how much federal funding would be required to address each potential brownfield site

might not be feasible to determine under the current definition, as the exact number of potential

brownfield sites may not be possible to ascertain.

On the other hand, Congress could consider a policy approach that relies upon information and

surveys from states, tribes, and local governments to estimate total funding needs. As one

example of a similar approach, Congress authorized the federal onshore orphaned oil and gas

wells program with the enactment of the IIJA (P.L. 117-58) in the 117th Congress.95 Prior to

federal and state regulations, many oil and gas wells were “orphaned,” or left unreclaimed. There

continues to be uncertainty regarding the total inventory, location, and status of those wells.

Under the requirements in the IIJA, the Department of the Interior distributed initial grants to

eligible states to support administrative actions necessary to assess and update the inventory of

their orphan well sites, prepare applications for obtaining formula and performance grants, and

carry out the activities under those grants. As part of a state’s application to be eligible for

formula grant funding, Congress defined factors to be used to determine the relative distribution

of funding. Those factors included the job losses in the oil and gas industry in the state between

March 1, 2020, and November 15, 2021; the number of documented orphaned wells within the

state; and the projected costs to plug and reclaim the well, adjacent land, and related

infrastructure.96

As part of the eligibility requirements to receive Section 128(a) formula grants, Congress requires

state and tribal response programs to implement a “[t]imely survey and inventory of brownfield

sites in the State.”97 To meet this requirement, EPA does not require states and tribes to provide a

list of brownfield sites, but states and tribes “must develop and/or maintain a system or process

that can provide a reasonable estimate of the number, likely location, and general characteristics

92 P.L. 107-118.

93 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental

Restoration Act of 2001, S.Rept. 107-2, 107th Cong., 1st sess., March 2001, p. 3.

94 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental

Restoration Act of 2001, S.Rept. 107-2, 107th Cong., 1st sess., March 2001, p. 1.

95

P.L. 117-58.

96 42 U.S.C. §15907(c)(4)(A)(iii).

97 42 U.S.C. §9628(a)(2)(A).

Congressional Research Service

23

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

of brownfield sites within their state or Tribal lands.”98 EPA provides options for state and tribal

brownfields programs to meet this requirement. Whether these surveys could be aggregated to

provide a reasonable nationwide estimate of the number of sites eligible for funding from the

federal Brownfields program would depend on the degree and specificity of those “inventories”

and whether any site-specific property could meet Brownfields eligibility requirements.

Congress may consider policies to estimate the total number of potential brownfield sites or

funding needs. Based on such an estimate, Congress could adjust annual appropriations,

application criteria, or reporting requirements. One drawback of this approach could be

incentivizing an overestimation of the number of potential brownfield sites to reflect a higher

relative need. To address this potential drawback, Congress could consider setting requirements to

ensure standardization and accuracy of the data. Additionally, the frequency of those brownfield

assessments could be defined by Congress to update information about potential brownfield sites

as the program is implemented. Furthermore, Congress could consider additional oversight

requirements to standardize reporting requirements, providing additional resources for oversight,

and directing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to assess the reliability of brownfield

site estimates.

Alternatively, Congress could consider estimating the total amount of Brownfields funding needs

by evaluating the number of eligible competitive grant applications submitted annually compared

to the actual number of grant applications that are funded.99 The difference between these two

numbers may be used to gauge the number of sites that requested but did not receive federal

funding in a given year. One potential shortcoming with this approach is that it might identify

only unfunded submitted applications, and not every potential brownfield site. Additionally, some

might argue this approach might overlook lower-income communities or applicants that might not

have the resources or capacity to submit a Brownfields grant application compared to more

established or better-financed eligible entities. To address this, Congress could consider providing

EPA additional resources to enhance outreach and communication to certain communities that

might have limited capacity and resources to submit an application.

Performance Metrics and Oversight

Congress could consider oversight options to assess whether funds going toward the Brownfields

program have achieved the intended purposes of site remediation and economic redevelopment

on sites where expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence or

potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. In addition to ensuring

appropriate use of federal financial resources, additional oversight might inform the adequacy of

annual appropriations or options to modify program direction and objectives.

98 EPA, FY26 Funding Guidance for CERCLA Section 128(a) State and Tribal Response Programs, 2025,

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-09/fy26-128a-guidance.pdf. “EPA recognizes the varied scope of

state and Tribal response programs and will not require states and Tribal Nations to develop a ‘list’ of brownfield sites.

However, at a minimum, the state or Tribal Nation must develop and/or maintain a system or process that can provide a

reasonable estimate of the number, likely location, and general characteristics of brownfield sites within their state or

Tribal lands.”

99 EPA provides the number of estimated awards for different grant types as part of its grant solicitation. EPA,

Multipurpose, Assessment, RLF, and Cleanup Grant Application Resources, updated May 2026, https://www.epa.gov/

brownfields/marc-grant-application-resources.

Congressional Research Service

24

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

EPA provides information about program performance metrics in its annual congressional budget

justification and on public websites.100 The extent to which the type and degree of information is

adequate could be a policy consideration for Congress. According to EPA’s FY2027 congressional

budget justification, EPA relied upon data entered into EPA’s ACRES database to estimate that

“184,075 acres of idle land made ready for productive use and over 228,305 jobs and $44 billion

leveraged” as of January 2026.101 Additionally, EPA’s FY2027 congressional budget justification

suggested that for FY2025, the program was “Above Target,” as the reported targeted and actual

numbers of brownfield properties cleaned up that year were 150 and 224, respectively. For

FY2027, EPA stated the target number of brownfield properties to be cleaned up was also 150.

EPA did not state the rationale for these annual target numbers in that justification but did note

that the target number of brownfield sites cleaned up decreased from 160 in FY2024 to 150 in

FY2025 and beyond, due to “an increase in project complexity, which lengthens the time required

to complete potential cleanups.”102

A July 2025 EPA OIG report did not make recommendations on the Brownfields program but

identified two areas that may warrant further attention.103 First, it mentioned that data

inaccuracies in EPA’s Grants Research Information Portal (GRIP) database could limit EPA

staff’s ability to accurately monitor awarded grants.104 OIG reported that using GRIP in tandem

with ACRES could lead to a more accurate assessment of grant information. Second, OIG

identified that funding provided by the IIJA may pose challenges for EPA to monitor grant

performance, since the increase in grant funding outpaced the increase in regional staff who

oversee the grants. In FY2023, due to the additional funding provided by the IIJA, Brownfields

grant funding allocations increased by 200%, while EPA regional staff full-time-equivalents

overseeing those grants increased by 44%. Furthermore, OIG stated that the number of grants

overseen by EPA could remain elevated for serval more years and noted that “the program

anticipates peaking at approximately 1,500 grants annually around FY 2027, and the program

anticipates returning to traditional levels around FY 2031.” To the extent that this could pose an

oversight issue, Congress could consider additional audits of the program to better understand

potential staffing limitations. Based on the outcome, Congress could consider providing

additional administrative expenses through annual appropriations or other funding sources.

Author Information

Lance N. Larson

Analyst in Environmental Policy

100 EPA, Accomplishments, https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/accomplishments.

101 EPA, Fiscal Year 2027; Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, April 2026,

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-04/epa-fy27-congressional-justification.pdf.

102 EPA, Fiscal Year 2027; Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, April 2026,

p. 632, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-04/epa-fy27-congressional-justification.pdf.

103 EPA OIG, Audit of the EPA’s Brownfields Program Management and Funding Allocations, Report No. 25-P-0043,

July 2025, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/oig/documents/_epaoig_20250723-25-p-0043_cert.pdf.

104 According to the previously cited EPA OIG report, the GRIP database is an “internal database, managed by the EPA

Office of Grants and Debarment, [that] captures grant information for all types of EPA grants. The EPA told us that

grants captured in GRIP have been officially awarded.”

Congressional Research Service

25

Federal Brownfields Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Acknowledgments

Emily Peterson, CRS Research Librarian, provided research support for this report. Michael M. McCarthy,

CRS Editorial and Review Office Editor, provided formatting and editorial support.

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to

copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service

R49055 · VERSION 1 · NEW

26