Drive through almost any American city and you will pass one. A fenced-off lot where a gas station used to be. A shuttered factory with weeds pushing through the concrete. A rail yard where nothing has moved in decades except the rust. These are brownfields — properties where real or perceived contamination has stalled redevelopment — and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates there are more than 450,000 of them scattered across the country.
That number is staggering. It represents millions of acres of land locked out of productive use, often in the very neighborhoods that need investment the most. But it also represents something else entirely: one of the largest untapped opportunities for economic development, environmental restoration, and community renewal in America.
What a Brownfield Actually Is
The term "brownfield" entered the federal lexicon in 1995 when EPA launched its Brownfields Program under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). A brownfield site is defined as real property where expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence — or potential presence — of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
They are not Superfund sites, which are the nation's most severely contaminated properties requiring long-term federal cleanup. Brownfields are the quieter cousins: former dry cleaners with solvent plumes in the soil, abandoned textile mills with heavy metals in the groundwater, shuttered gas stations leaking petroleum into aquifers. They are everywhere — in cities and small towns, in wealthy suburbs and communities underinvested for generations.
The contamination is real but rarely catastrophic. What makes brownfields devastating is not the concentration of pollutants — it is the paralysis. Nobody wants to buy a property that might come with a cleanup bill. Banks will not lend against it. Developers walk away. And so the site sits, year after year, dragging down property values, attracting illegal dumping, and quietly leaching contaminants into the soil and water.
The Historic Funding Surge — and the Cliff That Follows
In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) delivered the largest investment in brownfield remediation in American history: $1.5 billion over five years, layered on top of existing annual congressional appropriations that had averaged roughly $160 million per year over the previous decade.
The money was transformative. Grant award ceilings jumped to $4 million for cleanup grants and $1.2 million for assessment grants. The 20 percent cost-share requirement for cleanup grants was eliminated, removing a barrier that had kept smaller and less affluent communities from applying. In fiscal year 2024, EPA awarded $248 million through its Multipurpose, Assessment, and Cleanup grant programs. In May 2025, the agency announced FY2025 results: 214 grants totaling $224 million to 207 tribes, nonprofits, and local governments. The FY2026 competition offered $107 million for approximately 36 cleanup grants, with applications closing January 28, 2026.
But the surge ends this year. IIJA/BIL brownfield funding must be obligated by September 30, 2026 — the end of the federal fiscal year. Without new legislation, annual funding levels will fall back to roughly $160 million or less, a drop of more than $150 million per year compared to current levels. The contrast with FY2027 projections is stark: cleanup grant ceilings will drop from $4 million back to $500,000, the 20 percent cost-share requirement returns, and the total cleanup grant pool shrinks to an estimated $14 million — down from $107 million this year.
As Smart Growth America warned in a March 2026 analysis, the brownfields funding cliff threatens to strand communities mid-project and halt a pipeline of ready-to-go remediation work at exactly the moment when demand is highest.
The Science of Putting Land Back to Work
Brownfield remediation is not one thing. It is a toolbox of technologies matched to the specific contamination at each site, and the field has matured enormously over the past three decades.
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) pulls volatile organic compounds — chlorinated solvents, gasoline constituents — out of unsaturated soils by applying vacuum pressure. It is one of the most widely deployed remediation technologies at brownfield sites, particularly former dry cleaners and gas stations. Bioremediation uses naturally occurring or introduced microorganisms to break down petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, and certain pesticides, either in place or in engineered biopiles and landfarming operations. It is especially prevalent at former refineries, rail yards, and manufacturing facilities.
In-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) injects oxidants — hydrogen peroxide, permanganate, persulfate — directly into contaminated soil or groundwater to destroy dense non-aqueous phase liquids and volatile organic compounds. It is often used as a first strike to rapidly reduce contaminant mass, followed by bioremediation for long-term polishing. Phytoremediation deploys plants — willows, poplars, sunflowers, certain grasses — to extract, stabilize, or degrade contaminants in soil. It works slowly but sustainably, and doubles as habitat restoration.
In practice, most brownfield cleanups combine several of these approaches with more conventional methods: excavation and off-site disposal of contamination "hot spots," engineered caps to contain residual contamination, and institutional controls like deed restrictions and groundwater use limitations. The goal is not always to return soil to pristine condition — it is to manage risk to a level that allows safe, productive reuse.
Where Cleanups Create Comebacks
The most compelling argument for brownfield investment is not environmental. It is economic.
Milwaukee's Menomonee Valley was once a corridor of tanneries, rail yards, and heavy industry — hundreds of acres of contaminated land that symbolized Rust Belt decline. Using a combination of EPA brownfield assessment and cleanup grants, state funding, and private capital, the city transformed the valley into a mixed employment, recreation, and ecological restoration hub. Today it hosts dozens of businesses and thousands of jobs, anchored by the Menomonee Valley Industrial Center and a community park along the restored river corridor. The project has leveraged hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment and dramatically increased local tax revenue.
Bethlehem Steel in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania — roughly 1,800 acres of heavy metal and petroleum contamination along the Lehigh River — became the SteelStacks arts and cultural campus, a casino and entertainment district, and new commercial development. Cleanup included soil removal, engineered capping, and targeted groundwater remediation, with the iconic steel structures preserved as historic landmarks. A symbol of industrial death became a regional destination.
In Atlanta, the BeltLine project is redeveloping 6,545 acres of former railroad corridors and adjacent brownfields into a network of trails, parks, transit, and mixed-use neighborhoods expected to generate over 29,000 housing units and 30,000 new jobs. EPA has awarded assessment and cleanup grants for priority sites along the route, including a $500,000 cleanup grant for a 16-acre section of the Southside Corridor. The former 138-acre Atlantic Steel site — once a brownfield in the heart of the city — has already been redeveloped into a dynamic mixed-use neighborhood.
Georgia's statewide numbers are encouraging too. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division reports that 598 properties have been cleaned up through the state's Brownfields Program, at minimal expense to taxpayers, turning contaminated liabilities into productive assets.
The Economic Math
EPA's own economic analyses consistently find that brownfield investment generates outsized returns. The agency reports that property values of homes near revitalized brownfield sites increase between 5 and 15 percent following cleanup — a finding based on analysis of 48 brownfield sites across the country. For communities where property tax revenue is the primary funding mechanism for schools, roads, and public services, that increase is not abstract. It is the difference between a declining tax base and a growing one.
The leveraged investment numbers are even more striking. EPA has reported that across the life of the program, every dollar of brownfield grant funding has attracted multiple dollars of additional public and private investment — with various analyses estimating ratios ranging from seven to twenty dollars of total investment per federal dollar spent. When the 20 percent cost-share requirement was waived under IIJA/BIL, the number of communities that could access cleanup grants expanded dramatically, and those leveraged returns followed.
Beyond property values and investment ratios, there is the basic arithmetic of land use. Building on a brownfield means not building on a greenfield — preserving farmland and forest instead of sprawling into undeveloped land, using existing roads and utilities instead of building new ones. The infrastructure savings alone make brownfield redevelopment one of the most fiscally responsible development strategies available.
The Barriers That Remain
Federal money has dramatically accelerated brownfield cleanups, but structural barriers persist.
Liability fear remains the biggest deterrent. Under CERCLA, current and past owners and operators can be held liable for cleanup costs regardless of fault. Congress has created protections for bona fide prospective purchasers, but perceived risk still deters developers, lenders, and municipalities from touching brownfield properties. The gap between legal protection and perceived protection is wide, and it costs communities deals every year.
State voluntary cleanup programs — which every state now operates in some form — provide regulatory oversight, liability assurances, and sometimes state grants or tax incentives. But program capacity varies wildly. A well-funded state environmental agency in the Northeast may be able to process applications in months. A small-staffed program in the rural South may take years, and communities with limited technical capacity may struggle to navigate the paperwork even when grants are available.
Environmental insurance products exist — pollution legal liability, cost-cap insurance — but premiums and exclusions can be prohibitive, especially for smaller or more speculative projects. This creates a gap where federal and state funds cover part of the cleanup but developers still face significant residual risk that can stall or kill a project.
The Funding Cliff Is the Story of 2026
The numbers tell it plainly. In FY2026, EPA is offering cleanup grants of up to $4 million each, with no cost-share requirement. In FY2027, that drops to a maximum of $500,000 per grant, with a mandatory 20 percent match, and the total estimated cleanup grant pool falls to $14 million. The estimated number of assessment grants drops from dozens funded by IIJA to 30 community-wide awards capped at $500,000.
Congress is considering reauthorization of the EPA Brownfields Program, with debate focused on whether to extend or replace the IIJA supplement. Advocacy organizations including Smart Growth America have sounded the alarm. But as of this writing, no new authorizing legislation has been enacted, and the clock is running.
The pipeline of projects is real. Communities that spent the past five years conducting environmental assessments, developing cleanup plans, and building community support now face a funding landscape that may not support them through construction. The irony would be bitter: the most productive period in the history of America's brownfield program, followed by a cliff that leaves hundreds of communities mid-stride.
What EPR Foundation Believes
We believe that brownfield remediation represents one of the highest-return investments the federal government makes — in public health, in economic development, in environmental restoration, and in basic fairness to communities that bore the costs of industrialization without sharing proportionately in its benefits.
We believe the funding cliff is avoidable. The economic case for brownfield investment is bipartisan and overwhelming. Every cleanup grant that turns a contaminated lot into a business, a park, or housing generates tax revenue, protects groundwater, and demonstrates that restoration is not a luxury — it is infrastructure.
And we believe that 450,000 brownfields are not 450,000 problems. They are 450,000 opportunities — waiting for the combination of political will, technical expertise, and sustained funding that turns contaminated land into something better than what was there before.
The EPR Foundation tracks brownfield policy, remediation technology, and community redevelopment as part of our Restore Land & Water pillar. For questions or to share your community's brownfield story, contact us at info@eprfoundation.org.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program; Smart Growth America, "Congress Considers Reauthorizing the EPA Brownfields Program as Funding Cliff Looms" (March 2026); Haley & Aldrich, "EPA Brownfields Funding Has Never Been More Generous" (2025); National Association of Counties, EPA Brownfields Job Training Program announcement (2025); EPA Grants.gov, FY2026 Brownfields Cleanup Grant NOFO; EPA Brownfields MARC Grant Application Resources; Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Brownfields Program data; Invest Atlanta, BeltLine brownfield assessment and cleanup grants.