Abstract
This chapter focuses on the main features of funding mechanisms for contaminated land in the US and UK, and tries to determine what China can learn from the financing experiences of these two countries. It examines the financing mechanisms of the UK for contaminated land redevelopment efforts, and mechanisms for brownfield redevelopment in the US at federal and state levels. Also, it compares the regimes of UK and US and considers the application of contaminated land financing mechanism in China in the light of the UK and US experiences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Tromans and Turrall-Clarke (2008), at 495.
- 2.
Davis and Sherman (2010), at 151.
- 3.
Bartsch (2002).
- 4.
Bartsch (2002).
- 5.
EPA (2007), at 1.
- 6.
Bartsch (2002).
- 7.
- 8.
Generally speaking, potential brownfield sites are classified into five types based on the severity of contaminated situation. The phrase, ‘viable sites’, refers to those sites that feature good economic development potential and low levels of contamination. Because of its economic potential, a private sector developer is able to develop such a site without government financial assistance . The other four types of brownfield sites are referred as ‘threshold sites’ and are categorized as those: that have satisfactory economic development potential and moderate contamination; are potential future sites, the economics of which are unknown; are nonviable sites, which has little or no economic use in the foreseeable future and the best strategy is to stabilize the site and wait until future conditions warrant development; and super-polluted sites which do not have any possible economic development potential but are perceived to present a public health risk. See Davis and Sherman (2010), at 148-9.
- 9.
EPA (2007).
- 10.
The EPA Brownfields Program operates under the authorization of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.
- 11.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Pub L No 99-499, 100 Stat 1613 (1986).
- 12.
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act (BRERA), Pub L No 107-118, 115 Stat 2356 (2002).
- 13.
Tools for Financing Brownfields Redevelopment are listed in Chapter 9 of the Guidebook. See EPA (2008c).
- 14.
Bartsch and Wells (2005).
- 15.
EPA (2007), at 9.
- 16.
- 17.
Environment Act 1995 (UK), s 37 (l) (b).
- 18.
Environment Act 1995 (UK), ss 47-9.
- 19.
Tromans and Turrall-Clarke (2008), at 227.
- 20.
As Earl Ferrers stated, contaminated land regime will not impose much greater burdens on local authorities than statutory nuisance regime that identified contaminated land that was prejudicial to health. See United Kingdom , Parliamentary Debate, House of Lords, 11 July 1995, vol 565, cols 1501 (Earl Ferrers).
- 21.
Fogelman (2005), at 1118.
- 22.
Agency (2009).
- 23.
Under the context of contaminated land management, regeneration and remediation can be used synonymously, although the regeneration will, as we will discuss later, a little bit abroad than remediation.
- 24.
An example of such work is the remediation and redevelopment of the 185 acre Ebbw Vale Steelworks site, at a cost of £300 million. The site was acquired by the Welsh Assembly Government and Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council. Planning permission for the scheme was given in 2007.
- 25.
Tromans and Turrall-Clarke (2008), at 495.
- 26.
ODPM (2003).
- 27.
Fogelman (2005), at 908.
- 28.
The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) has been replaced by Homes England and the Regulator of Social Housing since 2018.
- 29.
Tromans and Turrall-Clarke (2008), at 498.
- 30.
Tromans and Turrall-Clarke (2008), at 498.
- 31.
Tromans and Turrall-Clarke (2008), at 499.
- 32.
Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (UK) c 45.
- 33.
Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (UK) c 45, S 4(1).
- 34.
ODPM (2002) (Cmnd 5688) (November 2002) [10].
- 35.
Archives (2004).
- 36.
Foste (2007).
- 37.
Minister (2006).
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
Tromans and Turrall-Clarke (2008), at 500.
- 41.
Tromans and Turrall-Clarke (2008), at 500.
- 42.
There are no formal boundaries and any area in England could apply.
- 43.
Rhodesi et al. (2007), at 10.
- 44.
Gibbons et al. (2017).
- 45.
ODPM (2002).
- 46.
- 47.
Rhodesi et al. (2007), at 14-5.
- 48.
In UK, the concept of orphan sites refers to those situations where it is not possible to find anyone responsible for the site in question (Class A or B Persons) after ‘reasonable’ enquiries have been made, or, where persons can be found but they are exempted from liability for specified reasons. They are also described in the statutory guidance as ‘Orphan Linkages’.
- 49.
Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill (Bill 2 1997/98), House of Commons Library Research Paper 97/74.
- 50.
Responses to a questionnaire by Defra on the progress of local authorities with land contamination in the summer of 2003 indicated that, of the 165 local authorities that responded, only 30 per cent (shire 35 per cent; urban 20 per cent) considered that adequate revenue and capital resources were in place to fulfil the inspection program. See Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Defra Questionnaire on Progress with Contaminated Land (CLAN 2/04, December 2003). See also Fogelman (2005).
- 51.
Minister (2006).
- 52.
Agency (2010).
- 53.
Agency (2013).
- 54.
Agency (2010), at [2.1].
- 55.
Capital Projects Guide, paras 5.15-18. The Environment Agency manages grants from the contaminated land capital projects. A priority approach has been followed to allocate funding: Priority 1: urgent remediation ; Priority 2: completion of ongoing remedial treatment schemes; Priority 3: starting remedial treatment schemes on existing projects; Priority 4: completion of other ongoing schemes by exception. See Agency (2016).
- 56.
Defra (2006), at 71 [16].
- 57.
See, e.g., Art 34(3) dealing with agricultural funds; Art 159 on the Regional Development Fund; Art 161 on the Cohesion Fund, and Art 146 on the Social Fund.
- 58.
The European Regional Development Fund, see https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/.
- 59.
The European Regional Development Fund, see https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/.
- 60.
Commission (2011).
- 61.
For example, the Brownfields Program, the Brownfields Workforce Development, the Brownfields Grants and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Brownfields Loans operated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ), and the Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) operated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) explicitly focus on the brownfield redevelopment .
- 62.
EPA (2008c).
- 63.
CERCLA , s 128(a).
- 64.
GAO (2003).
- 65.
Only sites on the NPL are eligible for remedial actions financed by the trust fund; resources from the trust fund may be used to finance other types of response activities, such as removal actions , at both NPL and non-NPL sites.
- 66.
GAO (2008).
- 67.
The CERCLA directs the EPA to establish a program to provide grants to states, tribes, local governments, land-clearance authorities, regional councils, redevelopment agencies and quasi-governmental entities, to inventory, characterize, assess and conduct planning related to brownfield sites and to conduct assessments at targeted sites. CERCLA, s 104(k)(2)(A); 42 USC § 9604(k)(2)(A) (Supp 2001).
- 68.
CERCLA , s 104(k)(l).
- 69.
CERCLA , s 104(k)(l)A).
- 70.
CERCLA , s 104(k)(3).
- 71.
The EPA may also provide training, research and technical assistance to individuals or organizations to aid in the inventory of brownfield sites, assessments, remediation , community involvement and site preparation. Alternatively, the EPA may fund eligible entities and non-profit organizations to provide the above activities. Funding for such activities should not exceed 15 per cent of total funding per year. CERCLA , s 104(k)(6); 42 USC § 9604(k)(6) (Supp 2001).
- 72.
CERCLA , s 104(k)(6). In addition, as described by EPA in its website, Multipurpose (MP) Grants provide funding to conduct eligible assessment and cleanup activities in a target area of brownfield site(s). Area-Wide Planning Grants provide funding to communities ‘to research, plan and develop implementation strategies for cleaning up and revitalizing a specific area’ affected by brownfield site(s). Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training (EWDJT) Grants provide ‘environmental training for residents impacted by brownfield sites in their communities’; Technical Assistance, Training, and Research Grants provide ‘funding to organizations to conduct research and to provide training and technical assistance to communities to help address their brownfields challenges.’ See EPA (2019).
- 73.
Bartsch (2002).
- 74.
US HUD provides further information on the following websites: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs .
- 75.
More information about the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, see https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/section-108/.
- 76.
EPA funds a variety of remedial activities, including: (1) collecting and analyzing site data to determine the potential effects of contaminants on human health and the environment; (2) conducting or overseeing investigations to select appropriate remedies; (3) constructing or overseeing the construction of remedies, and (4) ensuring long-term protectiveness by overseeing maintenance activities and conducting 5 year reviews of sites. Similarly, EPA also funds many removal activities actions, including: (1) assessing the threats of hazardous waste releases to determine whether removal actions are necessary; (2) responding to the release of hazardous waste at sites that pose an immediate threat to public health or the environment; (3) developing and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to respond effectively to releases, whether they are accidental, intentional, or a result of a natural disaster; (4) and coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies during natural disasters and other major environmental incidents. See GAO (2008).
- 77.
GAO (2008).
- 78.
In the program’s early years, dedicated taxes provided a majority of the revenue for the Superfund trust fund. However, since 1995 when the authority for these taxes expired, appropriations from the general fund have become the largest source of revenue for the trust fund. GAO (2008).
- 79.
GAO (2008).
- 80.
Judy and Probst (2009).
- 81.
Judy and Probst (2009).
- 82.
- 83.
EPA (2019).
- 84.
For further information about the REITs, may visit the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts Website: http://www.nareit.com/.
- 85.
Internal Revenue Code, 26 USC §§ 1-9834 (1986).
- 86.
EPA (2008c).
- 87.
EPA (2019).
- 88.
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub L No 105-34 § 941, 111 Stat 788 (1997).
- 89.
EPA (2008b).
- 90.
To satisfy the land use requirement, the property must either be held by the taxpayer incurring the eligible expenses for use in a trade or business or for the production of income; or, the property must be properly included in the taxpayer’s inventory.
- 91.
This new eligibility for petroleum products applies to cleanup expenses incurred from 1 January 2006 to the tax incentive’s current expiration date of 31 December 2011. EPA (2008a).
- 92.
EPA (2008b).
- 93.
EPA (2011), at 5.
- 94.
EPA (2011), at 5.
- 95.
EPA (2011), at 9.
- 96.
EPA (2011), at 9.
- 97.
EPA (2011), at 12.
- 98.
This result was projected by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Electric Power Monthly, see EIA (2019).
- 99.
EIA (2019).
- 100.
EPA (2011), at 15.
- 101.
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub L No 109-58, 119 Stat 594.
- 102.
Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, Pub L No 110-343, 122 Stat 3765.
- 103.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub L No 111-5, 123 STAT 115.
- 104.
EPA (2011), at 20.
- 105.
EPA (2011), at 20.
- 106.
CDEs include a range of for-profit and non-profit organizations, such as community development corporations, CDFIs, organizations that administer community development venture capital funds or community loan funds, small business development corporations, specialized small business investment companies, and others. Approximately 4000 organizations are certified as CDEs. Brownfields developers can approach existing CDEs to help fund their projects or may, in certain circumstances, consider applying for CDE certification themselves. EPA (2011), at 5.
- 107.
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), Pub L No 95-87, 91 Stat 445.
- 108.
SMCRA required companies operate active mines to pay 35 cents for each ton of surface mined coal, 15 cents for each ton of deep mined coal and 10 cents for each ton of mined lignite.
- 109.
According to the EPA , only 62%of UST facilities are in significant operational compliance with the release-prevention and leak-detection requirements. EPA (2009).
- 110.
EPA (2012).
- 111.
EPA (2015).
- 112.
EPA (2015).
- 113.
EPA (2017b).
- 114.
EPA (2009).
- 115.
Fogelman (2005), at 1699.
- 116.
Rhodesi et al. (2007).
- 117.
EPA (2004).
- 118.
42 USC § 9611 (a) (Supp 1988).
- 119.
Fogelman (2005), at 158.
- 120.
GAO (2010).
- 121.
GAO (2010).
- 122.
Superfund Program: Updated Appropriation and Expenditure Data (letter from John B Stephenson, US General Accounting Office to Senator James M Jeffords, 18 Feb 2004).
- 123.
Milne (2010).
- 124.
Government (2010), at 175.
- 125.
Syrett (2011).
- 126.
Bartsch and Wells (2003).
- 127.
Bartsch and Wells (2003).
- 128.
- 129.
EPA (2008c).
- 130.
In response to a question during the parliamentary debates on whether Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would change this rule, Robert Atkins, the then Minister for the Environment and Countryside stated that the government did not intend to weaken the application of the polluter pays principle in respect of regeneration programs. He stated that there is a distinction between. United Kingdom , HC Standing Committee B, Eleventh Sitting, pt I col 348 (23 May 1995). See also Fogelman (2005), at 908.
- 131.
However, administrative costs, such as indirect costs, of grant administration with the exception of financial and performance reporting, together with proposal preparation costs have been excluded from the funds usage. See EPA (2017a).
- 132.
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act 2002 , § 39, Pub L No 107-118, 115 stat 2356.
- 133.
Heberle and Wernstedt (2006).
References
Agency, E. (2009). Dealing with contaminated land in England and Wales: A review of progress from 2000-2007 with Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act. (pp. 39).
Agency, E. (2010). Contaminated Land Capital Grants Guidance Note – July 2010. Bristol.
Agency, E. (2013). Contaminated Land Capital Projects Outcomes Report 2012-13. (pp. 20). Bristol.
Agency, E. (2016). Contaminated Land: Capital Projects Funding. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contaminated-land-capital-projects-funding. Accessed April 6 2019.
Archives, T. N. (2004). Single Regeneration Budget: Background and Overview. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128087. Accessed March 7 2019.
Bartsch, C. (2002). Financing Brownfield Cleanup and Redevelopment. Government Finance Review, 18(1), 26-31.
Bartsch, C., & Wells, B. (2003). Financing Strategies for Brownfield Cleanup and Redevelopment. Washington, D: Northeast-Midwest Institut.
Bartsch, C., & Wells, B. (2005). State Brownfield Financing: Tools and Strategies. (pp. 20). Washington, DC Northeast-Midwest Institute.
Beall, J. (1997). A City For All: Valuing Difference And Working With Diversity. London: Zed Books.
Commission, E. (2011). Structural Funds Regulations 2007-2013. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/regulation/newregl0713_en.htm. Accessed March 9 2019.
Davis, T. S., & Sherman, S. A. (2010). Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
Defra (2006). Defra Circular 01/2006 Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land. London: Defra.
EIA (2019). Electric Power Monthly. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/epm.pdf. Accessed April 9 2019.
EPA (2004). Congressional Request on Funding Needs for Non-Federal Superfund Sites.
EPA (2007). Financing Brownfields: State Program Highlights. Washington, D.C.: US EPA.
EPA (2008a). Brownfields Tax Incentive Fact Sheet. (pp. 2). Washington, D.C.
EPA (2008b). Environmental Brownfields Tax Incentive Guidelines. (pp. 5). Washington, D.C.
EPA (2008c). Paying for Sustainable Environmental Systems: Guidebook of Financial Tools (EPA-205-R-08-001). Washington, DC: EPA.
EPA (2009). Underground Storage Tank Program: 25 Years of Protecting Our Land and Water. (pp. 10).
EPA (2011). A Guide to Federal Tax Incentives for Brownfields Redevelopment. Washington, D.C.
EPA (2012). FY 2012 National Program Manager’s Guidance Final. (pp. 55). Washington, D.C.
EPA (2015). FY 2016-2017 National Program Manager’s Guidance (pp. 77). Washington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA (2017a). FY18 Guidelines For Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants (pp. 64). Washington, D.C.
EPA (2017b). FY 2018 EPA Budget in Brief. (pp. 80). Washington, D.C.
EPA (2019). Types of Brownfields Grant Funding. https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/types-brownfields-grant-funding. Accessed April 3 2019.
Fogelman, V. (2005). Environmental Liabilities and Insurance in England and the United States. London: Witherby.
Foste, T. (2007). An Evaluation of the SRB Program in the North East. (Vol. 2019, pp. 107): One NorthEast.
GAO (2003). Superfund Program Current Status and Future Fiscal Challenges. Washington, D.C.
GAO (2008). Superfund: Funding and Reported Costs of Enforcement and Administration Activities. Washington, DC: GAO.
GAO (2009). Superfund Litigation Has Decreased And Epa Needs Better Information On Site Cleanup And Cost Issues To Estimate Future Program Funding Requirements. GAO Report To Congressional Requesters (pp. 122). Washington, D.C.: GAO.
GAO ( 2010). Superfund: EPA’s Costs to Remediate Existing and Future Sites Will Likely Exceed Current Funding Levels. Washington, D.C.
Gibbons, S., Overman, H., & Sarvimäki, M. (2017). The Local Economic Impacts of Regeneration Projects: Evidence from UK’s Single Regeneration Budget. (pp. 44). London.
Government, B. o. t. U. (2010). Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011.
Heberle, L., & Wernstedt, K. (2006). Understanding brownfields regeneration in the US. Local Environment, 11(5), 479-497(419).
Judy, M. L., & Probst, K. N. (2009). Superfund at 30. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 11, 191.
Milne, J. E. (2010). Environmental Taxation in the United States: The Long View. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 15(2), 418.
Minister, O. o. t. D. P. (2006). Single Regeneration Budget Guidance Manual - Regional Development Agencies. (pp. 121). London.
ODPM (2002). The Government’s Response to the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee Report: The Need for a New European Regeneration Framework. London.
ODPM (2003). Decontaminated Land to be Brought Back into Use Thanks to State Aid Approval. ODPM News Release. London.
Rhodesi, J., Tyler, P., & Brennan, A. (2007). The Single Regeneration Budge: Final Evaluation.
Syrett, S. (2011). Regeneration - How should the Problem be Addressed? A Discussion Paper Commissioned from the Regeneration and Economic Development Analysis Expert Panel for the Regeneration Futures Roundtable. (pp. 16). London: Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research.
Tromans, S., & Turrall-Clarke, R. (2008). Contaminated land (2nd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zhao, X. (2019). Financing Mechanisms for Contaminated Land Remediation and Redevelopment. In: Developing an Appropriate Contaminated Land Regime in China. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59557-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59557-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-59556-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-59557-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)