Brownfields hold a special place in the American imagination. Our legal thrillers are rife with buried containers of toxic waste which ignites rivers,¹ enflames cancer clusters,² and drives toxic tort suits.³ The brownfields of the real world are both mundane and omnipresent: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) estimates between 450,000 and one million exist in the United States, at former dry cleaners, auto-body shops, gas stations, and even meth labs.⁴ Even in their every-day form, brownfields exemplify key animating issues in the U.S. environmental law: the consequences of negative externalities on vulnerable populations, the balance between economic development and long-term environmental harm, and the need for public-private partnership in long-term environmental stewardship.⁵

While the health and environmental impacts of unremediated brownfields are cause for concern, they also present public and private actors with tremendous opportunities to do good for their communities while creating significant economic benefits. As Robert Martineau, then-Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (‘TDEC”) stated in his 2017 testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, “[b]rownfields programs represent the full spectrum of win-win. On the environmental front, they transform blighted properties that pose environmental risks into clean residences, commercial space, parks, renewables sites, and other facilities. On the economic front, they can serve as significant sources of revenue, as tax income on rehabilitated properties is generally greatly increased. Brownfield grant monies represent “seed money” for private investment where the investment may not otherwise occur.”⁶

Tennessee’s government has emphasized the importance of balancing economic growth with stewardship of natural resources.⁷ In February 2023, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced in his State of the State address a proposal to remediate all 175 currently recognized brownfields in Tennessee.⁸ At the same time, Tennessee House Bill 319 was introduced, providing for appropriation of $82 million to brownfield remediation through a Brownfield Redevelopment Area Fund.⁹ Among other clauses, H.B. 319 would expand the scope of “qualified costs” for which state funding is available, as well as allowing funds to go to mitigation of developing brownfields, as opposed to “investigation or remediation” of existing brownfields.¹⁰

Governor Lee’s emphasis on brownfield remediation has the potential to bring economic and environmental benefits to communities across Tennessee. However, H.B. 319’s text is simultaneously not specific enough to provide for its intended remediation of rural brownfields, and too specific to provide for remediation of non-rural brownfields which can provide the greatest environmental and financial benefits to our communities. This paper proceeds in three parts to explain the importance of brownfield remediation and how H.B. 319 can be adjusted to improve its outcomes for all Tennesseans. Part I gives a brief explanation of brownfields regulation and cleanup at the federal level. Part II explores H.B. 319, describes its potential impacts on environmental justice communities and economic development, and suggests several targeted improvements.    

Part I: Brownfields in Context

Brownfields are areas of real property where expansion, redevelopment, or reuse “may be complicated” by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance or contaminant.¹¹ Found across the United States,¹² brownfields can be both eyesores and health hazards.¹³ Common brownfield contaminants include lead, petroleum, asbestos, and arsenic, which can contribute to negative health outcomes in surrounding communities when contaminants are inhaled as dust, eaten in contaminated water or food, or absorbed through the skin via direct contact.¹⁴ Prior to the 1990s, federal statutes created barriers to remediation of contaminated acreage. However, the introduction of brownfield grants and liability shields for landowners involved in remediation created strong financial incentives for brownfield redevelopment. 

A.    CERCLA Concerns Over Landowner Liability for Brownfield Sites

Concerns over liability under federal environmental statutes such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) historically created a chilling effect on developer and investor remediation of brownfield sites.¹⁵ Without a full environmental assessment, it could be difficult to determine to what extent a piece of real property required remediation. Even if land had been assessed, CERLCA’s broad liability provisions created fears that property owners could face potentially unlimited liability for undiscovered environmental harms based solely on current ownership of the property.¹⁶ Under CERCLA, owners of contaminated land can face responsibility for environmental remediation even if they did not know that the land was contaminated – a classic example would be a developer who fails to discover a buried barrel of waste which leaks into surrounding land. Under CERCLA’s broadest provisions, that developer would face joint and separate liability with the original burier of the waste: if the party who buried it could not be found, the current landowner would bear the full cost of environmental remediation and liability for harms caused.¹⁷ While these provisions served the important regulatory goals of ensuring those who are responsible for environmental harm face liability,¹⁸ and that contaminated parcels were not left abandoned throughout the United States, they created significant business risks for investors hoping to revitalize blighted spaces. To avoid the risk of potentially unlimited liability under CERCLA, developers were incentivized to simply avoid purchase of any brownfield. 

To mitigate this chilling effect, Congress passed several amendments in 2002, narrowing CERLCA’s liability provisions.¹⁹ Under the 2002 Amendments and the EPA’s most recent guidance, CERCLA now provides that landowners who are “bona fide prospective purchasers,” “contiguous property owners” or “innocent landowners” and meet certain criteria (at minimum, performing “all appropriate inquiry” before acquiring the property, and, for bona fide prospective purchasers and contiguous property owners, demonstrating that they are not potentially liable for the contamination or “affiliated” with a liable party) are shielded from liability under CERCLA.²⁰ This means that the opportunities presented by brownfields—to purchase a prime development location at a potentially reduced price—are no longer outweighed by the risk of potentially unlimited harm. Instead, developers and landowners who comply with CERCLA’s due diligence and cooperation provisions can confidently carry out cost-benefit analyses and make decisions in reliance on existing due diligence instead of speculative worst-case scenarios. 

B.    The Federal Brownfields Program

Federal funding is available for brownfields assessment and remediation. Since the inception of the EPA’s brownfields grant program in 1996, program grants have made 10,333 properties spanning 151,740 acres ready for reuse.²¹ The 2018 Brownfields Utilization, Authorization, Investment and Local Development (BUILD) Act reauthorized EPA’s Brownfields program, which provides grants to support revitalization efforts in brownfields remediation activities such as conducting environmental assessments, carrying out cleanup, providing job training in environmental remediation to residents of impacted communities, and seeking capital for cleanup and development efforts.²²

Of these federal funding options, Community-wide Assessment Grants are an especially powerful tool. These grants, which can provide up to $500,000 in funding for projects with performance periods of up to four years, enable communities to carry out environmental assessments on potentially contaminated property.²³ While these grants are not available to for-profit entities (including potential developers),²⁴ assessment grants can assist in providing the certainty that developers, states, and communities need to invest in a brownfield cleanup and redevelopment project. Completing an environmental assessment allows public and private actors to minimize the risk of a redevelopment project: it both allows budgeting for required cleanup activities with lower risk of new contaminants being discovered, and reduces liability concerns under CERCLA by meeting the due diligence requirements for liability safe harbors.  

Part II: Tennessee Brownfields and Bill Lee’s Proposed Funding Tools

In addition to federal funding, states play an important role in brownfield remediation. While the EPA only reports state and tribal remediations from 2006 on, since then, states and tribes have completed more than 216,362 cleanups, making more than 364 million acres available for reuse.²⁵

Tennessee has made particularly strong progress on brownfields remediation. Since 1996, the Tennessee Brownfields Redevelopment program has “brought over 1,700 brownfields . . . back into productive reuse.”²⁶ Despite this, brownfields remain a problem—at least 175 remain unaddressed.²⁷ H.B. 319 goes a long way to assisting in the remediation of these sites and preventing the development of future brownfields: expanding state funding opportunities for brownfields from “investigation or remediation” to “investigation, remediation, or mitigation” allows for proactive action to prevent communities from becoming blighted in the first place.²⁸ Further, the expansion of potential destinations for qualified funding allows a wider scope of projects to be developed on brownfield sites.²⁹ While the increased funding for brownfield remediation provided by H.B. 319 goes a long way in encouraging strong economic growth and environmental stewardship in Tennessee, further tailoring is needed to address key harms of Tennessee’s brownfields. 

A. Economic Growth Potential in Bill Lee’s Proposal

Brownfield remediation projects not only contribute to long-term community sustainability but can make revitalized areas attractive to investors and job creators. Brownfield remediation has been documented to have secondary positive externalities on surrounding communities.³⁰ Effects are especially pronounced in areas with high concentrations of redeveloped brownfields,³¹ but the remediation and development of brownfields tends to create not only “lower environmental impacts,” but also allow nearby communities to “benefit through closer services, employment, and access to other community goods.”³² For high-growth areas of Tennessee, where commute times and traffic remain daily concerns,³³ brownfield development projects have also been documented to lead to overall reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).³⁴ Employees who work near or on redeveloped brownfield sites reduced their VMT by 9-10%, whereas those who lived on or near redeveloped sites reduced their VMT by 25-33%.³⁵ Beyond the impact these reductions have on air and water quality,³⁶ brownfield remediation could provide a solution to urban growth without proportional growth in traffic density, by allowing for more fluid traffic flows within Tennessee’s urban centers. 

On the job creation side, brownfield development projects often create sites that are attractive to environmentally-conscious business communities The EPA suggests several “best practices” for sustainability in brownfield remediation, many of which dovetail with site requirements for businesses looking to incorporate sustainable practices in response to stakeholder pressure.³⁷ This means that brownfield revitalization has the potential to have a two-fold impact: First, brownfield revitalization removes blight from a vulnerable community and potentially reduces health harms to those living nearby. Second, brownfield revitalization has the potential to boost economic growth in a surrounding area. As companies increasingly force municipalities to compete to host headquarters, factories, and other job-creating sites, incorporation of sustainable practices is a must to securing economic development and entrenching job-creators.³⁸ Brownfield remediation offers a unique opportunity for investors to not only do good for communities and create long-lasting returns, but to leverage federal funds to do so. 

Land revitalization efforts have the potential to not only create economic development, but generate returns for public and private investors in remediation efforts. Take, for example, The Gulch, a now-popular neighborhood of downtown Nashville which formerly hosted a railroad yard, coal yard, and paint shop.³⁹ In 1999, the early days of brownfield remediation, the TDEC Division of Remediation worked with a group of private investors and developers to complete Voluntary Brownfields Agreements on 25 acres of land in The Gulch, covenanting to assess and remediate any contamination in preparation for development.⁴⁰ This remediation effort lead to “redevelopment activities beyond those envisioned through the original private investment,” allowing the neighborhood to not only achieve LEED Neighborhood certification in January 2009, but also provide the state with “significant tax revenue that did not previously exist.”⁴¹ Development on brownfields sites also leads to returns for private capital sources: one development in San Diego’s “Four Corners of Death” generated 10% returns annually for investors in both 2007 and 2008, despite a significant portion of its property being residential use in the midst of the 2008 housing crash.⁴² Brownfields are often favorable sites for new development: a 2020 EPA study found that brownfields are often especially “location-efficient” because of their central location and connections to existing infrastructure.⁴³

B. Environmental Justice Problems With Bill Lee’s Proposal and Targeted Solutions

Despite this potential for growth, interventions into brownfield remediation should consider the unique positions of environmental justice communities, which brownfields disproportionately impact. The EPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, and income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”⁴⁴ In Tennessee, historically disenfranchised and impoverished groups in both urban and rural areas are disproportionately impacted by the development of environmental laws, regulations, and policies, though in slightly different ways. H.B. 319 could address some of the concerns specific to these groups by expanding the eligibility of non-profit groups for state brownfield funding. 

In urban areas, residents face the overwhelming burden of pollution, especially from car-first infrastructure. In the words of Justin Pearson, a state representative from Memphis, “[e]environmental remediation needs to be directed at places within [Tennessee] that have historical pollution and continue to face the overwhelming burden of environmental pollution in our communities, which are urban communities.”⁴⁵ In rural areas, residents face the burden of land and water pollution on agricultural practices. Impoverished families in both urban and rural Tennessee are also disproportionately likely to face serious health consequences arising from environmental protection, given that both populations face disproportionate barriers to healthcare.⁴⁶

Despite this disproportionate burden, impoverished communities in Tennessee are unlikely to see the benefits of brownfield redevelopment. By expanding the kinds of development for which funding is available, H.B. 319 would make remediation of rural brownfields more economically feasible: while rural sites are less likely to be useful for the kinds of location-efficient development that brownfields have traditionally attracted investment for, they may have alternate and still economically viable uses, such as parks or recreation facilities. This expansion of sites seems to fit with H.B. 319’s goal of encouraging brownfield remediation in rural communities—the bill goes as far as renaming “urban redevelopment projects” to “brownfield redevelopment projects” in its definitional section.⁴⁷ Unfortunately, H.B. 319’s renaming of this section does not go far enough: its definition of “brownfield redevelopment projects only include sites which “included manufacturing, industrial, distribution, or retail facilities,” which fails to include potential agricultural brownfields. While agricultural brownfields are “less understood and researched . . . because of their unique location in rural spaces that present relatively lower redevelopment potential,”⁴⁸ increased awareness and understandings of non-point nutrient pollution could increase the perceived risks of investment in former agricultural land, which would not be covered under H.B. 319’s definition.

Further, even with H.B. 319’s increased funding availability, residents of environmental justice communities are unlikely to see the same development interest that those near urban brownfields might: rural brownfields are likely to lack the location-efficiency and capacity for high-traffic uses that make brownfields an attractive investment for developers.⁴⁹ In urban areas, development interest may be greater, but impoverished residents are unlikely to see the positive impacts of brownfield redevelopment if they are priced out of new build communities. For both urban and rural environmental justice communities, unremediated brownfields can diminish property values and use in surrounding areas.⁵⁰ Unfortunately, in environmental justice communities, blighted properties are less likely to have the clear ownership necessary to carry out a sale or assessment. However, the terms of H.B. 319 and the law it amends require those seeking funds to have clear ownership over a large parcel of land, or to have access rights in the case of assessments. By expanding eligibility for grant funding to community non-profits or cooperatives and broadening the eligibility criteria for land which can receive brownfield remediation funding, the Tennessee House of Representatives could increase the ability of Tennessee’s urban and rural poor to leverage brownfield remediation into long-term community growth. 

Conclusion

Taken as a whole, the opportunity presented by brownfield remediation efforts in Tennessee is tremendous. The availability of public funds for environmental assessment provides seed funding for governments seeking to work with developers and the private sector to improve the lives of Tennesseans. Working together on brownfield remediation allows both public- and private-sector stakeholders to improve the economic, environmental, and health outcomes of Tennesseans while also generating concrete returns on capital investment. While Bill Lee’s proposed investment in brownfield remediation could benefit from language targeted towards environmental justice communities in Tennessee, actors across the environmental law sector should take advantage of the opportunity brownfields present to do good while doing well regardless of the passage of H.B. 319.

---

ELODIE CURRIER is a 2023 graduate of Vanderbilt Law School and 2019 graduate of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service. She writes on emerging legal challenges including data privacy and legal responses to the climate crisis, most recently in Pace Environmetnal Law Review.

---

1. A CIVIL ACTION (Paramount Pictures 1998) (portraying a fictional brownfield based on Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986)). 
2. JOHN GRISHHAM, THE APPEAL (2008) (discussing a fictional brownfield arising from a chemical plant)
3. ERIN BROCKAVICH (Universal Pictures 2000) (same). 
4. Frequently Asked Questions, EPA (last visited Feb. 7, 2023), https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/frequently-asked-questions (describing frequent sites of brownfields, and specifying that the 2002 Brownfield Amendments to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)’s inclusion of sites “contaminated by [certain] controlled substance[s]” should be read to include meth labs.). See also 42 U.S.C. § 9601(39)(D) (2001). 
5. See generally, Wendy E. Wagner, Learning from Brownfields, 13  J. OF NAT’L RESOURCES & ENVT’L L. 217 (1997) (describing the early years of the Brownfields program and its aims); Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, Legislative Innovation in State Brownfields Redevelopment Programs, 16 J. ENVT’L L. & LITIG. 1, 8-10 (2001) (describing the “risk-based cleanup standard” for brownfields, with balances speed of returning a site to productive use with lower thresholds of environmental remediation in the long-term); Brownfields were powerful engine for public-private partnership from the inception of remediation efforts. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/comben.pdf at iii (describing the collaborative efforts of NGOs, government, and “public and private developers [who] saw a market opportunity” in brownfield remediation.”) 
6. DISCUSSION DRAFT: BROWNFIELDS REAUTHORIZATION: HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 115TH CONG. (2018), at 53.  
7. Bill Lee, 2023 State of the State Address, TN OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (Feb. 6, 2023), https://www.tn.gov/governor/sots/2023-state-of-the-state-address (“Through the years, Tennessee has maintained responsible stewardship of our natural resources, but it’s time to develop a conservation strategy that balances our state’s economic growth with a plan to protect our environment.”)
8. Id. (“Across Tennessee, we have 175 former industrial sites, called brownfields, where toxic waste has created the potential for environmental hazard. I believe that we owe it to the people of Tennessee to clean this up. I’m proposing legislation to revitalize all 175 brownfields—to restore them environmentally, prepare them for economic development, and make them safe for our great-grandchildren.”)
9. See H.B. 319 – 112th General Assembly (2022-2023): An Act Relative to Brownfields (2023) (Amending Tenn. Code Ann. Tit. 7, Ch. 58, Pt. 3; Tit. 67, Ch. 4, Pt. 20; & Tit. 68, Ch. 212, Pt. 2). 
10. Id. 
11. 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(39)(A-D) (2001). The definition of Brownfield Site under 42 U.S.C. § 9601 is both broader and narrower than this general definition – 42 U.S.C. § 9601(39)(B) provides for certain express exclusions, such as facilities listed on the National Priorities List, that are subject to ongoing removal action, or that are subject of unilateral administrative or judicial orders under SWDA, FWPCA, TSCA, or SDWA. By contrast, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(39)(D) specifically includes, for certain purposes under the Act, sites that are contaminated by specific products or for which there are no viable responsible parties, for example.
12. The EPA estimates that there are “more than 450,000 brownfields in the U.S.” What is a Brownfield, EPA (last visited Apr. 12, 2023), U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, Overview of EPA’s Brownfields Program (last visited Apr. 17, 2023), https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview-epas-brownfields-program. 
13. Kathryn M. Buckner, Protective Tool or Legal Loophole – Examining the Legal Status of Environmental Covenants in South Carolina, 19 SE. ENVT’L. L.J. 231 (2011) (“most people […] can probably identify an abandoned site in their community that is characterized by rusting pipes, storage tanks, and chain link fences. Brownfields represent more than eyesores . . .”); ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS OFTEN FOUND AT BROWNFIELD SITES, U.S. ENVT’L. PROT. AGENCY (2019), avail. at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/environmental_contaminants_often_found_at_brownfield_sites.pdf/. (listing potential health impacts from common brownfield contaminants as including damage to brain, nerves, organs, and bone; cancer; headaches; nervous system, immune, liver, kidney and respiratory damage; lung scarring; mesothelioma; liver disorders; cardiovascular, developmental, gastrointestinal, neurological, and reproductive damage; birth defects; eye irritation; nausea; skin disease; hormone disruption; and blood disorders.)
14. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS OFTEN FOUND AT BROWNFIELD SITES, U.S. ENVT’L. PROT. AGENCY (2019), avail. at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/environmental_contaminants_often_found_at_brownfield_sites.pdf/. 
15. William W. Buzbee, Brownfields, Environmental Federalism, and Institutional Determinism, 21 WM. & MARY ENVT’L. L. & POL’Y REV. 1, 10-12 (1997).
16. See 42 U.S.C. § 9608(a) (West 2010). 
17. Id. 
18. This was especially important to the drafters of CERCLA because the Love Canal incident, which saw broad contractual waivers of liability used to avoid compensating residents of a community built on massively contaminated land, exacerbated by negligence in chemical disposal and by the developers, was a major impetus for the bills drafting and passage. See RICHARD NEWMAN, LOVE CANAL: A TOXIC HISTORY FROM COLONIAL TIMES TO THE PRESENT (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016) (describing the history of the Love Canal incident in detail);  Kathryn M. Buckner, Protective Tool or Legal Loophole – Examining the Legal Status of Environmental Covenants in South Carolina, 19 SE. ENVT’L. L.J. 231, 235 (2011) (linking the context of the Love Canal incident to CERCLA’s broad liability provisions). 
19. Among other sections, Pub. L. 107-118 (2001) Title I § 102 created a “de micromis” exception for CERCLA liability as a generator or transporter of pollutants if the potentially liable person can prove that they contributed less than 110 gallons of liquid materials or 200 pounds of solid materials before 2001, with limited exceptions. 
20. Pub. L. 107-118 (2001).
21. U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, Brownfield Program Accomplishments and Benefits, EPA (last visited Apr. 13, 2023), https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfields-program-accomplishments-and-benefits; 
22. See U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, Overview of EPA’s Brownfields Program, EPA (last visited Apr. 13, 2023), https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview-epas-brownfields-program. 
23. See U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, Brownfields Program Policy Changes, EPA (last visited Apr. 11, 2023), https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfields-program-policy-changes#FY23%20MARC (discussing funding details for FY 2023 Grant Competitions). 
24. U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, Entities Eligible to Receive Brownfield Grants, EPA (last visited Jan. 3, 2023), https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/entities-eligible-receive-brownfield-grants (“For-profit organizations and individual entities are not eligible to receive Brownfield grants.”). 
25. U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, Brownfields Program Accomplishments and Benefits, EPA (last visited Apr. 16, 2023),  https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfields-program-accomplishments-and-benefits 
26. See Tennessee Dept. of Health, Brownfields, TN.GOV (last visited Apr. 2, 2023), https://www.tn.gov/health/cedep/environmental/healthy-places/healthy-places/environmental-quality/eq/brownfields.html/. 
27. Ashli Blow, Brownfield Bill Funnels Millions Into TN Polluted Properties, TENNESSEE LOOKOUT (Mar. 7, 2023, 10:35 AM), https://patch.com/tennessee/across-tn/brownfield-bill-funnels-millions-tn-polluted-properties. 
28. See H.B. 319 – 112th General Assembly (2022-2023): An Act Relative to Brownfields (2023) (Amending Tenn. Code Ann. Tit. 7, Ch. 58, Pt. 3; Tit. 67, Ch. 4, Pt. 20; & Tit. 68, Ch. 212, Pt. 2.
29. Id. 
30. ICF AND RENAISSANCE PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT—A NATIONWIDE ASSESSMENT, EPA, 61-63 (May 2020), avail. at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/environmental_benefits_of_brownfields_redevelopment_final_560-r-20-001_-_508_compliant_0.pdf.
31. Id. at 61. 
32. Id. at 62. The same reports note that robust development potential of brownfield sites is essential to creating development momentum to maximize the environmental benefits of redevelopment. Id. at 62. 
33. Bill Lee, 2023 State of the State Address, TN OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (Feb. 6, 2023), https://www.tn.gov/governor/sots/2023-state-of-the-state-address
34. ICF AND RENAISSANCE PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT—A NATIONWIDE ASSESSMENT, EPA, 45 (May 2020), avail. at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/environmental_benefits_of_brownfields_redevelopment_final_560-r-20-001_-_508_compliant_0.pdf.
35. U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, Brownfields Program Environmental and Economic Benefits, EPA (last visited Jan. 4, 2023), https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfields-program-environmental-and-economic-benefits
36. Id. (“These reductions produce important environmental benefits, including improved water quality associated with reduced runoff from stormwater nonpoint pollution sources, and improved air quality associated with reduced greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle travel.”)
37. Compare U.S. ENVT’L PROTECTION AGENCY, BUILDING VIBRANT COMMUNITIES:  COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF LAND REVITALIZATION, 6 (Sept. 2015) avail. at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/comben.pdf. (describing best practices as including “using renewable and recyclable construction materials,” building LEED or ENERGY STAR certified structures, using the property for “environmentally focused reuses” such as renewable energy generation, organic farming, or transportation oriented development, among others.)  with Michael P. Vandenbergh, The New Wal-Mart Effect: The Role of Private Contracting in Global Governance, 54 UCLA L. REV. 913 (2007) (describing the impact of private standard-setting on corporate demand for environmentally compliant goods and services). 
38. See, e.g., Michael P. Vandenbergh & Patricia Moore, Disclosure of Environmental Governance Risks, WILLIAM & MARY L. REV. (forthcoming) avail. at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3764130. See also Ford Announces New Solar Plant as Further Step Towards Achieving Ambitious Sustainability Targets, FORD (Jan. 17, 2023) (describing Ford as “continuously looking for ways to increase the use of renewable energy and has the ambition to use 100 per cent carbon-free electricity in all manufacturing globally by 2035); Richard Bloxam & Jeremy Kelly, Cities Must Show “Environmental Resilience” to Attract Investment in Real Estate, WORLD ECON. F. (Jan. 14, 2020), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/still-building-top-30-markets-for-real-estate/. 
39. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20170404/105834/HHRG-115-IF18-Wstate-MartineauR-20170404.pdf at 3. 
40. DISCUSSION DRAFT: BROWNFIELDS REAUTHORIZATION: HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 115TH CONG. (2018), at 56.  
41. Id. 
42. U.S. ENVT’L PROTECTION AGENCY, BUILDING VIBRANT COMMUNITIES:  COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF LAND REVITALIZATION, 4 (Sept. 2015) avail. at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/comben.pdf.f For similar examples in the Tennessee area, the results of public-private partnerships are impressive: in Memphis, a $5,892 EPA grant for Brownfields Assessment awarded to Shelby County for the Chisca Hotel resulted in the City of Memphis, Downtown Memphis Commission Fund, and private capital partnering for a $20 million redevelopment project which yielded significant returns. The same pattern is reflected in Knoxville with the development of the Suttree Landing Park at the former site of Baptist Hospital after a $400,000 EPA grant allowed for assessment. See DISCUSSION DRAFT: BROWNFIELDS REAUTHORIZATION: HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 115TH CONG. (2018), at 57-8. 
43. ICF AND RENAISSANCE PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT—A NATIONWIDE ASSESSMENT, EPA, 59-61 (May 2020), avail. at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/environmental_benefits_of_brownfields_redevelopment_final_560-r-20-001_-_508_compliant_0.pdf.
44. U.S. ENVT’L PROTECTION AGENCY, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE-RELATED TERMS AS DEFINED ACROSS THE PSC AGENCIES, 2 (May 13, 2013), avail. at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-02/documents/team-ej-lexicon.pdf. 
45. Ashli Blow, Brownfield Bill Funnels Millions Into TN Polluted Properties, TENNESSEE LOOKOUT (Mar. 7, 2023, 10:35 AM), https://patch.com/tennessee/across-tn/brownfield-bill-funnels-millions-tn-polluted-properties.
46. See, e.g., CHRISTOPHER J. CONOVER & HESTER H. DAVIES, THE ROLE OF TENNCARE IN HEALTH POLICY FOR LOW-INCOME PEOPLE IN TENNESSEE (2000) (exhaustively describing barriers to healthcare for both rural and urban low-income Tennesseans). More recent reporting confirms that similar issues still exist. See, e.g., Nicole Christiansen, The Rural Risk to Health, THE TENNESSEE MAGAZINE (Feb. 1, 2023), https://www.tnmagazine.org/rural-risks-health/;
47. Id. 
48. Josef Navratil, Thomas Krejci, Stanislav Martinat, Ryan J. Frazier, Petr Klusacek, Kamil Picha, Jaroslav Skrabal,& Robert Osman, Variation in Brownfield Reuse of Derelict Agricultural Premises in Diverse Rural Spaces, 87 J. OF RURAL STUDIES 124, 130 (2021). 
49. Brownfields are often redeveloped with a specific use in mind – in primarily agricultural communities, the only use for the large swaths of land funded by H.B. 319 may be agriculture, a poor target for redevelopment. See Ashli Blow, Brownfield Bill Funnels Millions Into TN Polluted Properties, TENNESSEE LOOKOUT (Mar. 7, 2023, 10:35 AM), https://patch.com/tennessee/across-tn/brownfield-bill-funnels-millions-tn-polluted-properties. “There’s a process to go through to determine whether [a site] has a perception or real contamination [. . .] It would be extremely unusual to see it reused as agricultural land. More often, the reuse is multifamily, residential, commercial, industrial, or recreational. Every property has its own set of circumstances, and its own solutions. But what we try to do is tied to the intended reuse, and then determine the steps that are necessary to make it safe for that reuse.”
50. U.S. ENVT’L PROTECTION AGENCY, BUILDING VIBRANT COMMUNITIES:  COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF LAND REVITALIZATION, iii (Sept. 2015) avail. at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/comben.pdf.f (“Degradation often spreads beyond the boundary of one property to blight an entire neighborhood or community. Surrounding streets become stagnant and unsafe. Concerns about safety and crime rates increase. Residents and businesses move out. Property values decline. Retirees, residents, business owners, and employees that remain behind may need to go further to access goods or services. The inspiration and creativity that formed the neighborhoods original vibrancy can fade away.”)