EPA’s early fiscal year 2027 outlook points to a smaller federal funding pool, fewer grant pathways and a growing advantage for communities that prepare before solicitations open

By Derek Street, Brownfields & Community Revitalization Practice, Onterris

Federal investment has expanded what communities can accomplish through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields Program. The next funding cycle will test how well applicants can convert that momentum into focused, achievable projects.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), formally the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, provided an additional $1.5 billion for the EPA Brownfields Program through a five-year funding initiative. That temporary expansion supported larger applications, broader project pipelines and more ambitious redevelopment strategies across the country.

It also created expectations around federal capacity that were never intended to continue indefinitely.

As BIL support winds down, brownfields funding is not disappearing. EPA continues to make awards and support assessment, cleanup and redevelopment. The change is one of scale and competition. Communities will likely pursue a smaller pool of funding under tighter program parameters, making project selection and application quality increasingly important.

EPA’s preliminary outlook for fiscal year 2027 provides an early view of that transition. The agency expects to publish solicitations for Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund and Cleanup grants in fall 2026. Applications are expected to close about 60 calendar days after publication.

That window leaves little time to resolve site access, confirm eligibility, gather community evidence or establish redevelopment partnerships. Applicants that wait for the final Notice of Funding Opportunity will begin the competition behind communities that have already completed those steps.

A $64 Million Planning Framework Changes the Competitive Equation

EPA’s current fiscal year 2027 planning assumptions identify $64 million across five anticipated grant competitions:

• $15 million for Community-wide Assessment Grants
• $13 million for Assessment Coalition Grants
• $12 million for Community-wide Assessment Grants for States and Tribes
• $10 million for Revolving Loan Fund Grants
• $14 million for Cleanup Grants

EPA cautions that these figures may change. The agency has also indicated that it does not expect to offer a Multipurpose Grant competition in fiscal year 2027.

The absence of Multipurpose Grants is a significant planning constraint. These awards have allowed recipients to combine eligible assessment, cleanup and planning work within one grant structure. Communities that might previously have assembled those activities under a single application must now determine which available funding category best matches their immediate needs and delivery capacity.

The decision should begin with the project, not the funding announcement.

A community with several promising properties but limited environmental information may benefit most from a Community-wide Assessment Grant. A municipality with control of a priority site and a credible redevelopment plan may be better positioned for Cleanup funding. Regional applicants may find that an Assessment Coalition aligns with their shared geography and capacity. Communities with recurring cleanup financing needs may consider a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF), provided they can manage the additional financial and administrative responsibilities.

The goal is not simply to submit an application. It is to pursue the funding opportunity that best aligns with the project's needs and the community's capacity to deliver results.

The Program’s Public Value Has Not Changed

A smaller funding pool does not reduce the importance of brownfields work.

Underused and contaminated properties can constrain housing development, weaken commercial corridors, depress property values and create environmental or public health concerns. When communities address those sites strategically, the land can support housing development, business activity, public facilities, renewable energy, health services, recreation and other productive uses.

As of July 1, 2026, EPA reports that its Brownfields and Land Revitalization work has helped communities:

• Assess 43,397 properties
• Complete cleanup at 3,106 properties
• Prepare 13,236 properties for anticipated reuse
• Leverage $46 billion
• Support 230,503 jobs

These results help explain the program’s continuing appeal across political and geographic lines. They also show why demand is unlikely to decline simply because supplemental BIL funding is ending.

Through fiscal year 2025, EPA reports that each Brownfields Grant dollar awarded leveraged an average of $19.47. The agency also reports an average of 10 jobs leveraged for every $100,000 awarded.

Annual Appropriations Will Again Set the Boundaries

EPA has stated that fiscal year 2027 Brownfields Grants will rely entirely on annual appropriations for the Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program.

That return to annual funding means applicants should develop their strategies around existing statutory limits rather than the larger capacity available during the BIL-supported period. Under current requirements, assessment spending may not exceed $200,000 for an individual site. Cleanup and RLF recipients must also provide a 20% cost share or match.

Potential federal legislation could change parts of the program, but applicants should not treat proposed reforms as current policy.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously advanced S. 347, the Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025, on February 5, 2025 and the bill was placed on the Senate legislative calendar. In March 2026, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment examined several brownfields proposals. On May 14, 2026, the subcommittee reported H.R. 8739, the Brownfields Revitalization for a Better Tomorrow Act, to the full committee by voice vote.

Options discussed through the legislative process include higher award limits, revised cost-share provisions, broader eligibility, additional rural support and new financing mechanisms. These proposals indicate continued interest in brownfields redevelopment, but they have not yet replaced the rules governing current applications.

The Congressional Budget Office estimate for S. 347 states that the bill would authorize $200 million per year from 2025 through 2030 for Brownfields Program grants under CERCLA Section 104(k). It would also authorize $375 million over that same period for state response programs, subject to congressional appropriations.

Authorization does not guarantee that Congress will provide the full amount. Until new legislation is enacted and funded, communities should prepare applications that comply with the program as it exists today. A project that works under current requirements can be adjusted if Congress later expands the available tools. A project that depends on an unpassed provision may not be ready when the application period opens.

Funding Access Is Part of Project Risk

The amount awarded is only one part of a brownfields financing strategy. The timing and accessibility of that funding also affect whether redevelopment remains on schedule.

In early 2025, the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments reported that it lost access to a fiscal year 2022 RLF award totaling $8,661,808 following federal action associated with executive orders issued by President Trump. The council said the suspension affected 13 projects involving housing, private development and regional revitalization.

Connecticut lawmakers similarly reported that the organization could not draw an approximately $8.66 million balance through the federal payment portal.

Those cases should not be interpreted as representative of every Brownfields Grant. EPA has continued to announce selections and administer funding opportunities. It does, however, demonstrate how an administrative delay can affect projects that rely on coordinated financing, property transactions, construction schedules or private partners.

Applicants should account for that possibility before an award is made. A resilient funding strategy addresses the documentation requirements, drawdown timing, supplemental financing and steps required to preserve project momentum if federal reviews delay access to funds.

Five Disciplines Can Strengthen a Fiscal Year 2027 Application

A more selective competition does not make funding unattainable. It makes disciplined preparation more valuable.

Match the project to the correct grant

The first step is to examine the purpose and requirements of every expected grant type rather than defaulting to the category applicants may have pursued before. The lack of a Multipurpose competition makes this evaluation especially important.

The selected grant should correspond to the project’s current stage. Assessment funding advances sites that need environmental investigation. Cleanup funding supports properties with sufficient characterization, ownership and reuse direction. An RLF addresses a repeatable financing need rather than function as a one-time substitute for an individual Cleanup Grant.

Support the target area with evidence

General statements about contamination or community decline are unlikely to make an application stand out.

Connect the proposed target area to documented local conditions in the application. Useful evidence may include vacancy, historic disinvestment, housing demand, health concerns, infrastructure plans, environmental burdens, employment needs or adopted economic development priorities.

The strongest data establishes both need and consequence. It explains why the area requires intervention and what the community could gain when specific properties return to use.

Present a credible group of sites

A lengthy inventory does not necessarily demonstrate readiness. A focused pipeline of eligible properties with identifiable next steps can provide a clearer case for investment.

For each priority site, applicants should understand ownership, access, known or suspected contamination, past uses and likely redevelopment potential. It’s also important  to explain how the proposed assessment or cleanup activity will remove a barrier to reuse.

The site list should function as an implementation plan, not a collection of possibilities.

Explain what follows the environmental work

EPA funding often serves as a catalyst rather than the sole source of redevelopment capital.

Include details that describe how assessment findings, cleanup activities or RLF financing will connect to later action. That explanation may address site control, development partners, public approvals, infrastructure, market feasibility, community engagement and potential public or private financing.

A technically sound cleanup strategy becomes more competitive when reviewers can see the route from environmental work to community benefit.

Request an amount the project can use well

Larger requests do not automatically create stronger applications.

In a limited funding cycle, a carefully scoped request may be more persuasive than a larger proposal that relies on unresolved property access, uncertain matching funds or speculative redevelopment assumptions.

Align the budget with work that can be reasonably completed within the grant period. For Cleanup and RLF applications, incorporate the required 20% match into the financing plan from the beginning. Those applying for an Assessment Coalition Grant will need to consider the $200,000 per-site limit when determining how many properties the proposed work can credibly advance.

Revolving Loan Funds Require Institutional Capacity

An RLF can extend the value of federal investment beyond a single project. Recipients use the award to issue cleanup loans and subgrants. Loan repayments return to the fund and may support later projects.

That revolving structure also creates operational demands that do not apply to every grant category. EPA expects recipients to demonstrate capabilities in real estate finance, credit analysis, loan servicing, compliance and long-term program administration.

EPA’s preliminary fiscal year 2027 framework anticipates:

• A maximum five-year project period
• Awards of up to $1 million
• Approximately 10 awards
• $10 million in total RLF funding
• A 20% cost share or match

Applicants will need to establish more than environmental need. They should show that they can build a project pipeline, complete financial review, structure loans or subgrants, monitor performance and move funds efficiently after receiving an award.

Existing RLF recipients should maintain accurate performance records and keep viable cleanup projects ready. They should also expect close attention to spending, compliance and demonstrated outcomes.

Communities without an RLF should assess whether creating one supports their long-term redevelopment strategy. In some cases, working with an established recipient or joining a coalition may provide a more practical path than building a new fund administration program.

Limited Funding Can Improve Project Selection

The end of BIL expansion creates a real financial constraint. It also provides an opportunity to improve how communities prioritize brownfield properties.

During periods of higher funding, a project may advance largely because it qualifies. Under tighter conditions, eligibility becomes the starting point. The project must also be distinct, feasible and supported by a credible route to reuse.

That pressure can produce stronger investment decisions. Communities can focus resources on properties where environmental work will remove a defined barrier, where partners are prepared to act and where redevelopment can produce measurable public value.

The right question is not, “How large a grant can we pursue?”

It is, “Which sites can move from uncertainty toward productive use during the grant period?”

The answer will determine the application’s scope.

Start Preparing Brownfield Grant Applications Before Fall 2026

Fiscal year 2027 begins October 1, 2026. With EPA anticipating fall solicitations and an application period of about 60 days, the practical preparation window is already open.

Communities can act now by:

• Confirming applicant and site eligibility
• Establishing property ownership, access or control
• Prioritizing sites with achievable reuse potential
• Documenting environmental, economic and community needs
• Selecting the most appropriate grant category
• Defining partner responsibilities
• Developing a realistic scope, schedule and budget
• Identifying the 20% match for Cleanup or RLF applications
• Planning for funding delays or administrative review
• Connecting environmental activities to redevelopment financing

Continue monitoring EPA guidance because anticipated amounts, dates and requirements may change before the final solicitations are released. Early preparation does not mean assuming the preliminary framework is final. It means completing the work that will remain useful under most versions of the competition.

Brownfields redevelopment has never depended on funding alone. Progress requires technical evidence, community trust, sustained coordination and a feasible vision for reuse.

The fiscal year 2027 cycle will place greater weight on those fundamentals. Communities that select the correct funding route, narrow the scope to executable work and demonstrate how federal support will unlock lasting benefits will enter the competition with the strongest case.

The Author:

Derek Street is a Principal Geologist with Onterris, specializing in brownfields and community revitalization. Prior to joining the private sector, Derek served with U.S. EPA Region 4, where his work focused on Brownfields grants, Revolving Loan Fund programs, grant implementation and compliance, and land revitalization initiatives. Today, he works with communities, regional organizations, and other public-sector partners across the country to develop and implement brownfields strategies, navigate federal funding requirements, and advance contaminated and underutilized properties toward productive reuse.