By Ed Morales

The concept of brownfield development seems pretty straightforward: purchase a piece of contaminated land, implement a remedial strategy to prepare the land for development, and build anew. You might say the concept is much like recycling “dirty” land for a higher and better purpose, thus “greening” the planet.

However, “greening” in this instance may not imply a complete removal of contamination bringing the “dirty” land to a pristine condition. In fact, brownfields are often redeveloped and reused with trace contamination left behind. In practice the process of remediation is to effectively remove all sources of contamination; however, it is not uncommon for a low concentration of contamination to remain, as long as the remediation process has met regulatory clean-up standards.

Wouldn’t it be safer to remove everything?

The question of what is considered safe is based on a scientific approach called risk assessment, which is an approach used by regulators to evaluate the safety levels of a contaminated site.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the leading agency for brownfield remediation in California, for example, will require a site specific risk assessment to demonstrate that a particular level or concentration of a contaminant is deemed safe for future site use. More often than not, a level deemed safe is not zero. In some cases, it’s impractical and nearly impossible to extract or remediate all contaminants. For example, it is very rare to see the concentration of a specific contaminant in groundwater remediated down to a level of zero.

That said, the use of risk assessment is a systematic and scientifically defensible way to define what level a brownfield site should be cleaned up to in order to be protective of human health and the environment.

So why would an investor go through the trouble of remediation and clean-up of a brownfield property if it’s easier to just build on a Greenfield?

The answer isn’t as cut-and-dry as you might think. Brownfields are seen as recyclable land that prevents urban sprawl and it is more advantageous to utilize existing parcels than to develop on new land. Not surprisingly, communities tend to prefer urban infill locations, many of which are brownfields, for redevelopment, not only to prevent urban sprawl, but to help the environment by remediating the contamination left by a former user. Developing Greenfields may be viewed as having a negative impact on Greening the Planet.

The continued development of brownfields will play a key role in revitalizing urban communities and helping them grow and flourish. But keep in mind that the development itself should be eco-friendly and sustainable. Only this way can it truly be thought of as Greening the Planet.