S-3445-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Sponsored by Gary Peters (D-MI)
What it does
This bill would require the Department of Defense (DoD) to provide alternative drinking water to households whose private drinking water has been contaminated with PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) or PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) — two types of "forever chemicals" — as a result of DoD activities. It would apply to private wells and other private water sources near military installations or other sites where DoD operations caused the contamination.
Who benefits
Households near military bases whose private wells or water supplies have been contaminated by PFAS from DoD activities — estimated to number in the tens of thousands across dozens of states. Rural residents who rely on private wells and lack access to municipal water systems. Children and pregnant women, who face heightened health risks from PFAS exposure. Local governments and water utilities that currently bear some remediation costs. Veterans and military families living near installations.
Who is hurt
The Department of Defense and, by extension, federal taxpayers who would fund the cost of providing alternative water supplies. Defense budget priorities could be displaced by compliance costs. Private water bottlers or delivery services could face logistical strain in heavily affected areas. Landowners near contaminated sites who do not qualify under the bill's specific criteria may remain without relief, potentially widening disparities between affected households.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the DoD has used PFAS-containing firefighting foam (AFFF) at military installations for decades, knowingly contaminating groundwater that nearby residents depend on for drinking water. They contend that the federal government has a direct legal and moral obligation to remedy harm it caused, and point to EPA data identifying over 700 military sites with confirmed or suspected PFAS contamination affecting surrounding communities. They argue that providing alternative water is the minimum necessary response while longer-term cleanup proceeds.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's scope and cost are undefined, creating an open-ended federal liability without clear funding mechanisms, contamination thresholds, or a sunset provision. They contend that existing DoD remediation programs and the CERCLA framework already provide pathways for cleanup and relief, making a separate mandate duplicative and potentially disruptive to ongoing remediation efforts. They also argue that establishing DoD as the sole responsible party may be legally premature in cases where contamination sources are mixed or disputed.