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 Secretary of Defense to offer alternative drinking water to households whose private wells have been contaminated by PFOS and PFOA — two types of "forever chemicals" — from activities at nearby military installations. Alternative water options would include bottled water, connection to a public water system, or home filtration systems. The requirement would apply when contamination has exceeded EPA maximum contaminant levels and at least one other household in the same community is already receiving such assistance from the Department of Defense. The Secretary would not be required to provide alternative water if all affected households in a community have already been connected to a municipal water system, or if the DoD has otherwise taken action under CERCLA to reduce drinking water exposure to compliant levels.
Who benefits
Households near military bases that rely on private wells and have detected PFOS/PFOA contamination above EPA limits. Rural and semi-rural residents who are more likely to depend on private wells rather than public water systems. Communities near the estimated 700+ military installations where PFAS contamination has been identified. Children and pregnant women, who face heightened health risks from PFAS exposure. State and local governments that might otherwise bear remediation costs. Environmental remediation contractors who would be hired to implement filtration or water delivery solutions.
Who is hurt
The Department of Defense, which would bear the financial and logistical costs of providing alternative water. Taxpayers broadly, who fund DoD operations. The bill's narrow eligibility criteria — requiring contamination to be "solely" from DoD activities — may exclude households near installations where contamination has multiple sources, leaving some affected residents without relief. Households in communities where not all affected neighbors have yet been connected to municipal water may face delays if the Secretary determines the community-wide exception applies.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal government has a clear moral and legal obligation to remedy harm it directly caused: military use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam (AFFF) has contaminated drinking water for communities surrounding hundreds of bases, and private well users — unlike those on public systems — have no alternative source of clean water. They contend that the bill is narrowly tailored, applying only where DoD activities are the sole source of contamination and where EPA maximum contaminant levels have already been exceeded, ensuring relief goes to those with the most direct and documented harm.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's "solely from activities of the Department of Defense" standard creates an unworkable and potentially unverifiable evidentiary burden, since PFAS contamination is widespread from many industrial and commercial sources and attribution to a single cause is scientifically difficult. They contend that existing CERCLA authority already gives the Secretary tools to address contamination, and that mandating a specific remediation pathway — rather than allowing flexible, site-by-site cleanup strategies — could duplicate ongoing efforts, increase costs, and slow more comprehensive long-term solutions like full municipal water hookups.
Constitutional context
The bill operates under Congress's broad authority to regulate and direct the activities of the armed forces under Article I, Section 8, and does not raise significant Commerce Clause or agency authority questions, as it directly commands the Secretary of Defense rather than delegating broad rulemaking power to an agency. CERCLA, which the bill references and coordinates with, has been upheld under the Commerce Clause; no active constitutional tension area directly applies here.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Secretary of Defense) gains a new mandatory duty, but Congress retains oversight through the Armed Services Committee; the Secretary retains discretion in determining contamination source attribution and community eligibility, which could be subject to judicial review.
Historical precedent
The National Defense Authorization Acts of recent years (FY2020–FY2024) have included provisions requiring DoD to test for PFAS contamination near military installations and to provide alternative water in some circumstances, making this bill an extension of an existing, incrementally expanding congressional mandate rather than a wholly new policy direction.