Why It Matters

Congress faces a core tradeoff on PFAS remediation: whether to shield water utilities, farms, and other entities that never manufactured or used these chemicals from Superfund liability, and whether military cleanup is funded at a pace adequate to meet the scale of contamination. A new Congressional Research Service report examines how the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) applies to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and whether the pace and funding of PFAS cleanup at military sites are adequate. ​

EPA's existing enforcement discretion policy, which lists categories of entities the agency does not intend to pursue, is nonbinding and not legally enforceable. The Department of Defense's funding for PFAS releases is subject to annual appropriations. The pace of remediation and adequacy of funding levels continue to be issues for Congress.

The Big Picture

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substances in a rule published May 8, 2024. The report says EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced in September 2025 that EPA would retain the rule, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld it on Aug. 18 in Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, No. 24-1193.

Congress has considered exemptions for so-called passive receivers which may face possible exposure, including water and wastewater systems, municipal landfills, airports, fire departments and farms where biosolids are applied, though liability at any particular site remains a site-specific, fact-specific inquiry.

Supporters of statutory exemptions argue that these entities did not manufacture or use PFAS, while opponents argue that the existing CERCLA liability framework and EPA's enforcement discretion policy are adequate to shield innocent parties. The report notes that exemptions could limit EPA's ability to pursue responsible parties.

In the 119th Congress, the Water Systems PFAS Liability Protection Act (H.R. 1267) would provide statutory PFAS liability exemptions for public water systems, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), municipal separate storm sewer system permittees, certain wholesale water agencies, and contractors, excluding cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct. No PFAS liability exemption bills have been enacted to date.

On the military side, CRS reports that through fiscal 2025, DOD estimated $3.3 billion in actual obligations for investigating and remediating PFAS releases across active installations, closed Base Realignment and Closure locations, Formerly Used Defense Sites, and National Guard facilities, with $10.2 billion in additional funding estimated to complete actions at all eligible sites from the end of fiscal 2024 onward. The report's text puts funding in the Department of Defense (DOD) Environmental Restoration accounts for PFAS at $404 million in fiscal 2023 and $255 million in fiscal 2026. It says the President's fiscal 2027 request would reduce that figure to $142 million, though its Figure 1 table lists different amounts that the report does not reconcile. DOD has not provided estimated completion dates for remediation at any installation.

The Bottom Line

CRS identifies two unresolved questions for Congress: whether to enact statutory PFAS liability exemptions for passive receivers, and whether appropriations levels are sufficient to meet DOD's remediation needs. H.R. 1267 has been introduced in the 119th Congress but has not been enacted. Congress may also consider oversight options to evaluate the pace of military PFAS cleanup, such as hearings or directing the Government Accountability Office or the Office of Inspector General to examine specific aspects of the Defense Department program.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article