Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act
- Bill Number
- S. 3353
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Agriculture and Food
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-12-04: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S8513)
- Last Updated
- 2026-04-14T11:03:26Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act" (S. 3353) aims to help farmers and agricultural communities deal with contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These are human-made chemicals used in products like non-stick coatings and firefighting foams that do not break down easily in the environment and can harm health and farming operations. The bill authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide grants to states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and Indian Tribes to monitor, remediate, and support recovery from PFAS pollution on farms.
Key Provisions
- Definitions: The bill defines key terms, including "agricultural land" (land used for farming, plus related water and inputs like fertilizers); "commercial farm" (farms producing goods for sale); "eligible government" (states, D.C., territories, and Indian Tribes); "farm product" (broadly covers plants, animals, and related items like crops, livestock, and dairy); and "PFAS" (specific chemical structures or as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA).
- Grant Program Establishment: USDA must create a grant program to fund eligible governments where farms have unsafe PFAS levels in soil or water (determined by USDA and EPA in coordination). Applications require a spending plan with priorities and oversight. At least 30% of funds must go to smaller eligible governments (population under 3 million).
- Allowed Uses of Grants: Funds can support:
- Health monitoring (e.g., blood tests) for people and families on contaminated land.
- Buying/selling contaminated land or products, including compensation and disposal of affected animals or crops.
- Upgrading equipment or infrastructure for farms to switch production methods or remediate contamination.
- Helping farmers plan budgets for alternatives like new crops, relocation, or income replacement.
- Expanding testing capacity, research on PFAS impacts and solutions (e.g., cleanup methods, food safety), and educational programs.
- Long-term monitoring, data storage, and marketing aid for unaffected farms impacted by public perceptions.
- Voluntary testing of suspected sites.
- Priorities: Grants prioritize direct aid to farmers facing financial losses from PFAS; USDA favors applicants focusing on land/product compensation, infrastructure, and financial assistance.
- Reporting Requirements: Grantees must submit annual reports to USDA and Congress on fund uses, allocations, compliance with plans, producer needs, and other details.
- Task Force: USDA must form an internal task force to advise on integrating PFAS response into existing USDA programs, handle detected contamination in enrolled farms, and provide technical help to grantees.
- Funding: Authorizes $500 million for fiscal years 2026–2030.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill introduces a new standalone grant program under USDA, which does not amend specific existing laws but builds on them. It coordinates with EPA standards for PFAS safety levels and state regulations on soil/water. It expands USDA's role in environmental contamination response, potentially influencing programs like farm conservation or disaster aid by recommending PFAS inclusion via the task force.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: USDA gains new responsibilities for grant administration, coordination with EPA, and task force operations, increasing workload and inter-agency collaboration. State agriculture departments and tribal governments will handle local implementation, testing, and reporting, potentially straining smaller entities without added federal support.
- On Citizens and Farmers: Provides financial relief, health protections, and tools for remediation, helping farmers avoid bankruptcy, relocate, or adapt operations. Could reduce health risks from PFAS exposure (linked to issues like cancer and immune problems) for farm workers and communities. Unaffected farms may benefit from marketing support to counter stigma.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it addresses a global pollutant; U.S. leadership in PFAS regulation could influence international standards or aid requests from territories.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Farmers and Agricultural Producers: Primary beneficiaries, especially on commercial farms with contaminated land, water, or products; they gain compensation, transition support, and research.
- State, Territorial, and Tribal Governments: Eligible for grants to manage local responses, including testing, education, and oversight.
- USDA and EPA: USDA administers the program and task force; EPA helps set safety thresholds and definitions.
- Rural Communities and Residents: Indirectly affected through health monitoring, economic stability in farming areas, and reduced contamination spread (e.g., via sludge or septage from wastewater).
- Environmental and Health Advocates: Benefit from expanded research and monitoring on PFAS effects.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Establishes clear eligibility based on EPA/USDA determinations, potentially leading to disputes over "unsafe" PFAS levels or grant allocations. Requires coordination between federal agencies, which could streamline but also complicate enforcement under laws like the Clean Water Act. The bill's focus on voluntary testing and compensation avoids mandates, reducing litigation risks.
- Constitutional: Involves federal spending (authorized appropriations), which is a congressional power under Article I. Grants to states/tribes respect federalism by empowering local administration while ensuring federal oversight via reports and priorities.
- Political: Addresses a growing bipartisan concern over "forever chemicals" in agriculture, particularly in regions like New England (sponsors from Maine and New Hampshire). Could set precedent for federal aid in emerging environmental threats, influencing future farm bills or superfund-like programs. The set-aside for smaller populations promotes equity for underserved areas, but funding limits ($500 million over 5 years) may spark debates on adequacy amid widespread PFAS issues.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (3)
Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME], Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH], Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Recent Actions
- 2025-12-04: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S8513)
- 2025-12-04: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act — issued 2025-12-04 — PDF (12 pages)