Bill Overview
Title: To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report regarding the provision of water alternatives to communities affected by PFAS contamination, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense to submit a report outlining its plan to provide alternative water sources to affected communities surrounding military installations with levels of perfluoroalkyl substances that have been determined to be above the lifetime health advisory for contamination (as issued by the Environmental Protection Agency on June 21, 2022).
Sponsors: Rep. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI-8]
Target Audience
Population: People living near military installations affected by PFAS contamination
Estimated Size: 500000
- PFAS contamination is a widespread issue that affects numerous communities, particularly those near military bases where these chemicals have historically been used in firefighting foams.
- The EPA's lifetime health advisory for PFAS sets thresholds for safety, and communities with levels above this are directly impacted.
- Because the bill targets communities around military installations, populations in these areas will be the primary focus.
- Globally, PFAS contamination is recognized as a problem, but this bill specifically addresses communities affected near U.S. military installations.
- While the bill mandates a report from the Department of Defense, the communities already known to be affected are the immediate population of concern.
Reasoning
- Given the policy deals specifically with PFAS contamination in communities near military installations, the individuals to interview should be residents of such communities.
- The population size is estimated at around 500,000 Americans, as per the community living around military bases.
- The wellbeing scores will vary based on current exposure levels and perceived future benefits of alternative water sources provided by the Department of Defense.
- The budget allocation restricts the breadth of impact to primarily those residents currently facing severe contamination issues as identified by the EPA's advisory.
- Impact will likely differ between communities depending on the severity of contamination and reliance on the installation's resources.
Simulated Interviews
School Teacher (Fayetteville, North Carolina)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a relief to know they are planning something, but they need to act fast.
- I hope this policy means our kids won't have to worry about this in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Contractor (Colorado Springs, Colorado)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been worried about the water for a while.
- This policy is a step in the right direction but should have come sooner.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Nurse (Killeen, Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see the government taking responsibility.
- Hopefully, this can foster some trust back in the military's presence here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
College Student (Virginia Beach, Virginia)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything to clean up the contamination is welcome.
- But I guess we have to see if this actually changes things.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Grocery Store Manager (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This makes me feel like we matter and weren’t forgotten.
- Hope they back it up with real actions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired Veteran (Honolulu, Hawaii)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seems like a good first step, but what's the timeline here?
- We've lived with concern for too long.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Barista (San Diego, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s about time they look into this, a lot of locals have been worried.
- I just hope this leads to more transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Truck Driver (Clarksville, Tennessee)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If they can prove the water is safe, I'll feel better about my family's health.
- The policy sounds positive, but they better not just sit on it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Administrative Assistant (Tampa, Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- First step is good, but action and clear results are what we really need.
- Hopefully this draws more attention to the issue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
High School Counselor (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could really help us feel safer about our water.
- We need to see ongoing commitment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill is focused on creating a plan rather than immediate action, which impacts cost estimates.
- A large number of affected communities implies a broad scope for the report, possibly increasing costs.
- PFAS contamination cleanup and mitigation remain separate but potentially follow-up costs beyond this bill's immediate scope.