The PURE Water Act adds section 25F to the Internal Revenue Code to create an individual tax credit for the purchase and installation of qualifying home water filtration systems. The credit pays 20 percent of expenditures for a taxpayer’s primary residence and 10 percent for a secondary residence, subject to a $2,500 annual cap and a carryforward of unused credit amounts.
The bill sets a strict technical threshold for qualifying equipment — a system must remove at least 90 percent of lead, PFAS, and PFOA — and excludes maintenance and replacement parts. It also reduces the basis of the property by the amount of the credit.
Effective date language applies the change to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024. For tax and compliance professionals, the proposal creates new verification questions; for public‑health and environmental stakeholders, it signals a federal subsidy aimed at household mitigation rather than municipal infrastructure upgrades.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds new IRC section 25F allowing individuals to claim a tax credit equal to 20% of qualified filtration expenditures for a primary residence and 10% for a secondary residence, limited to $2,500 per year with carryforward of excess. The provision defines qualified filters by a 90% removal performance standard for lead, PFAS, and PFOA and disallows creditable maintenance or part replacement.
Who It Affects
Individual homeowners and owners of secondary residences who buy and install high‑performance water filters, manufacturers and sellers of qualifying systems, and tax preparers and the IRS for implementation and verification. State and local public‑health agencies may see demand shifts as households pursue point‑of‑use remedies.
Why It Matters
This is a targeted federal subsidy that explicitly links tax policy to household-level mitigation of lead and PFAS contamination. It creates immediate market incentives for certified high‑performance filters while imposing new proof and basis‑adjustment rules that will shape taxpayer behavior, industry product standards, and administrative workload at the IRS.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a single new section into the tax code — section 25F — to subsidize private purchases of home water filtration systems. It calculates the credit as a percentage of the taxpayer’s qualifying expenditures: 20% for equipment installed in the taxpayer’s primary U.S. residence and 10% for systems installed in a secondary U.S. residence.
A hard annual ceiling of $2,500 caps the credit a taxpayer may use each year, and any excess over that cap can be carried forward to the next taxable year.
'Qualified water filter' is defined by performance: the system must remove at least 90% of lead, PFAS (per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom), and PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid). The statute excludes routine maintenance and replacement parts from creditable expenditures.
The bill does not specify a certification or testing regime in the statutory text; it sets the performance bar but leaves verification mechanisms — who certifies removal rates, what testing protocols apply, and how documentation is presented to the IRS — unspecified.On the tax side, the bill reduces the tax basis of property by the amount of any credit claimed, which affects future gain or loss calculations on sale and may interact with existing depreciation or casualty rules for residential property. The statute is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, so 2025 filings are the first affected returns.
Practically, taxpayers will need invoices and likely manufacturer or installer documentation to substantiate claims, while vendors and labs will face new demand for performance testing and documentation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The credit rate is 20% for filtration expenditures on a taxpayer’s primary residence and 10% for a secondary residence.
The annual maximum credit a taxpayer may use is $2,500; any excess credit may be carried forward to the next taxable year.
A ‘qualified water filter’ must remove at least 90% of lead, PFAS (defined in statute as PFAS containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom), and PFOA; maintenance and replacement parts are excluded.
If a taxpayer claims the credit, the bill requires reducing the basis of the residence by the amount of the credit, affecting future capital gains and cost recovery calculations.
The changes apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024 — effectively covering purchases and installations made in 2025 and later tax years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: PURE Water Act
Provides the Act’s short title — 'Providing Useful Relief for Enhanced Water Act' or 'PURE Water Act' — for citation. This is housekeeping, but it signals the legislative intent to frame the measure as public‑health relief tied to water contamination.
Allowance of credit (20% primary; 10% secondary)
Creates the core credit: individuals receive a percentage of qualifying filtration expenditures depending on whether the system is installed at a primary or secondary residence. The language confines the benefit to expenditures for equipment/systems used in U.S. dwelling units and attributes the credit to the individual taxpayer, not the property owner per se when ownership differs.
Annual cap and carryforward of unused credit
Limits usable credit to $2,500 per taxable year and permits taxpayers to carry forward amounts in excess of that cap to the succeeding taxable year. This structure provides a hard annual revenue ceiling while ensuring large purchases are not wholly wasted, but it does not make the credit refundable — taxpayers without sufficient tax liability will be unable to convert the credit into a cash refund.
Technical performance standard and excluded costs
Defines 'qualified water filter' by a 90% removal threshold for lead, PFAS, and PFOA and expressly excludes maintenance and replacement parts. It also provides statutory definitions of 'PFAS' and 'PFOA.' The approach uses a substance‑removal metric rather than listing eligible products or attaching the program to existing third‑party certification, which has practical consequences for how eligibility will be proved.
Reduces property basis by the amount of the credit
Requires taxpayers to reduce the tax basis of the property by the amount of any credit claimed for expenditures on that property. That adjustment prevents double benefit across tax years but complicates future gain calculations on sale and interacts with rules governing improvements versus repairs and depreciation for mixed‑use properties.
Clerical amendment and effective date
Adds a table‑of‑sections entry for the new section and makes the provision effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024. The effective date language means the credit applies to expenditures made in the 2025 tax year and later; the bill does not include transition guidance or safe‑harbors for documentation on pre‑existing installations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Homeowners in PFAS/lead‑impacted areas: Households facing contaminated water and purchasing point‑of‑use or point‑of‑entry systems receive a direct subsidy that lowers their net out‑of‑pocket cost for high‑performance filters.
- Owners of secondary residences (vacation homes): The 10% credit makes mitigation more affordable for second homes that share local contamination issues, encouraging remediation in multiple properties owned by the same taxpayer.
- Manufacturers and installers of high‑performance filters: Producers that can demonstrate ≥90% removal will see increased demand and a pricing premium; installers may capture more retrofit jobs as households pursue eligible systems.
- Laboratories and certification providers: The statutory performance bar generates demand for testing, validation, and documentation services to demonstrate that systems meet the 90% removal standard.
- Tax preparers and compliance vendors: Professionals who prepare returns or build compliance workflows will benefit commercially from new filing complexity and demand for substantiation packages.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Treasury (federal revenue): The credit will reduce federal receipts; the $2,500 cap limits annual exposure per taxpayer but not aggregate revenue loss if many taxpayers participate.
- IRS and tax administrators: The agency will bear verification, guidance drafting, and audit costs because the statute sets a performance standard without assigning certification responsibility, increasing administrative complexity.
- Small filter makers that cannot meet the 90% threshold: Firms producing lower‑performance or lower‑cost filters will be disadvantaged, potentially exiting markets or being forced to upgrade testing and product design.
- Taxpayers without sufficient tax liability (low‑income households): Because the credit is nonrefundable, low‑income homeowners who lack federal tax liability cannot monetize the subsidy despite facing the highest exposure to contaminated water.
- Retailers and supply chains during demand surges: Short‑term supply constraints or price increases could raise installation costs, partially offsetting the subsidy for early adopters.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims — quickly protecting household water consumers from lead and PFAS exposure by subsidizing point‑of‑use filtration versus ensuring verifiable, equitable, and administrable taxpayer subsidies; achieving both requires robust, expensive oversight or a relaxation of technical standards that would dilute the environmental benefit.
The statute sets a clear technical bar — 90% removal of lead, PFAS, and PFOA — but leaves the operational question of how that bar is evidenced unanswered. The text does not identify an approving agency, testing protocol, list of accredited labs, or product certification pathway; absent implementing guidance, taxpayers and vendors will face ambiguity about acceptable documentation.
That gap invites uneven state‑level approaches, vendor self‑certification, or a proliferation of private labels, each with differing rigor.
Equity and administrative trade‑offs are central. The credit reduces upfront costs but is nonrefundable, so households with limited federal tax liability may not capture the benefit.
The basis reduction prevents taxpayers from receiving both an immediate tax subsidy and later tax advantages tied to a higher basis, but it complicates compliance — tracking basis adjustments across multiple owners, improvements, and second‑home sales will create audit targets. Finally, the policy favors point‑of‑use household fixes over capital investment in community water systems; while filters give quick relief, they do not substitute for long‑term infrastructure upgrades and may shift political pressure away from public investment.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.