HB 6476 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program to provide grants to eligible governments—States, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and Indian Tribes—to address PFAS contamination on farms and related agricultural land or water. Eligible uses include monitoring, compensation for contaminated land or farm products, investments in equipment and infrastructure to maintain profitability during remediation or transition, and research and educational activities.
The bill also sets up reporting requirements, a task force to advise the Department of Agriculture on PFAS activities, and authorizes a total of $500 million for fiscal years 2026 through 2029.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a grant program that provides funding to eligible governments to address PFAS contamination on agricultural land or farm inputs. Grants may be used for monitoring, remediation, compensation, transition investments, research, and education. It includes a set-aside to prioritize smaller populations.
Who It Affects
Eligible governments (States, the District of Columbia, territories, and Indian Tribes) administering PFAS relief programs; PFAS-affected farmers and farmworkers; communities near contaminated lands.
Why It Matters
Directs federal funds to on-the-ground PFAS mitigation in agriculture, supports data collection and testing, and helps sustain farm viability during remediation and transition.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill would create a new program within the Department of Agriculture to provide PFAS relief funding to eligible governments—States, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and Indian Tribes. The aim is to address PFAS contamination on agricultural land and related farm water and inputs.
Eligible uses cover a broad spectrum: monitoring contamination (including potential health testing), compensation for affected land or farm products, and investments in equipment, facilities, and processes that help farms stay profitable while they transition away from PFAS-affected practices. The act also supports research, education, data management, and public information efforts related to PFAS on farms.
A 30% set-aside ensures funding reaches smaller jurisdictions with populations under 3 million. The program includes reporting requirements to the Secretary and Congress, a Department of Agriculture task force to guide PFAS actions, and a total authorization of $500 million for 2026–2029.
The policy is designed to get money to the ground quickly while also building knowledge and capacity to manage PFAS in the longer term.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a PFAS grant program under the Secretary of Agriculture for eligible states, DC, territories, and Indian Tribes.
Eligibility hinges on PFAS levels deemed unsafe in soil or farm water, as determined by EPA in coordination with the Secretary.
Not less than 30% of annual funding must go to small jurisdictions (populations under 3 million).
Authorized funding totals $500 million for fiscal years 2026–2029.
Eligible uses include monitoring, compensation for contaminated land/products, transition investments, research, education, and data management.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions
This section defines key terms used in the act. ‘Agricultural land’ covers land used for producing farm products and includes associated irrigation water, livestock water, surface and groundwater, and other farm inputs. ‘Commercial farm’ refers to farms that produce products for sale. ‘Eligible government’ encompasses States, the District of Columbia, territories, and Indian Tribes. ‘Farm product’ enumerates a broad list of agricultural outputs, and PFAS is defined either by specified chemical structures or by EPA’s current working definition. The definitions set the scope for who can receive grants and what land or products qualify for assistance.
Establishment of the grant program and eligibility
The Secretary shall establish a program to grant funds to eligible governments for PFAS-related purposes. Eligibility requires PFAS contamination in soil or water used for producing farm products to be deemed unsafe in coordination with EPA. Applicants must submit a spend plan detailing administration, funding priorities, and oversight. A minimum 30% of annual funding must be reserved for smaller populations, ensuring targeted relief.
Purposes of grants
Grants may be used for monitoring (including health testing), compensation for contaminated land or farm products, and investments to keep farms profitable during remediation or transition (equipment, facilities, and infrastructure). They also cover developing new production options, supporting related research (soil/water remediation, disposal of contaminated crops or animals, and food safety), education programs for landowners, and long‑term data collection and monitoring. The section enumerates a wide array of activities to align relief with practical farm operations and community needs.
Reports
Each year, recipient agencies must report back on grant usage, including allocations by purpose, alignment with the approved spend plan, and any additional needs identified by producers. Reports also cover oversight and any further information the Secretary deems appropriate, creating a steady information feedback loop for congressional and departmental review.
Task Force
A Department of Agriculture task force will advise on whether PFAS remediation should be added as an eligible activity under each department program, evaluate actions for enrolled farms where PFAS is detected, and provide technical assistance to eligible governments addressing PFAS contamination. The group serves as an expert resource to sharpen program design and execution.
Authorization of appropriations
The bill authorizes $500 million for the Secretary to carry out the act for fiscal years 2026 through 2029. The funding level establishes the scale of the program and signals congressional intent to support PFAS relief and related activities over a multi‑year horizon.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- Farmers and farm workers on PFAS‑affected land who may receive compensation, transition support, and improved monitoring.
- Eligible governments (States, DC, territories, and Indian Tribes) that administer and implement the grant programs in their jurisdictions.
- PFAS testing labs, data management entities, and research institutions that will support monitoring, testing capacity, and PFAS-related studies.
- Communities and households living near contaminated lands that stand to gain from remediation, information campaigns, and safer land use.
- Extension services and agricultural professionals who participate in education and outreach funded by the program.
Who Bears the Cost
- Administrative costs for applying for and managing grants borne by eligible governments.
- Possible short‑term costs for producers to transition production or dispose of contaminated products before remediation or compensation funds are disbursed.
- General costs to the federal government for funding the program, including oversight and reporting requirements.
- Vendors and contractors providing remediation technologies or testing services who may experience market volatility as funds are deployed and projects scale up.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize immediate, tangible relief for farmers and communities affected by PFAS contamination or to invest more heavily in long‑term remediation, data infrastructure, and market strategies, all within a finite funding envelope and with multi‑jurisdictional governance. The bill attempts to balance these aims through targeted uses and a set‑aside, but the optimal mix and duration of support remain unresolved.
The program’s breadth—spanning monitoring, compensation, infrastructure investments, market and education activities—creates potential for multiple, overlapping activities across jurisdictions. While the set‑aside for small populations helps distribute relief, the effectiveness of allocations will depend on robust spend plans, transparent oversight, and the adequacy of funding to sustain long‑term PFAS management.
Uncertainties remain about measurable PFAS standards, data harmonization, and how long the program will be able to operate once the 2026–2029 authorization expires. Coordinating with EPA and aligning state and tribal plans will be essential to prevent gaps in coverage or duplicative efforts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.