Veterans, family members, and civilian workers exposed to PFAS at Barksdale Air Force Base can file a personal injury lawsuit against the manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam through the federal multidistrict litigation now pending in South Carolina. The Barksdale Air Force Base PFAS lawsuit is not a standalone case but part of MDL 2873, which consolidates thousands of AFFF exposure claims from military installations across the country. As of mid-2026, the litigation has produced billions in settlements for public water systems but no individual payouts yet.
Why Barksdale Supports a Claim
Two former fire training areas on the base were used for AFFF exercises to extinguish petroleum fires, and testing has documented heavy PFAS contamination in the groundwater and surface water around those sites. A 2013 Arcadis investigation found PFOS concentrations of 580 micrograms per liter and PFOA of 30 micrograms per liter in temporary wells just outside the burn pits.1National Library of Medicine (PMC). Perfluoroalkyl Acids in Sediment and Water Surrounding Historical Fire Training Areas at Barksdale Air Force Base The EPA’s enforceable drinking water limit for each chemical, set in April 2024, is 4 parts per trillion.2EPA. Key EPA Actions to Address PFAS
A peer-reviewed study of samples collected across the base in 2013 and 2014 found total PFAS concentrations in surface water of up to 7,100 parts per trillion and sediment concentrations up to 31.4 nanograms per gram, with the fire training areas acting as a continuous source of PFAS flowing into Cooper Bayou. PFOS was the dominant compound, and the chemical profile matched historical use of 3M-manufactured AFFF.1National Library of Medicine (PMC). Perfluoroalkyl Acids in Sediment and Water Surrounding Historical Fire Training Areas at Barksdale Air Force Base
One boundary matters for anyone assuming the base’s tap water was the source: Barksdale’s 2023 Consumer Confidence Report found no detectable PFAS in treated drinking water, with all 29 compounds tested falling below the method reporting limit.3Barksdale Air Force Base. Barksdale AFB Consumer Confidence Report The documented exposure is tied to groundwater, surface water, and sediment around the fire training areas, not to what’s currently coming out of the taps.
Who Can File
The personal injury track in MDL 2873 is open to anyone exposed to PFAS through AFFF-contaminated water or direct contact who later developed a qualifying illness. Military service members and veterans are a primary group of plaintiffs, along with firefighters and airport workers.4Keefe Law Firm. AFFF Settlement Progress Under Case Management Order 3, individual personal injury cases can be filed directly into the MDL.5Veterans Guide. AFFF Lawsuit
A viable claim generally needs three things: documented exposure (military service records placing you at a contaminated installation work well), a diagnosis of a PFAS-linked condition, and a medical opinion tying the two together. The health conditions at the center of the bellwether process are kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis. Broader claims involving prostate cancer, liver cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma have also been filed.5Veterans Guide. AFFF Lawsuit
Deadlines depend on state law. Most jurisdictions apply a discovery rule that starts the statute of limitations clock at diagnosis rather than at the time of exposure, which is what allows veterans who left service decades ago to file today.5Veterans Guide. AFFF Lawsuit
Where the Litigation Stands
In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2873, was centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina in December 2018 before Judge Richard M. Gergel. The claims target chemical manufacturers, not the military. The Department of Defense has maintained it is not liable for contamination from the foam it used, and suits have gone after 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva instead.6Source New Mexico. US Military Bases Teem With PFAS
The docket holds roughly 19,800 cases as of early 2026, with about 15,200 active personal injury actions. More than $11.5 billion in settlements have been reached so far, including 3M’s up-to-$10.3 billion agreement approved in April 2024 and a separate $1.185 billion fund from DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva. All of that money is going to public water systems. None of it is available to individuals.7MDL Update. MDL 2873 – Aqueous Film-Forming Foams
The court selected 28 bellwether cases to test personal injury theories, focused on plaintiffs who allege kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, or ulcerative colitis from AFFF chemicals in drinking water.5Veterans Guide. AFFF Lawsuit A kidney cancer bellwether had been set for October 2025, but the court vacated that date in August 2025 under Case Management Order No. 35 to allow more time for verifying evidence and expert testimony. A “Science Day” hearing in June 2025 addressed causation evidence for thyroid and liver cancer.4Keefe Law Firm. AFFF Settlement Progress Attorneys involved in the MDL have projected individual claim values from $200,000 to more than $1 million depending on severity, with a possible global resolution in 2026 or 2027.7MDL Update. MDL 2873 – Aqueous Film-Forming Foams
Filing a VA Claim at the Same Time
A lawsuit against the manufacturers and a VA disability claim are legally distinct, and veterans can pursue both.5Veterans Guide. AFFF Lawsuit The VA has not established a presumptive service connection for PFAS-related illnesses. Its public health page states: “Currently, there are no presumptions related to PFAS exposure in the military,” and claims are reviewed case by case.8VA Public Health. PFAS Exposures
Two things could shift that. The VA is reviewing scientific evidence on whether kidney cancer should be designated a presumptive condition linked to PFAS exposure, a process required under the PACT Act.8VA Public Health. PFAS Exposures Separately, the Veterans Exposed to Toxic PFAS Act (H.R. 3639) was introduced in May 2025 and would establish a presumption of service connection for specified conditions in veterans who served at installations where people were exposed to PFAS. As of June 2025, the bill had been referred to the House Subcommittee on Health without further action.9Congress.gov. H.R.3639 – Veterans Exposed to Toxic PFAS Act
PFAS blood testing is not currently offered at VA medical centers, though the VA says it is reevaluating that policy in light of new federal research.8VA Public Health. PFAS Exposures