Fort Campbell PFAS Lawsuit: Eligibility, Illnesses, and Payouts

If you served at Fort Campbell, lived in on-base housing, worked on the installation, or used a nearby private well during the decades the Army used firefighting foam there, and you later developed kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, or another condition linked to PFAS, you may be able to file a Fort Campbell PFAS lawsuit. Claims are handled through a single federal multidistrict litigation in South Carolina, MDL No. 2873, which had more than 15,200 pending personal injury cases as of early 2026 and no individual settlements yet.¹

Who Can File a Claim

Eligibility turns on two things: exposure to PFAS-contaminated water connected to Fort Campbell, and a later diagnosis of a qualifying health condition. The people most commonly identified as potential claimants fall into four groups.

Active-duty service members and veterans stationed at Fort Campbell during the years the Army used aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF.
Spouses and children who lived in on-base housing and drank the water.
Civilian employees and contractors who worked on the installation for extended periods.
Residents near the base who drew from private wells or other unmonitored water sources that may have been reached by contamination migrating off the installation.²

Fort Campbell’s combined population of active-duty personnel, civilians, retirees, and family members exceeds 240,000, so the potential pool of claimants is large.³ To pursue a claim you generally need medical records showing the diagnosis, documentation of your service, employment, or residency tying you to the base, and water testing data or other proof of exposure. Plaintiffs in the MDL must submit detailed fact sheets under Case Management Order 37, and those who fail to comply face potential dismissal.⁴

Health Conditions the Claims Cover

Plaintiffs allege that PFAS exposure caused or contributed to a range of cancers and other diseases. The cancers most frequently cited are kidney, testicular, thyroid, pancreatic, liver, breast, and prostate. Non-cancer conditions include thyroid disease, liver damage, immune system suppression, elevated cholesterol, kidney disease, reproductive and developmental problems, and ulcerative colitis.²

The court has narrowed its initial focus. The 28 bellwether cases currently in case-specific discovery break down into eight kidney cancer cases, eight testicular cancer cases, eight thyroid disease cases, and four ulcerative colitis cases.⁴ Those four conditions are the ones the court is testing first, which means the science and legal theories tied to them will be resolved earliest. Claims involving other diagnoses can still be filed, but they will likely follow the path set by the bellwether outcomes.

Where the Litigation Stands

All Fort Campbell personal injury claims tied to AFFF are consolidated in MDL No. 2873 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, overseen by Judge Richard M. Gergel.⁵ The named defendants include 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and Tyco, the companies that manufactured or distributed AFFF or the PFAS chemicals in it.⁶ Plaintiffs allege the manufacturers knew about the health and environmental risks of PFAS for decades and continued making and selling the products without warning users.

No personal injury case in the MDL has gone to trial. A kidney cancer bellwether was scheduled for October 2025 but was taken off the calendar in August 2025 when the court issued Case Management Order No. 35, vacating the trial date and setting new procedures for vetting case filings.⁴ The next trial date was still being negotiated as of mid-2026. Discovery for the “Group B” track covering thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis claims was completed in April 2026.¹ A Science Day held in June 2025 addressed expert testimony on liver and thyroid cancer causation, which will shape what scientific evidence is admissible.

What Compensation Could Look Like

No personal injury settlements have been reached. Legal observers anticipate a possible global resolution in 2026 or 2027, once bellwether trial outcomes establish valuation benchmarks. Projected individual claim values range from roughly $200,000 to over $1 million depending on the severity of the diagnosis and the strength of the exposure evidence.⁴

Two large PFAS settlements already exist, but neither pays individuals. In 2023, 3M agreed to pay between $10.5 billion and $12.5 billion to resolve claims from public water suppliers.⁷ DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva agreed to a separate $1.185 billion fund for public water suppliers.⁴ Both are utility settlements, not personal injury settlements, and the 3M deal explicitly excludes water systems owned solely by the federal government, meaning military-operated utilities like Fort Campbell’s are not covered.

The Contamination Evidence at Fort Campbell

The Army used AFFF at Fort Campbell for decades at airfield hangars, heliport wash racks, fire stations, fire training areas, and crash sites. A May 2022 Army investigation identified 30 areas on the base where AFFF had been used, stored, or disposed of. PFAS were detected in soil or groundwater at 29 of those 30 sites, and concentrations exceeded Department of Defense screening levels at 26 of them.⁸ Fort Campbell sits on karst terrain, a geology of sinkholes and underground channels that carries contamination quickly and unpredictably.

Testing of on-base groundwater in 2019 found PFOS at 3,700 parts per trillion and PFAS at 2,200 parts per trillion.⁹ The EPA’s enforceable drinking water limit for PFOS, finalized in April 2024, is 4 parts per trillion.¹⁰ The base water utility, which serves roughly 22,000 people, has also shown elevated levels. Environmental Working Group data covering 2013 through 2024 showed the utility’s average PFOS at 24.8 parts per trillion, PFOA at 5.78, and PFHxS at 30.1, all of which exceed or approach the EPA’s enforceable limits.¹¹

PFAS from the base have also reached surface waters. The 2022 investigation linked contamination to Quarles Spring, Dry Fork Creek, and Beaver Spring. A 2020 Kentucky surface water study found the highest single PFAS detection in Christian County at a Quarles Spring Branch monitoring station, at 249 parts per trillion.⁹

If You Have a Private Well Near the Base

Under a September 2024 Department of Defense policy, the Army is required to provide bottled water, filtration, or a municipal water connection if PFOS or PFOA in a private well reaches or exceeds 12 parts per trillion. Levels between 4 and 12 parts per trillion are to be addressed through the full CERCLA cleanup process, which at Fort Campbell has not yet moved past planning.¹⁰ If your well has not been tested, that testing is the first step, both for your household’s safety and for building the exposure record a personal injury claim requires.

1
Drugwatch. PFAS Lawsuits
2
TruLaw. Fort Campbell PFAS Lawsuit
3
MilitaryByOwner. Fort Campbell
4
MDL Update. MDL 2873 – Aqueous Film-Forming Foams
5
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. MDL 2873 – Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation
6
Mass Tort Ad Agency. AFFF Lawsuit Update
7
PFAS Water Settlement. 3M Frequently Asked Questions
8
U.S. Army Environmental Command. Final Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, Fort Campbell, Kentucky
9
Hoptown Chronicle. Forever Chemicals in Thousands of Private Wells Near Military Sites, Study Finds
10
U.S. Army Environmental Command. Fort Campbell PFAS Information
11
Environmental Working Group. Fort Campbell Water Utility