PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 28, 2016
EPA Accountability in Flint Act
This bill makes the Federal Tort Claims Act exemption inapplicable to any claim brought against the federal government relating to an act or omission of, exercise or performance of, or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty by, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relating to the lead contamination of the drinking water of the city of Flint, Michigan, between April 1, 2014, and the date on which the EPA determines that the drinking water of the city complies with federal standards.
A civil action relating to the EPA's conduct in relation to such contamination must be commenced within 10 years after the cause of action accrues.
Any award against, or compromise settlement by, the government relating to the EPA's conduct in relation to such contamination shall be paid out of unobligated balances in the Environmental Programs And Management account.
The EPA shall work with any affected state or local government to implement a program for the long-term monitoring of the quality of Flint's drinking water in response to such contamination.
People & committees
Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR] · R–AR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2884 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2884 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2884 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2884 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.