Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
ChampionedEnvironment - Clean Water / PFAS

Deliver clean drinking water for Wisconsin communities and address PFAS 'forever chemicals' contamination in drinking water.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

ChampionedFact-checker reviewConfidence: 82%

All three cited PRIMARY sources (baldwin.senate.gov) are reachable, support the promise topic, and contain the quoted language verbatim. The CHAMPIONED (leadership) bar is met: Source 2 documents Baldwin as lead co-sponsor/author (with Sen. Collins) of the bipartisan Healthy H2O Act (introduced 3/15/2023), which creates USDA grants for water testing and PFAS/lead/nitrate treatment for rural households — genuine legislative authorship, not a mere vote. Source 3 shows her securing $1.6M in appropriations for Eau Claire PFAS remediation (she "secured the funding" as part of the 2023 funding bill — earmark-level leadership, again beyond a vote). Source 1 documents delivery of $119.6M in Wisconsin clean-drinking-water funding covering both lead-pipe replacement and PFAS. Together these satisfy both halves of the promise (clean water for Wisconsin communities + addressing PFAS) with demonstrated leadership. Confidence held at 0.82 because the Healthy H2O Act itself was not yet fully enacted as of mid-2026 (pending Farm Bill), though the appropriations funding was enacted and delivered; Source 1 by itself reads as funding-announcement rather than authorship, so the leadership finding rests primarily on Sources 2 and 3.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →