PFAS pollution a growing problem for U.S. farmers

Wheat grows in a field in Burleigh County, North Dakota, on July 11, 2024. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor)

Texas state courts have become ground zero in a complaint to determine whether farmers can be held liable for PFAS contamination discovered on their crop land. The Environmental Working Group reports the number of known “ forever chemical ” sites across the United States are increasing at an alarming rate .

PFAS have been linked to kidney and testicular cancer as well as damage to the liver and immune system. Needless to say, state governments have sat up and taken notice, and many are requiring public water facilities to conduct new tests to measure PFAS in the drinking supply. Including Texas .

Thus far, the PFAS testing of more than 400 public water systems in the Lone Star State has revealed about 50 exceeding new EPA limits .

Texas is lousy with forever chemicals. Which brings us to “ biosolid fertilizers ,” which are produced largely out of the sludge of wastewater treatment plants. Farmers like them because biosolids are often less expensive than other fertilizer options.

You can probably see where this is going. Farmers trusting biosolid fertilizers are safe from pollutants — including PFAS if that is even on their radar — could be unknowingly poisoning their farms with tragic consequences.

Such is the case of ranchers in the Fort Worth area, who claim in a lawsuit that biosolid fertilizers manufactured and sold by Synagro were not PFAS free:

“Synagro so negligently, carelessly, and recklessly designed, manufactured, formulated, handled, controlled, disposed, promoted, marketed, distributed, sold, tested, labeled, used, and provided product information and instructions for use of Synagro Granulite that it breached its duties and directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ properties including their drinking water wells to be polluted with PFAS. Synagro failed to conduct reasonable, appropriate, or adequate scientific studies to determine the presence of PFAS or evaluate the environment fate and transport characteristics of PFAS in Synagro Granulite, including the likelihood that the use and disposal of its biosolids fertilizer would cause PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS to pollute properties and water supplies, render drinking water unusable and unsafe, and threaten public health and welfare and the environment.”

A second lawsuit , filed by the same group of ranchers, accuses EPA of being asleep at the switch when it comes to PFAS.  For good measure Johnson County, the Potomac RiverKeeper Network and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association have signed on as co-plaintiffs:

“Specifically, EPA has failed to identify as existing in sewage sludge at least eighteen toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that scientific evidence shows are present in sewage sludge in concentrations which may adversely affect public health or the environment, in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1345 (d)(2). EPA has also failed to promulgate regulations specifying appropriate restrictions, as required by the same provision, for several other PFAS that EPA has previously recognized exist in sewage sludge and for which sufficient information necessitating regulation exists.”

Of course, at the end of the day this is all about farmers’ livelihood. For example, in Maine the MOFG reports at least 60 farms have unsafe levels of forever chemicals. Farmland found to exceed new federal PFAS levels are at risk for closure. It’s extremely likely more contaminated farms will be identified in Texas as testing continues.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The EWG believes PFAS might be polluting more than 20% of all U.S. farmland – that’s nearly 20 million acres.

Let that sink in. 20 million acres.

The scope and breadth of this issue is staggering. A bill to assist farmers was introduced in 2023, where it has languished in the House Agriculture Committee. The measure would provide grants for:

“Investing in agricultural equipment, facilities, and infrastructure to ensure agricultural land that, or a commercial farm on any agricultural land of which, is found to be contaminated by PFAS maintains profitability while the producers on the agricultural land, in response to the PFAS contamination:

“(A) transition to an alternative production system; or (B) implement remediation strategies (including disposal), technological adaptations, or other modifications to the operations of the agricultural land or commercial farm.”

The House Ag Committee needs to take up the measure as soon as possible. Maine’s congressional delegation is pushing leadership to put $500 million worth of grants in the new farm bill for tracking and clean up of PFAS.

The problem is that “clean up” of PFAS soil mostly falls into the realm of science fiction . And what is possible is prohibitively costly.

Which leaves farmers potentially holding the bag if they lose their farms to no fault of their own. That can’t happen.

Some farmers may luck out and find PFAS are limited to a portion of their acres. Others might try growing crops less susceptible to PFAS contamination. But those strategies come at a financial cost. One which farmers shouldn’t have to pay.

Hopefully the Texas courts will agree.