Supporters say the bill would protect farmland in Texas. Opponents say limiting PFAS chemicals in biosolids will force water utilities to look at other disposal methods, which will lead to higher utility bills.
A bill aimed at limiting the spread of toxic chemicals on Texas farmland has hit a political wall — missing a key deadline that decreases its likelihood of passage this session.
House Bill 1674, introduced by Rep. Helen Kerwin, R-Cleburne, aims to regulate the use of fertilizers made from treated sewage, also known as biosolids, by requiring regular testing for PFAS — a group of long-lasting, harmful chemicals often called “forever chemicals.”
Supporters of the bill say it would protect agricultural land and the nation’s food supply from dangerous chemicals that don’t break down and are linked to health problems including cancer, birth defects, liver damage, and immune system disorders. However, opponents — including wastewater utilities — say the measure lacks clarity and could drive up disposal costs of biosolids without offering other alternatives to get rid of the sludge.
Kerwin, who is in her first legislative session after being elected in November, says the bill is her top priority — it’s the first bill she filed after becoming a lawmaker. And the proposal has won bipartisan support in the House, where 75 of her colleagues signed on as either authors or co-authors.
The House Environmental Regulation Committee heard testimony on the bill last week. Although 74 people had signed up to speak on the bill — 34 in support, 33 against, the rest neutral — only about half got the chance after waiting more than 18 hours for the bill to be heard. After two and a half hours of testimony and debate, the committee left the bill pending.
At this point, its chances of advancing further in the legislative process are slim. Monday was the deadline for House bills to advance out of committee, although there are ways to revive bills up to the end of the legislative session.
“We are not out to impact a large industry, but we just want to begin the narrative so that we can start preventing the disposal of these biosolids,” Kerwin said at the hearing.
A number of Texas wastewater plants have contracts with fertilizer companies to take their biosolids. Those companies market the fertilizers as nutrient rich and environmentally friendly and sell them to farmers as a cheaper alternative.
The bill would require companies that manufacture products made from biosolids to test them monthly for certain PFAS before selling them. Products exceeding certain PFAS limits would need to dispose of them through incineration or at a landfill that will accept them. Companies would be required to publish results online, and violators could face criminal penalties.
PFAS contamination is already impacting Texans. The bill comes after at least five farmers in Johnson County sued a fertilizer company alleging that PFAS-contaminated fertilizer made from Fort Worth’s municipal waste poisoned their land, killed their livestock, and left them unable to sell anything produced on their farms. County officials issued a disaster declaration earlier this year asking for Gov. Greg Abbott to request federal disaster assistance after dangerous levels of contamination were found on agricultural land.
Dana Ames, the environmental crime investigator who discovered PFAS contamination in Johnson County farmland, testified at the hearing that started at 1 a.m last Thursday.
“We’ve gotten a lot of calls from a lot of farmers that have felt deceived,” she said. “They feel like they’ve been duped and lied to … by the companies that are encouraging them to use the product.”
Nationally, more than half of sewage sludge was treated and spread on land, according to one study; 19 billion pounds of it was spread on American farms between 2016 and 2021, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found in 2022.
“Across the country family farms like mine are vanishing, not just from economic pressure, but from environmental negligence,” said Karen Coleman, a farmer from Johnson County.
Coleman and her husband Tony took over her father’s farm in 2018. The couple didn’t spread biosolids-based fertilizer on their land, but they claim storm runoff from a nearby property that used the fertilizer poisoned their land.
Groups representing wastewater treatment operators, water utilities and the chemical industry testified in opposition to Kerwin’s bill, warning that the bill would have sweeping consequences for how Texas manages biosolids and create costly logistical challenges for cities and utilities without fully understanding the sources or risks of PFAS.
“[The bill] creates a de facto ban on land application… and would result in significant increases in wastewater rates paid by the public,” said Sarah Kirkle, policy director at the Texas Water Association.
Kirkle and others raised logistical concerns, saying there are only two labs in Texas currently offering PFAS testing for biosolids. She also said there’s a lack of short-term storage for biosolids awaiting test results, and uncertainty around landfill space — all of which would make compliance difficult under the bill’s timeline.
Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress and a member of the committee, challenged the idea that land application of biosolids should continue at all — especially given emerging concerns about PFAS contamination.
“It seems so obvious that the solid material left over from wastewater treatment is probably not the best thing to spread on land we’re going to grow food on,” Oliverson said. “How did we ever get to a point where someone thought that was a bright idea?”
Julie Nahrgang, executive director with the Water Environment Association of Texas, pushed back, arguing that biosolids recycling is a long-regulated, widely practiced method supported by the Clean Water Act. She said the real focus should be on identifying and regulating the sources PFAS comes from.
“Let’s ensure that [PFAS] do not make their way into the environment, to then be passively received by utilities,” she said. “Let’s understand that before we create legislation that impacts all of Texas and impacts us overnight.”
Oliverson remained unconvinced. “Just because something’s been done historically doesn’t mean it’s safe,” he said. “We used to put asbestos in for insulation for a long time and we thought that was a good idea, and then we realized it caused cancer.”
Logan Harrell, representing the Texas Chemistry Council, cautioned that the bill sets a precedent for legislating environmental standards directly, rather than deferring to agencies like the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental regulator. “This bill departs from the standard process,” he said.
The hearing highlighted a key regulatory dilemma: no Texas agency currently has both the authority and responsibility to monitor PFAS in biosolids that are applied to land. Until that changes, officials said, Texas will remain limited in its ability to assess risks or enforce protections.
The TCEQ, which permits biosolids disposal, acknowledged that it has not conducted its own PFAS testing in Johnson County. Instead, the agency relied on third-party data provided by the county to draw conclusions. Lawmakers pushed back on that approach.
“You didn’t generate any of your own data,” Oliverson said. “You’re just taking their word.”
Sabine Lange, TCEQ’s chief toxicologist, said the data the agency reviewed showed PFAS levels below the agency’s own limits it has set for soil and water. Those limits, originally developed in 2011, are now being updated to reflect the growing body of toxicology research.
There is a lot of buzz surrounding PFAS — the chemicals are under increasing scrutiny nationwide. Nearly a dozen Texas counties have passed resolutions urging farmers to stop using biosolids on their land until further testing is conducted. And states like Maine, Vermont, Michigan, and New York have already implemented bans or strict testing protocols.
Last year, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against chemical giants 3M and DuPont, accusing them of misleading the public about the risks of PFAS in various consumer products.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin outlined the agency’s plans to address PFAS contamination, such as establishing a liability framework to hold polluters accountable. The announcement also said it would continue soliciting public comment on a risk assessment of biosolids, which found fertilizers that contain treated sewage tainted with PFAS can pose a health risk to people who consume milk, eggs and beef.
And most recently, during a visit to Texas A&M University in College Station, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told WFAA that addressing PFAS contamination was a “high priority” for him. He said he was aware of the situation in Johnson County and is working with the EPA to come up with solutions like “ending the production of PFAS.”
Days after the hearing, Kerwin said she remains encouraged, even if the bill doesn’t advance this session.
“I think the door is opening where we can address this going forward,” she said, acknowledging that the legislation will likely need to be reintroduced next session.
Source: Alejandra Martinez, The Texas Tribune
Photo Credit: Tony Coleman passes by cattle while driving through his property in Grandview on Aug. 5, 2024. Coleman and his wife claim that fertilizer tainted with PFAS washed onto their land, contaminating it. Credit: Azul Sordo for The Texas Tribune
