For decades, farmers were told it was safe to use sewage sludge on their fields as fertilizer. Now, those living on the land or near it are discovering carcinogenic “forever chemicals” in their drinking water, milk, meat and vegetables, according to the EPA and researchers.

The question of liability has caused concerned farmers. 

American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall said in April that he did not want farmers to be unfairly responsible for PFAS contamination.

“America’s farmers and ranchers share the goal of protecting the nation’s water supplies and they believe those responsible for PFAS contamination should be held accountable,” Duvall said in a statement. “Unfortunately, farmers could be unfairly targeted even though they do not create or use any PFAS in their operations but may have passively received the chemicals. We acknowledge that EPA is saying it does not want farmers and ranchers to be penalized for a situation they did not create, but without those assurances being expressly written in the rule, future enforcement is uncertain.” 

Lisa Hargrave feeds one of her hens which they keep in a fenced area away from the contaminated creek. (Emily Kenny/Spectrum News 1)

The New York Times recently reported that 3M, a manufacturer of PFAS chemicals, warned the EPA about the dangers of these substances in sludge during a 2003 meeting but the agency continued to allow the practice. 

But guidance could be changing. Earlier this month, the EPA released a risk assessment of PFOA and PFOS in sewage sludge. Risk estimates found that those living on or near sites where biosolids have been spread and those who rely on products such as food crops, animal products and drinking water near those sites exceed the acceptable human health risk threshold set by the agency, sometimes by several magnitudes.  

Zach Schafer, director for policy at the EPA’s office of water, said the agency is not looking at farmers as polluters. 

Grandchildren of Eva Turner, a Steuben County resident whose creek has bee contaminated by PFAS, walk down the road near her house. (Emily Kenny/Spectrum News 1)

“The target is not people who passively received these chemicals without knowing it,” Schafer said. “Our goal is to protect farmers’ health, protect the public’s health, and to keep farmers on their land.” 

Farming towns in Steuben County have moved to ban the practice of land application of sewage sludge after residents discovered their drinking wells were contaminated with these so-called ‘forever chemicals’ but are facing resistance from waste management companies and even some local leaders that say they are powerless to stop it.

In response to questions for this project, Amanda Powers, a representative of the New York Farm Bureau, said the group recently confirmed its policy statement on the use of biosolids that condemns action taken at the local level against biosolids. 

“We support the education of both farmers and the public on the benefits and concerns of using biosolids as a source of fertilizer, and using information provided by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets and Environmental Conservation,” she said. “These agencies are the appropriate regulators for the use of this product, and municipal prohibitions restricting the use of biosolids should not be allowed.”

Biosolids at the Watertown Wastewater Treatment Plant. (Emily Kenny/Spectrum News 1)

New York Commissioner of Agriculture Richard Ball said because of the complexity of the issue, conversations are ongoing.  

“At a federal level, all the commissioners of agriculture, we get together and we’re talking about this. We’re suggesting ways to be able to get the farm bureau involved. Everyone is at the table, and we’ll figure it out,” Ball said. 

Ultimately, Ball believes farmers do the best they can to take care of the environment and wouldn’t purposely contaminate the land.  

“There isn’t a farmer here that doesn’t think about how to leave the land better than the way he found it. He wants his children to be able to make a living. He wants agriculture to be a viable way to make a living and so we spend a lot of time talking about what we do for the environment and how we can do a better job,” Ball said. 

Animals grazing on farmland in Steuben County. (Emily Kenny/Spectrum News 1)

John Lemondes, a New York Republican assemblyman and farmer, said the use of biosolids on farms is a double-edged sword.  

“You’ve got skyrocketing prices and, agriculturally, don’t forget margins on food. We have a national cheap food policy,” said Lemondes, whose district includes Cayuga, Chenango, Cortland and Onondaga counties. "That puts further pressure on every farm and every commodity to try and make a profit with an ever, ever increasingly difficult marketplace.”

Ideally, the state could ban biosolid use on agricultural land. However, Lemondes said it’s important to have a good alternative.  

“I think that it might be the right thing to do, but I don’t know what the volume is and what problems that decision would make. What if it decreases our yield by 50%? Agriculture is our number one industry,” Lemondes said. 

By banning biosolids, farmers would pay for more expensive fertilizer options that could cut into their bottom line and ultimately impact the price of food for consumers, Lemondes said. 

The Cohocton river running through Bath. Many of the creeks and tributaries that have been found to be contaminated with PFAS all lead to this river. (Emily Kenny/Spectrum News 1))

Maine and Connecticut have banned the practice of land application of sewage sludge. However, the Northeast Biosolids Association and the Mid-Atlantic Biosolids Association say these restrictions were done without consideration for other options to discard the waste.  

“I would call what’s done in the state of Maine by the legislators, I would call that a bit of a knee-jerk reaction,” said Janine Burke-Wells, executive director of the Northeast Biosolids Association.  

With only three options for discarding biosolids, eliminating one can be problematic, she said. Nearly all biosolids in Maine go to one state owned landfill, and according to a report from the Department of Enviornmental Protection, its capacity will run out by 2028. 

Angel French enters the sludge disposal building at the Wastewater Treatment Plant in Watertown. (Emily Kenny/Spectrum News 1)

“By far [landfilling] is the worst option for generating greenhouse gases and is the least sustainable. There will continue to be problems and cost increases until they really figure out how they’re going to manage these solids,” Burke-Wells said.  

Besides land application and landfilling the semi-sold waste material, incineration is the other option which isn’t widely supported either, she said. 

“I believe the way we’re practicing it, the way my members are practicing it, it is safe,” Burke-Wells said. “No one is putting biosolids down on a field and just throwing it down there. Everything is done very carefully.” 

Angel French, the chief operating officer for the Watertown Wastewater Treatment Plant, said the science on how biosolids are made begins in the treatment plants. 

"Our operators are monitoring the biological activity of the treatment facility, how much organic matererial is in the water. The chemicals that we use, we have to monitor and meet state permits every day," French said. 

Biosolids at the Watertown wastewater treatment plant. (Emily Kenny/Spectrum News 1)

The plant generates about 4,000 wet tons of biosolids every year and farmers are able to use them on their fields, French said. 

"Everything I've heard from our farmers has been positive feedback. They say the biosolids have increased their yields by multiple times," she said. 

French expressed concerns similar to Burke-Wells that without land application, landfills will begin to reach capacity. Additionally, she worries that the responsibility will fall on the wastewater treatment plants to get rid of PFAS. 

"If biosolids have to go to a landfill, those landfills are going to fill up and it takes a long time for you to start another landfill and get it permitted to actually start fillling it up," French said. "If they put legislation on the wastewater treatment plants where we have to start removing PFAS chemicals, it's going to fall onto the taxpayers and not where the stuff actually originated."