Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City warns Senate Bill 3’s biosolids limits could cost Tulsa millions; staff urges science‑based approach
Summary
Water and Sewer staff told the committee that Senate Bill 3, which would phase in and ultimately ban land application of biosolids containing PFAS, could require Tulsa to spend tens of millions of dollars on treatment and disposal and add roughly $10 million a year in operating costs if enacted as drafted.
Water and Sewer department staff briefed the committee about Senate Bill 3, legislation addressing PFAS in biosolids that had passed the state senate by a 42–4 vote and was headed for house committee consideration. Eric Lee, director of water and sewer, and department staff described the division of biosolids management and the potential operational and budgetary impacts if the bill’s timelines and restrictions are enacted as written.
Water and Sewer staff explained biosolids are semi‑solid byproducts of wastewater treatment that the city currently land‑applies to agricultural sites in the region or uses in composting; the department follows federal regulations (40 CFR Part 503) and produces Class B biosolids. Staff said land application is a common beneficial use nationwide and in Oklahoma, and that the department conducts nutrient and heavy‑metal testing under its permits; staff noted the department has not routinely tested for PFAS because it was not previously required.
Under the bill’s language described in committee, utilities would be required to prepare a cessation plan by Sept. 1, 2025, achieve a 25% reduction in land‑applied biosolids initially and 50% the following year, with a total ban on land application by July 2027. Staff explained the draft bill defines “biosolids material” to mean sewage sludge containing any PFAS, which could force utilities to ship more dewatered material to landfills or invest in capital projects (dewatering, thermal drying) to reduce volumes. Water and Sewer estimated operating costs could increase by roughly $10 million per year statewide for Tulsa to dispose of material via landfill and projected capital needs could approach $100 million to add dewatering and other treatment at affected treatment plants; staff warned construction timelines and supply‑chain realities would make rapid compliance impractical.
Staff highlighted open technical questions: measurement thresholds for PFAS in biosolids, agronomic uptake of PFAS into crops (they cited a USGS study showing no agronomic uptake into corn in one review), and the net public‑health tradeoffs between banning land application and the costs borne by ratepayers. Committee members noted the bill’s sponsors included urban and rural senators and urged council coordination with the state delegation. Water and Sewer recommended additional testing, development of scientifically based thresholds (as some states have adopted), and coordination with the Department of Environmental Quality and local legislators before a wholesale ban is enacted.
Councilors asked for fact sheets and talking points to share with legislators; staff said the bill’s fiscal note in the senate did not reflect the full municipal impact and asked council members to contact their state representatives. Several councilors signaled support for a resolution or shared advocacy and requested staff provide draft language. No formal city action was taken at the committee, but staff asked councilors to engage state legislators about consequences for municipal rates and capital needs.
