Maine agriculture officials describe PFAS response program, $60 million PFAS Fund and land‑purchase option

Deputy Commissioner Nancy McBrady and Beth Valentine, director of the PFAS Fund, briefed the board on Maine’s PFAS response program and the PFAS Fund, describing technical assistance, research investments, health support and a land‑purchase option for impacted properties.

McBrady described the department’s PFAS response work as a multi‑agency effort that began in 2019 and has matured into a staffed program. She told the board the department has seven full‑time staff and two part‑time consultants assigned to PFAS response and that the department has spent more than $3,000,000 on sampling, testing and on‑farm investments to help affected farms manage contamination.

McBrady said the department has worked with roughly 90 farms with varying levels of PFAS detection; of those, she said five farms have closed and three reduced operations because of PFAS impacts. She also described DEP’s tiered approach to testing sites that historically accepted biosolids (sludge) and said detection levels generally decline outside Tier‑1 areas.

Beth Valentine described the PFAS Fund, which the meeting record shows was established by the state in 2022 with a $60,000,000 appropriation and augmented by a $5,000,000 USDA grant. Valentine said the fund has four primary components: direct financial assistance and technical support for farmers, research grants, health support (including planned blood testing), and property purchases and stewardship.

Land purchases and stewardship

Valentine outlined a voluntary purchase program for properties with confirmed PFAS contamination. The fund will buy fee simple from willing sellers at an appraised fair‑market value that assumes the property is not contaminated. Department staff review applications, conduct an appraisal, and — if the owner accepts the appraisal — execute a purchase and complete due diligence. After purchase, the department plans to enroll the parcel in DEP’s voluntary response program and apply deed restrictions as appropriate. The department said it aims to return properties to agricultural use where feasible through sale or lease; where that is not feasible it will consider research, conservation or recreation uses.

Valentine said the program closed its first purchase in February and has two additional appraisals completed and purchase‑and‑sale agreements under review.

Health and research components

Valentine said the PFAS Fund will support blood serum testing for eligible individuals (farmers, farmworkers and private‑well residents) and will fund mental‑health and counseling resources tied to PFAS exposure. The fund is also sponsoring multi‑category research grants (transfer in water/plants, animal/product transfer, mitigation, remediation) and expects to announce awards from its first solicitation in mid to late April.

Mitigation work and practical findings

McBrady described the program’s practical experience: in many cases farms with PFAS detections can continue operating with mitigation and management adjustments. She detailed mitigation strategies the department has applied or recommended, including identifying and using cleaner feed sources, reorganizing bunker storage to avoid mixing contaminated material, targeted field testing to locate hotspots, and altering livestock feeding cycles to reduce uptake into milk or meat. McBrady said these approaches have allowed many affected farms to reduce product PFAS levels over time; she showed one dairy’s milk testing trend that dropped from elevated levels to near‑non‑detect after sustained mitigation.

Financing horizon and replenishment

Valentine said the fund was projected during planning to last about five years at the expected expenditure rate. She also noted the statutory structure allows replenishment of the fund through recoveries from litigation or settlements pursued by the state attorney general’s office against manufacturers, and that legislation under consideration could broaden the program’s ability to lease properties and return proceeds to the fund.

Board members asked about eligibility, testing protocols, the mechanics of appraisals for municipally owned match parcels and the timetable for field sampling; staff said they will continue to work with LMF staff on project‑specific due diligence when PFAS is present on candidate parcels.