Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the PFAS topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers weigh PFAS limits, testing and a farmers’ fund after hearings on biosolids
Summary
Committee members debated options from testing and modeling to moratoria and funds for farmers after testimony that PFAS in biosolids and sludge threaten farms, water and wildlife. Sponsors proposed using settlement funds, health‑based standards, or modeling prior to a broad ban.
The Environment and Agriculture Committee discussed HB 1275, which would address the effects of per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on agricultural lands and biosolids application.
Representative Thomas and sponsors urged establishing a fund to help farmers pay for testing, emergency clean water and remediation, pointing to 3M settlement money. "We have already gotten $16,000,000 and we're anticipating getting $43,000,000," Thomas said, and proposed deploying some settlement funds to support farmers who discover contaminated water or soils.
Witnesses and committee members debated technical options. Supporters proposed three paths: (1) adopt health‑based standards based on DES sandy‑aquifer criteria where appropriate; (2) use EPA draft risk assessment thresholds for biosolids; or (3) conduct modeling—testing soils where biosolids have been applied and then set protective limits as Maine and Vermont did. Representative Bixby and others emphasized differences in environmental contexts (sandy aquifers versus organic soils) and urged targeted testing before adopting moratoria.
Members raised operational tradeoffs: a moratorium could redirect biosolids to other disposal paths (out‑of‑state shipment or incineration) that may spread PFAS; incineration at ordinary municipal facilities does not reliably destroy PFAS without specialized pyrolysis. Several members urged prioritizing both prevention (controls on industry and product inputs) and remediation funding for affected farms.
What happens next: the committee discussed targeted amendments to direct DES to test affected soils and water and to identify a funding mechanism for monitoring and emergency response. The debate will continue as members weigh immediate moratoria versus stepwise standards backed by testing and modeling.
