.jpg)
BATTLING PFAS IN AGRICULTURE
In response to the growing threat of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) contamination on farmland, a new bill, the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act, was introduced to Congress.
This legislation aims to support farmers facing the devastating effects of these toxic chemicals by providing financial aid for cleanup efforts and research. As the agricultural community struggles with this environmental crisis, the bill offers hope for recovery.
Notably, before taking state action against PFAS, farmers took the matter into their own hands by initiating legal actions against the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and against companies selling biosolids contaminated with PFAS as fertilizers.
PFAS Contamination in Colorado County, Texas Texas is one of the leading states in agricultural production, with a number of farms and ranches and acres of farmland. In 2022, there were 230,662 farms in Texas alone, spanning 125.5 million acres. In 2017, in Colorado County, there were over half a million acres of land divided among 1,773 farms, with a total production capacity exceeding $80 million per year.
Based on the PFAS interactive contamination map provided by EPA, Colorado County is not affected by PFAS pollution, either from contaminated sites near military bases or corporate pollution. However, this was also true for Johnson County, located upstate, with no known PFAS pollution source.
Notably, the use of biosolids fertilizers contaminated with PFAS in Johnson County resulted in a significant ecological disaster, for which, earlier this month, the county’s Commissioner issued an emergency declaration seeking federal aid.
As the EPA has not issued any regulations and standards for monitoring PFAS content in biosolids, farmers in Colorado County are advised to be vigilant about monitoring the quality of any fertilizers they use.
Considering the lessons from Johnson County, farmers should request detailed information on the PFAS content of fertilizers from suppliers, especially when the available information is incomplete. For those who can afford it, being proactive and conducting independent soil and water tests could ensure that contamination is detected early, and containment measures are set to avoid spread.
Legislation Relief for Farmers Introduced in 2023, the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act aims to assist farmers affected by the contamination of their land with PFAS. The bill provides financial support for clean-up efforts, research, and grants to mitigate the impact of these harmful chemicals on agricultural activities.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is expected to oversee funding and administer the relief programs. Despite this Act, many farmers still have many issues to deal with. For example, Colorado County does not have a complete contamination map. Farmers that can request funding through this act may, therefore, not even be aware that their water or soil is contaminated.
As efforts for PFAS contamination monitoring are ongoing, this is also true in other states. Subsequently, it can be argued that funding farmers for PFAS relief is complicated when the extent and locations of the contamination are not yet fully understood.
Building Legal Momentum and Justice for Texan Farmers Several major companies are facing lawsuits related to PFAS contamination, with plaintiffs seeking accountability for the widespread environmental damage caused by these harmful chemicals. Notable cases include 3M, which agreed to a $10.3 billion settlement in 2023 over water pollution claims.
DuPont and Chemours faced 3,550 lawsuits for personal injury due to PFAS pollution and settled for $671 million in 2017. In addition, Carrier Global recently agreed to a $730 million settlement over its fire protection foam containing PFAS. In each trial, companies were accused of negligent disposal practices, allowing PFAS to infiltrate soil and water systems and contaminate farmland and products by default, posing a serious threat to public health. However, private companies were not the only ones accused of negligence.
EPA also came under scrutiny for its delayed regulation of PFAS. While the agency does set guidelines, critics argue these are insufficient. In this sense, the Farmer v. EPA case in Texas claims that the EPA failed to regulate PFAS levels in biosolids used as fertilizers by farmers, resulting in widespread contamination of crops and animals.
To this end, while the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act is a much-needed response, the extent of the contamination will most likely require a system-wide coordinated effort. This includes more rigid regulations on PFAS set by the EPA and state-level efforts for identifying contaminated areas and decontamination funding.
Stan Gottfredson is the President and CEO of Atraxia Law, a San Diego-based paralegal firm specializing in assisting individuals affected by toxic exposure.
