PFAS Sewage Sludge Farm Lawsuit: EPA Biosolids Questions

PFAS litigation has often focused on drinking water contamination, firefighting foam, industrial sites, and consumer products. A newer and increasingly important concern involves sewage sludge — also called biosolids — that may contain PFAS and may be applied to farmland as fertilizer.

A recent Spotlight on America report from The National Desk highlighted farmers who say PFAS-contaminated sewage sludge damaged land, water, cattle, and their ability to continue farming. The report focused in part on Texas farmers Tony and Karen Coleman, who trace alleged contamination on or near their property to biosolids applied to land.

The same report describes a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alleging that the agency failed to adequately regulate PFAS in sewage sludge under the Clean Water Act. The claims are part of a broader fight over whether existing federal rules have kept pace with what is now known about "forever chemicals."

What Are Biosolids?

Biosolids are treated sewage sludge generated through wastewater treatment. In some circumstances, biosolids are used as fertilizer or soil amendment on agricultural land. That practice has long been promoted as a way to reuse treated waste material instead of disposing of it in landfills or through other methods.

The PFAS concern is that wastewater treatment plants may receive PFAS from homes, businesses, industry, landfill leachate, firefighting foam, consumer products, and other sources. Treatment systems may not fully destroy these chemicals. As a result, some PFAS may remain in sludge that is later applied to land.

Once PFAS reach farmland, they may raise questions about soil, groundwater, crops, livestock, milk, meat, and long-term property use. Those questions are legally important because they involve not only contamination, but also notice, testing, regulatory duties, damages, and responsibility among multiple possible parties.

Why Farmers Are Worried

Farmers affected by alleged PFAS contamination may face consequences that go beyond ordinary cleanup costs. Depending on the facts, alleged PFAS contamination may affect whether land can be farmed, whether livestock can remain on the property, whether milk or meat can be sold, and whether a family farm can continue operating.

The National Desk report described farmers in several states — including Texas, Maine, Michigan, and New Mexico — who have raised concerns about land and livestock contamination tied to biosolids. The report also noted examples involving herds being euthanized, milk or meat being deemed unsafe, and land being taken out of production.

These allegations are especially serious because many farmers may have accepted biosolids based on the understanding that the material was treated, regulated, and safe for agricultural use. If later testing shows PFAS contamination, farmers may argue that they were not given meaningful notice of the potential risks.

The Farmer v. EPA Lawsuit

The lawsuit discussed in the report — sometimes referred to as Farmer v. EPA — focuses on the EPA's responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. In general terms, the farmers and advocacy groups allege that EPA failed to properly identify, evaluate, and regulate PFAS in sewage sludge.

The legal issue is not simply whether PFAS exist in the environment. The question is whether federal regulators had a mandatory duty to act on PFAS risks in biosolids and whether existing sewage-sludge rules are outdated in light of modern PFAS science.

The dispute also highlights a practical gap: drinking water has received major federal attention, while biosolids have remained a more complicated and less visible pathway for PFAS exposure. Farmers may argue that this gap left agricultural communities exposed to risks they could not reasonably detect on their own.

The Regulatory Gap Matters

One of the most important facts for readers is that PFAS regulation has not developed evenly across every exposure pathway. EPA finalized national drinking water standards for certain PFAS in 2024, but biosolids regulation has moved more slowly.

According to EPA's biosolids materials, the agency issued a draft sewage sludge risk assessment for PFOA and PFOS in 2025. That assessment addresses potential risks associated with sewage sludge that is land-applied as fertilizer, surface disposed, or incinerated.

For litigation purposes, the timing matters. Plaintiffs may argue that regulators and companies knew enough about PFAS risks to act sooner. Defendants and agencies may respond that PFAS science, testing methods, exposure pathways, and risk-management options are complex and still developing. For a broader regulatory perspective, see EPA PFAS rule analysis.

Why Biosolids Cases Differ From Drinking Water Cases

PFAS drinking water cases often focus on wells, municipal water systems, industrial discharges, military bases, airports, and firefighting foam. Biosolids cases may involve a different factual pattern.

A biosolids-related PFAS claim may require investigation into:

• Where the sludge came from
• Which wastewater treatment facility processed it
• Whether the sludge was tested for PFAS
• Who applied the biosolids to land
• Whether farmers or nearby property owners were warned
• Whether soil, water, crops, livestock, milk, or meat tested positive for PFAS
• Whether contamination affected property value or agricultural operations

That makes these cases potentially complex. Responsibility may be disputed among chemical manufacturers, industrial users, wastewater entities, sludge applicators, regulators, landowners, and others involved in the chain of events. For background on how multi-defendant cases are organized, see how lawsuits work and mass torts.

If you're trying to figure out which contamination path applies to your situation, the free PFAS exposure checker on Lawsuit Center sorts farm/biosolids contamination separately from drinking water, AFFF, and occupational exposure paths.

How This Could Affect PFAS Litigation

PFAS litigation has already produced major settlements involving public water systems and alleged contamination from firefighting foam and industrial sources. Biosolids claims could broaden the litigation landscape by adding agricultural damages, food-supply concerns, and farmland remediation issues.

These claims may involve different categories of harm than a typical water contamination case. Farmers may seek damages for lost livestock, lost milk production, loss of crop use, diminished property value, testing costs, remediation costs, business interruption, and long-term monitoring.

The legal theories may also vary. Depending on the facts, plaintiffs may raise claims involving negligence, nuisance, trespass, product liability, failure to warn, regulatory violations, or statutory duties. Claims against federal agencies raise separate legal questions and may face procedural hurdles that differ from claims against private companies.

Why Food-Supply Concerns May Receive More Attention

PFAS contamination on farms raises public concern because agriculture connects soil, water, animals, crops, and consumers. If PFAS move from biosolids into farmland and then into livestock or agricultural products, the issue becomes more than an environmental contamination dispute.

This does not mean every farm that used biosolids has unsafe products or viable legal claims. PFAS issues are fact-specific and depend on testing, exposure history, chemical levels, land use, and regulatory standards. But the possibility of food-chain movement is one reason biosolids are likely to remain an important PFAS issue.

What to Watch Next

Several developments could shape the next stage of PFAS biosolids litigation and regulation:

• Whether EPA finalizes or revises its sewage sludge risk assessment
• Whether federal regulators create PFAS testing requirements for biosolids
• Whether more states restrict or ban land application of sludge containing PFAS
• Whether farmer lawsuits survive procedural challenges
• Whether Congress advances compensation or cleanup legislation for affected farms
• Whether additional testing identifies PFAS contamination in soil, water, livestock, milk, meat, or crops

For PFAS litigation, the central question is widening. It is no longer only about whether forever chemicals reached drinking water. Courts, regulators, and communities may increasingly ask how PFAS moved through waste streams, farmland, and the food system — and who should pay when those pathways cause harm.

Common Questions People Ask

What are biosolids and why is PFAS a concern?

Biosolids are treated sewage sludge generated through wastewater treatment, sometimes applied to farmland as fertilizer. Wastewater plants may receive PFAS from homes, businesses, industry, landfill leachate, and firefighting foam. Treatment may not fully destroy these chemicals, so PFAS can remain in the resulting sludge.

What is the Farmer v. EPA lawsuit about?

The lawsuit alleges that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency failed to adequately regulate PFAS in sewage sludge under the Clean Water Act. Plaintiffs argue that federal regulators had a duty to act on PFAS risks in biosolids and that existing sewage-sludge rules are outdated relative to current PFAS science.

How do biosolids PFAS claims differ from drinking water claims?

Drinking water cases often focus on wells, municipal water systems, industrial discharges, military bases, and firefighting foam. Biosolids cases may require investigation into where the sludge came from, which treatment facility processed it, who applied it, whether it was tested, and whether soil, water, crops, livestock, milk, or meat tested positive for PFAS.

What kinds of damages do farmers allege from PFAS biosolids contamination?

Depending on the facts, farmers may allege lost livestock, lost milk production, loss of crop use, diminished property value, testing costs, remediation costs, business interruption, and long-term monitoring costs. Some reports describe herds being euthanized and milk or meat being deemed unsafe.

Has EPA issued PFAS rules for biosolids?

EPA finalized national drinking water standards for certain PFAS in 2024. For biosolids, EPA issued a draft sewage sludge risk assessment for PFOA and PFOS in 2025 covering land-applied, surface-disposed, and incinerated sludge. The biosolids regulatory pathway has moved more slowly than drinking water.

Bottom Line

PFAS-contaminated sewage sludge may become one of the next major fronts in forever chemical litigation. The issue connects environmental regulation, agriculture, food-supply concerns, wastewater management, and farmer compensation in a way that could draw increasing attention from courts, regulators, and lawmakers.