Texas bill seeking to keep toxic 'forever chemicals' off farmland misses key deadline

A bill aimed at limiting the spread of toxic chemicals on Texas farmland has hit a political wall — missing a key deadline that decreases its likelihood of passage this session.
House Bill 1674, introduced by Rep. Helen Kerwin, R-Cleburne, aims to regulate the use of fertilizers made from treated sewage, also known as biosolids, by requiring regular testing for PFAS — a group of long-lasting, harmful chemicals often called 'forever chemicals.'
Supporters of the bill say it would protect agricultural land and the nation's food supply from dangerous chemicals that don't break down and are linked to health problems including cancer, birth defects, liver damage, and immune system disorders. However, opponents — including wastewater utilities — say the measure lacks clarity and could drive up disposal costs of biosolids without offering other alternatives to get rid of the sludge.
Kerwin, who is in her first legislative session after being elected in November, says the bill is her top priority — it's the first bill she filed after becoming a lawmaker. And the proposal has won bipartisan support in the House, where 75 of her colleagues signed on as either authors or co-authors.
The House Environmental Regulation Committee heard testimony on the bill last week. Although 74 people had signed up to speak on the bill — 34 in support, 33 against, the rest neutral — only about half got the chance after waiting more than 18 hours for the bill to be heard. After two and a half hours of testimony and debate, the committee left the bill pending.
At this point, its chances of advancing further in the legislative process are slim. Monday was the deadline for House bills to advance out of committee, although there are ways to revive bills up to the end of the legislative session.
'We are not out to impact a large industry, but we just want to begin the narrative so that we can start preventing the disposal of these biosolids,' Kerwin said at the hearing.
A number of Texas wastewater plants have contracts with fertilizer companies to take their biosolids. Those companies market the fertilizers as nutrient rich and environmentally friendly and sell them to farmers as a cheaper alternative.
The bill would require companies that manufacture products made from biosolids to test them monthly for certain PFAS before selling them. Products exceeding certain PFAS limits would need to dispose of them through incineration or at a landfill that will accept them. Companies would be required to publish results online, and violators could face criminal penalties.
PFAS contamination is already impacting Texans. The bill comes after at least five farmers in Johnson County sued a fertilizer company alleging that PFAS-contaminated fertilizer made from Fort Worth's municipal waste poisoned their land, killed their livestock, and left them unable to sell anything produced on their farms. County officials issued a disaster declaration earlier this year asking for Gov. Greg Abbott to request federal disaster assistance after dangerous levels of contamination were found on agricultural land.
Dana Ames, the environmental crime investigator who discovered PFAS contamination in Johnson County farmland, testified at the hearing that started at 1 a.m last Thursday.
'We've gotten a lot of calls from a lot of farmers that have felt deceived,' she said. 'They feel like they've been duped and lied to … by the companies that are encouraging them to use the product.'
Nationally, more than half of sewage sludge was treated and spread on land, according to one study; 19 billion pounds of it was spread on American farms between 2016 and 2021, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found in 2022.
'Across the country family farms like mine are vanishing, not just from economic pressure, but from environmental negligence,' said Karen Coleman, a farmer from Johnson County.
Coleman and her husband Tony took over her father's farm in 2018. The couple didn't spread biosolids-based fertilizer on their land, but they claim storm runoff from a nearby property that used the fertilizer poisoned their land.
Groups representing wastewater treatment operators, water utilities and the chemical industry testified in opposition to Kerwin's bill, warning that the bill would have sweeping consequences for how Texas manages biosolids and create costly logistical challenges for cities and utilities without fully understanding the sources or risks of PFAS.
'[The bill] creates a de facto ban on land application… and would result in significant increases in wastewater rates paid by the public,' said Sarah Kirkle, policy director at the Texas Water Association.
Kirkle and others raised logistical concerns, saying there are only two labs in Texas currently offering PFAS testing for biosolids. She also said there's a lack of short-term storage for biosolids awaiting test results, and uncertainty around landfill space — all of which would make compliance difficult under the bill's timeline.
Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress and a member of the committee, challenged the idea that land application of biosolids should continue at all — especially given emerging concerns about PFAS contamination.
'It seems so obvious that the solid material left over from wastewater treatment is probably not the best thing to spread on land we're going to grow food on,' Oliverson said. 'How did we ever get to a point where someone thought that was a bright idea?'
Julie Nahrgang, executive director with the Water Environment Association of Texas, pushed back, arguing that biosolids recycling is a long-regulated, widely practiced method supported by the Clean Water Act. She said the real focus should be on identifying and regulating the sources PFAS comes from.
'Let's ensure that [PFAS] do not make their way into the environment, to then be passively received by utilities,' she said. 'Let's understand that before we create legislation that impacts all of Texas and impacts us overnight.'
Oliverson remained unconvinced. 'Just because something's been done historically doesn't mean it's safe,' he said. 'We used to put asbestos in for insulation for a long time and we thought that was a good idea, and then we realized it caused cancer.'
Logan Harrell, representing the Texas Chemistry Council, cautioned that the bill sets a precedent for legislating environmental standards directly, rather than deferring to agencies like the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental regulator. 'This bill departs from the standard process,' he said.
The hearing highlighted a key regulatory dilemma: no Texas agency currently has both the authority and responsibility to monitor PFAS in biosolids that are applied to land. Until that changes, officials said, Texas will remain limited in its ability to assess risks or enforce protections.
The TCEQ, which permits biosolids disposal, acknowledged that it has not conducted its own PFAS testing in Johnson County. Instead, the agency relied on third-party data provided by the county to draw conclusions. Lawmakers pushed back on that approach.
'You didn't generate any of your own data,' Oliverson said. 'You're just taking their word.'
Sabine Lange, TCEQ's chief toxicologist, said the data the agency reviewed showed PFAS levels below the agency's own limits it has set for soil and water. Those limits, originally developed in 2011, are now being updated to reflect the growing body of toxicology research.
There is a lot of buzz surrounding PFAS — the chemicals are under increasing scrutiny nationwide. Nearly a dozen Texas counties have passed resolutions urging farmers to stop using biosolids on their land until further testing is conducted. And states like Maine, Vermont, Michigan, and New York have already implemented bans or strict testing protocols.
Last year, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against chemical giants 3M and DuPont, accusing them of misleading the public about the risks of PFAS in various consumer products.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin outlined the agency's plans to address PFAS contamination, such as establishing a liability framework to hold polluters accountable. The announcement also said it would continue soliciting public comment on a risk assessment of biosolids, which found fertilizers that contain treated sewage tainted with PFAS can pose a health risk to people who consume milk, eggs and beef.
And most recently, during a visit to Texas A&M University in College Station, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told WFAA that addressing PFAS contamination was a 'high priority' for him. He said he was aware of the situation in Johnson County and is working with the EPA to come up with solutions like 'ending the production of PFAS.'
Days after the hearing, Kerwin said she remains encouraged, even if the bill doesn't advance this session.
'I think the door is opening where we can address this going forward,' she said, acknowledging that the legislation will likely need to be reintroduced next session.
Disclosure: Texas A&M University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

32 minutes ago

Congress faces uphill battle to challenge Trump on war powers

President Donald Trump's strike against Iran will be met with pushback on Capitol Hill this week as some lawmakers argue the military action was unconstitutional. There are several bipartisan resolutions that could receive a vote in coming days that may put some lawmakers in uncomfortable positions as they consider whether Trump ignored the role of Congress in striking Tehran. It's unlikely though, at this stage, that Trump's rank-and-file Republican base will abandon him by supporting these bills. If any were to make it to Trump's desk, there likely wouldn't be enough votes to override his veto. Trump's decision to hit Iran in the stated aim of wiping out its nuclear capabilities follows a decades-long pattern of presidents taking military action and not waiting for Congress to sign off. Other examples include Joe Biden's airstrikes in Syria in 2021, Barack Obama's military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq as well as George H.W. Bush's invasion of Panama. House and Senate lawmakers are expected to receive briefings on the Iran strike on Tuesday. Trump faces bipartisan blowback Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a War Powers Resolution last week to prohibit "United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran." Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine is leading a similar Senate resolution, which could come up sometime this week as the chamber tries to move forward with a megabill to fund much of Trump's domestic policy agenda. All three appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS News on Sunday to make their case. Massie contended there was "no imminent threat to the United States" that would authorize the president to strike Iran without congressional approval. Kaine similarly said: "This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress. We should not be sending troops and risking troops' lives in an offensive war without a debate in Congress." Kaine added that he hopes Republicans push back. "I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously," the Virginia Democrat said. Khanna warned there is a possibility the strike is not a one-time occurrence. "There are people who want regime change in Iran. And they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail," Khanna said on CBS. "We need to pass Thomas Massie and my War Powers Resolution to make it clear that we're not going to get further entrenched into the Middle East." Trump lashed out at Massie in a lengthy social media post on Sunday, writing the Republican congressman is "not MAGA" and that "MAGA doesn't want him" and "doesn't respect him." Trump said he'll campaign for Massie's Republican primary opponent in the next election. Congress has twice before called out Trump on his use of military force without congressional approval. In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen, which Trump vetoed. In 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. In response, Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president's ability to wage war against Iran, which was again quickly rejected by Trump. What is the 1973 War Powers Resolution? The legislation introduced by Massie and Khanna seeking to limit Trump's ability to take U.S. military action against Iran cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that the president "in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." It also states that in the absence of a declaration of war but when armed forces are introduced, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours the circumstances necessitating their introduction and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations. Trump admin says strike was legally justified Top officials defended the military action over the weekend. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the administration "complied with the notification requirements" of the War Powers Resolution, saying members of Congress were notified "after the planes were safely out." Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio also sought to emphasize the U.S. is not at war with Iran. Trump, though, warned that more strikes could come if Iran doesn't negotiate a deal. "If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill," he said in his address to the nation on Saturday night. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a vocal supporter of military action against Iran leading up to Trump's decision, argued on NBC News that Trump has all the authority he needs under Article II of the Constitution. "Congress can declare war or cut off funding," Graham said. "We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commanders-in-chief." The administration could also cite an existing military authorization as grounds for legal justification for striking against Iran. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by Congress that authorized counterterrorism operations by U.S. military forces against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Congress passed another AUMF targeting Iraq in 2002. Both have since been cited to authorize military force in more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Somalia due to the broad language in the resolutions. Critics have often said the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs grant the president powers to unilaterally wage "perpetual worldwide wars" and some lawmakers have been keen to repeal it -- but those efforts have all been unsuccessful.

Engadget

42 minutes ago

• Engadget

US House reportedly bans WhatsApp on government devices

US congressional staffers have reportedly been told that they're no longer allowed to use WhatsApp on government devices. The House of Representatives' chief administrative officer (CAO) is said to have informed workers on Monday that the app — including the mobile, desktop and web-based versions — is not permitted on House-managed devices. "The Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data, absence of stored data encryption and potential security risks involved with its use," the CAO wrote in an email, according to Axios . Microsoft Teams, Wickr, Signal (despite how easy it might be to accidentally invite a reporter to a sensitive group chat), iMessage and FaceTime were reportedly cited as acceptable alternatives, and the CAO reminded workers to be vigilant regarding potential phishing scams. "We disagree with the House Chief Administrative Officer's characterization in the strongest possible terms," Meta spokesperson Andy Stone wrote on X . "We know members and their staffs regularly use WhatsApp and we look forward to ensuring members of the House can join their Senate counterparts in doing so officially. Messages on WhatsApp are end-to-end encrypted by default, meaning only the recipients and not even WhatsApp can see them. This is a higher level of security than most of the apps on the CAO's approved list that do not offer that protection." The step follows limitations on congressional staffers' use of other apps (including generative AI ones) that the CAO has deemed to be risky. Those include ChatGPT , TikTok , DeepSeek (which some states and federal departments have also banned from government devices ) and Microsoft Copilot .

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Texas Boosts Film Incentive to $150 Million a Year in Bid to Lure Production From Regional Rivals

Texas is beefing up its incentive for film production, as the state seeks to compete with regional rivals like New Mexico and Georgia. Gov. Greg Abbott allowed a bill to become law on Sunday that increases the program to $300 million every two years, up from $200 million. The bill also guarantees that funding — which has been irregular in past budget cycles — for a full decade. More from Variety Taylor Sheridan Sets Crime Thriller 'F.A.S.T' at Warner Bros. With Brandon Sklenar to Star Ryan Reynolds, Taylor Sheridan and Mark Cuban Attend Exclusive Kiawah Confab With Global Sports Leaders '1923' Is Now Streaming: Here's How to Watch the 'Yellowstone' Spin-Off Online The goal is to nurture the local industry and ensure that films and TV shows that are set in Texas are also filmed there. 'We were losing Texas stories to New Mexico, Louisiana and Georgia,' said Chase Musselwhite, co-founder of the advocacy group Media for Texas. 'We want to shoot them in Texas.' Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a former conservative talk radio host who has dabbled in film production, has made increasing the program a top priority — touting the measure as a bid to make Texas 'America's film capital.' His original proposal was $500 million every two years, but it was trimmed by the House last month. Abbott did not sign the bill, SB 22, but allowed it to become law without his signature. At $150 million a year, Texas will not be in the same league as California, New York and Georgia. But it will occupy a second tier of states, including Louisiana and Pennsylvania, where subsidies are significant enough to consistently attract production. Several Texas celebrities came on board the effort, which won broad support from both Democrats and Republicans in the legislature. 'I have worked with Taylor Sheridan, Matthew McConaughey, and other Texans on this project to promote Texas values, not Hollywood ones,' Patrick said on social media in March. Texas' program is unusual in giving the film office leeway to reject projects that include 'inappropriate content or content that portrays Texas or Texans in a negative fashion.' Most states avoid content restrictions, fearing a First Amendment challenge. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Texas' content regulations in 2015, finding the state had a right not to fund 'Machete Kills,' the sequel to a Robert Rodriguez film that was critical of hardline immigration enforcement. McConaughey, speaking to a Senate committee in March, said that the resistance to film incentives in the state is more 'philosophical' than economical. 'You don't want to help a movie get made in Texas that throws rocks at Texas or Texans,' he said. 'Me neither.' Sheridan, the prolific 'Yellowstone' producer, was a key player in the effort. He has made a string of recent shows in Texas, including '1883' and 'Landman.' He explained to a committee last fall that none of those shows could have been produced in Texas without the state's financial support. He also said he regretted that 'Hell or High Water' was made in New Mexico due to subsidies there. 'It is a necessary implementation of our business,' he said. 'The model that these networks and these studios operates by now mandates that you have one. They cannot and will not finance a film without an incentive from a state. They will not do it.' Many in Texas recoil from 'Hollywood.' But Sheridan's shows and 'The Chosen,' the Bible show filmed primarily in the Dallas area, have gone a long way toward persuading Texans to support production, said Nate Strayer, CEO of Stray Vista Studios in Dripping Springs. 'With stories that resonate, that fear is starting to go away,' he said. But in Texas, incentives still come with a critique. 'When you look at 'Landman' — it's completely wrong,' said Sen. Paul Bettencourt, at the hearing in March. 'It's not functionally correct. It doesn't explain what a landman does. Having Billy Bob Thornton f-bomb every other sentence is not Texas values. We do need to get a handle on this.' Best of Variety New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week 'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts? 25 Hollywood Legends Who Deserve an Honorary Oscar