Title: Investigations and Legal Disputes Emerge from PFAS Contamination in Texas Agricultural Land
In Johnson County, Texas, a tragic sequence of incidents that commenced in late December 2022 has drawn national attention to the escalating worries regarding the application of biosolid-based fertilizers and the ecological risks linked to hazardous “forever chemicals” known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). At the heart of the debate is Synagro, a biosolids management firm accused of polluting local farms, leading to the deaths of aquatic and livestock species, and supposedly threatening the welfare of residents in the vicinity.
This situation has ignited a complex intersection of legal and scientific controversies, encompassing a criminal inquiry, two lawsuits, and wider ramifications for the federal regulation of biosolid applications.
PFAS Detected in Farms Neighboring Synagro Activities
The inquiry was initiated after farmers near Grandview, in Johnson County, reported the mysterious deaths of numerous fish, cattle, and horses. The affected farms were adjacent to areas where Synagro’s biosolid-based fertilizer, Granulite, had been utilized.
Dana Ames, an environmental crimes investigator for Johnson County, gathered various samples from two of the affected farms, including soil, pond and well water, animal tissue, and the fertilizer itself. Laboratory tests indicated concerning levels of PFAS contamination.
– A stillborn calf registered over 613,000 nanograms per liter (ng/l) of PFAS in its liver.
– Two fish were recorded at 74,000 ng/l and 57,000 ng/l of PFOS (a particular PFAS variant), respectively.
– The Granulite fertilizer was identified to contain 13,000 ng/l of PFOS per 100g.
To put these figures in perspective, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a national enforceable drinking water standard for PFOS in 2023 at merely 4 ng/l—rendering the reported levels in Johnson County vastly above what is deemed safe for public exposure.
Biosolids and Their Associated Hazards
Synagro’s fertilizer is composed of biosolids—processed municipal sewage sludge—originating from the city of Fort Worth. These byproducts have historically been utilized in the U.S. as cost-effective agricultural fertilizers. Nonetheless, biosolids are increasingly facing scrutiny for potentially harboring industrial contaminants such as PFAS, which persist in the environment and are associated with negative health impacts even in minimal quantities.
Kyla Bennett, an ecologist and PFAS specialist consulting on the case through the nonprofit organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), expressed that these pollutants likely leached from Granulite into the soil and neighboring environments, ultimately being absorbed by both livestock and aquatic organisms.
Ongoing Criminal and Civil Proceedings
Ames’s investigation continues, but two pivotal legal developments have already occurred:
1. A civil lawsuit initiated by affected farmers against Synagro and its local branch.
2. A lawsuit launched by PEER aimed at compelling the EPA to regulate PFAS in biosolids.
Simultaneously, local authorities have faced increasing public demand for action. On March 25, 2024, the Fort Worth City Council voted to end its 10-year agreement with Synagro, citing the ongoing controversy and opting to manage biosolids processing independently starting April 5.
Synagro Responds with Its Own Testing
In light of the intensifying legal and public scrutiny, Synagro disclosed results from independent scientific assessments it sought. Conducted by an external consulting agency and scrutinized by Linda Lee, an environmental engineer at Purdue University, the report reportedly concluded that Granulite fertilizer “could not be the source” of the elevated PFAS levels.
According to Synagro, soil samples taken from the Grandview farm showed PFAS levels well within typical background concentrations observed throughout the United States. Synagro representatives assert that the “PFAS fingerprint” from the affected locations does not correspond with that of their product.
However, detractors contend that this analysis lacks transparency. The complete report has not been disclosed due to ongoing legal disputes, and some experts remain doubtful due to the unexplained inconsistencies between Synagro’s findings and those of the county investigators. Importantly, Synagro’s analyst, Dr. Lee, acknowledged that she had not been given access to the tissue contamination data that initiated the investigation.
“There is no clarification for the unusually high PFAS levels reported in the fish or the stillborn calf,” stated Lee, while asserting that her conclusions regarding the soil are consistent with existing standards.
Ames retains confidence in the reliability of her findings. “Our investigation is solid,” she stated. “Ultimately, all of the evidence will be presented in court, and judges and juries will determine the outcome.”
Wider Implications
The Johnson County situation is a component of a broader national reckoning surrounding PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their