In the rural stretches of Lincoln County, Oklahoma, Leslie Stewart believed she had found her perfect sanctuary when she moved there over two decades ago. The small town vibe, combined with the opportunity to send her son to a good school and ample land to raise goats and dogs, seemed idyllic.
However, the tranquility was disrupted when her neighbor decided to use sewage sludge—waste left over from municipal wastewater treatments—on his farmland as a fertilizer. This practice resulted in a noxious odor that left Stewart, who has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, struggling to breathe even with her oxygen machine.
“The smell is so overpowering that it infiltrates my oxygen machine,” Stewart lamented. During the warmer months, the sludge, also known as biosolids, attracted swarms of flies that invaded her home, entering through vents and even the stove.
Stewart’s experience is not unique in rural America, where using sewage sludge as a fertilizer is a common, decades-long practice. However, this method is increasingly under scrutiny due to fears about the possible pollution of groundwater by toxic substances found in wastewater. In Texas, a state of disaster has already been declared in response to fish and cattle deaths and groundwater contamination in areas using sewage sludge as fertilizer.
In Oklahoma and other states, efforts are being made to regulate or outright ban the practice. Oklahoma is considering a ban similar to the one temporarily enacted in Maine, while other states are implementing stricter regulations.
A primary concern centers around the health risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—synthetic chemicals prevalent in various household items and industrial products. Dubbed “forever chemicals” for their persistence in the environment, PFAS are linked to liver disease, low birth weight, and several cancers. These substances often end up in sewage sludge used on farms.
From an economic standpoint, sewage sludge offers a cost-saving alternative to synthetic fertilizers as farmers typically receive it at no cost, stated Brian Arnall, an Oklahoma State University professor specializing in plant and soil sciences.
According to a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study, applying sewage sludge on farmland presents human health risks that sometimes far exceed the EPA’s acceptable levels. Another study highlighted that PFAS could seep into groundwater following just one sludge application.
The controversy reached a head in Oklahoma after a long-serving state House member lost a GOP primary partly because he supported the use of sewage sludge. His opponent, Rep. Jim Shaw, who won the race, has prioritized banning the practice across the state.
“This is rapidly becoming a critical issue,” Shaw asserted, emphasizing the immediacy for action. In areas like Shaw’s district surrounding Oklahoma City, where large tracts of land are designated for sludge application, the issue is especially pressing.
While some municipalities, including Oklahoma City, argue that biosolids are a cheaper disposal option compared to incineration or landfill use, they acknowledge the costly infrastructure changes needed for alternatives. Oklahoma City estimates a shift away from land application could require over $100 million and up to a decade of development.
Oklahoma’s Department of Environmental Quality enforces certain safety standards for biosolids, such as limits on heavy metal content and pathogen levels, though they currently do not monitor PFAS levels.
Although biosolid processors like Synagro claim compliance with all federal and state regulations, and cite benefits like soil enrichment and climate change mitigation from lower methane emissions, these assurances do not appease opponents.
Saundra Traywick, an outspoken critic from Luther, Oklahoma, successfully campaigned for a local ban and continues advocating against the practice at the state level despite resistance from municipal entities wishing to maintain cost-effective sludge usage.
“They’re saving costs on landfills and improvements by dumping this outside their districts, while spending on other community projects,” said Traywick. “It’s an injustice that infuriates me.”