Home Part of States Newsroom
News
Farms devastated by PFAS still waiting on state support

Share

Farms devastated by PFAS still waiting on state support

Jul 05, 2022 | 8:24 am ET
By Nathan Bernard
Share
Farms devastated by PFAS still waiting on state support
Description
Maine DEP staff testing for PFAS | Official photo

The Mills administration recently passed a bill approving $60 million to combat the impacts of PFAS, but farmers, who are worried about the threats to their health and livelihood, may not receive that funding for some time. 

PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances commonly known as “forever chemicals,” are industrial chemicals widely used to make non-stick cookware and other products. For decades, PFAS byproduct was used in sludge fertilizer and spread on farms across Maine until it came to light the chemicals may be linked to harmful health impacts on humans and animals. 

Farmers and other landowners across Maine have been reeling in recent months, concerned about the impact of soil contamination on their crops and personal health. 

Adam Nordell owns Songbird Farm in Unity and recently joined Defend Our Health as a campaign director after realizing the extent of the PFAS contamination on his property. As Nordell saw firsthand, PFAS contamination “touches everything about a farm operation, from the logistics of field work, animal care, marketing and financial planning, not to mention the health and well being of the farmers and farmworkers.”

Fund for farmers established

Among the bills passed last session to address the issue was legislation to create a $60 million fund to monitor health outcomes of people affected by PFAS; provide medical care to people with blood levels of PFAS greater than the general population; relocate commercial farms when their land is contaminated with PFAS; buy and sell land contaminated by PFAS; provide income and mortgage replacement for farms affected by PFAS; and conduct soil, water and crop research.  

While the legislation laid out areas of focus, it did not, however, create explicit criteria for the funds’ distribution. Rather, the bill left the details to the Department of Conservation, Agriculture, and Forestry (DACF), with the input of an advisory committee consisting of a variety of stakeholders chosen by DACF. 

“There are steps that need to happen before the funds can be dispersed. The biggest one is setting up the advisory committee that the law calls for to decide how the funds should be spent,” Defend our Health policy director Sarah Woodbury told Beacon. “The law calls for five farmers, one person with public health experience, and one person with financial experience… That is going to take some time to pull together.”

Prior to establishing the advisory committee, Bureau of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources director Nancy McBrady said they need to hire a fund director. This person will work directly with the advisory committee, multiple working groups or subcommittees, and various stakeholders to develop the fund parameters and spending priorities. The application period for this position does not close until July 5, and, according to McBrady, there is currently no timeline for farmers to receive support.

“Timing will depend upon how quickly the new director can work with the advisory committee to stand up the fund’s parameters,” McBrady told Beacon. “Because this is a new program, we are proceeding with care to ensure the process works.” 

McBrady also said that while the PFAS fund is being established, ​​the Bureau of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources has an existing income replacement program that it recently launched to help assist impacted farms and it is working on its first set of applications. This program will ultimately transfer to the fund once it is established.

Rep. Bill Pluecker (I-Warren), co-author of the bill creating the fund, hopes that once the committee is convened their decisions will align with the initial vision for the bill, which is to create a “viable long-term plan” for statewide remediation efforts and providing financial relief for affected farmers.

“I know how the bill was written, because I wrote it, but I am not sure of the priorities the committee will see for itself,” Pluecker told Beacon. “We were looking at income replacement for farmers, safe and scientific studies for bioremediation, looking at the long-term health effects for farmers and affected residents, long-term strategies for protecting the Maine brand at large, ongoing filtration for affected water supplies, and alternative marketing strategies for affected farmers.”

As Pleucker and Nordell noted, farmers across Maine have diverse impacts depending on the nature of their contamination and their type of farm business. “The aid should be flexible to respond effectively to those variations,” Nordell said, noting that farmers will need state support for infrastructure, income replacement, help securing loan forgiveness and, for the most impacted, “the State needs to offer a market value buy-out.”

While Pluecker also hopes the committee prioritizes keeping Maine farmers competitive in out-of-state markets. 

“Farmers need to know that they have a place to turn when they are faced with PFAS contamination, that there is a program up and running. The agricultural industry needs to know that they won’t be harmed long-term by these issues,” Pluecker added. “Consumers need to have full confidence in the food being produced in the state of Maine.”

Nordell agreed, saying “the PFAS-affected farmers who have gone public and have stayed in business and are doing the very hard and transparent work to bring PFAS- free produce to market are the heros of the PFAS crisis in Maine.”

“They have risked everything for the cause of healthy food and they deserve our steadfast support as customers,” he added. “They also deserve robust support from the State of Maine.”

No safe level of PFAS

Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced there is no safe level of two major groups of PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, in drinking water. Both chemicals have been found on farms, ground wells and aquifers across Maine. The state is in the process of testing more than 700 unique sites where these chemicals may be present.

Environmental advocates including Woodbury believe the new EPA guidelines mean the $60 million fund will need to be increased. 

“If the state adjusts its standards based on the new EPA guidelines, which we believe it should, more people, particularly those on well water, are going to find themselves with contaminated water,” Woodbury said. “It is also likely that more agricultural land and products are going to be considered contaminated.” 

“There should be increased funding to help monitor the health of those individuals, as is called for under [the original legislation],” Woodbury continued. “And, with those new numbers, it’s possible more farmers will be impacted as well. We are going to need more than $60 million to deal with the issue.”

Meanwhile, McBrady said the $60 million is already a “significant investment” by the governor and legislature. However, if and when more funds are necessary, McBrady noted the legislation does allow for additional appropriations to be directed to the fund and for the fund to accept money awarded through legal actions taken by the state against PFAS manufacturers. 

The state is currently looking into potential legal claims involving PFAS and other man-made chemicals that have been used in a wide variety of industrial and commercial applications and have been detected in environmental samples across Maine.

“There is strong evidence that these chemicals are harmful and threaten Mainers’ health and well-being,” said Attorney General Aaron M. Frey in a recent press statement. “It is important to hold manufacturers of these chemicals accountable for contamination they are responsible for. This is an important first step in that process.”

McBrady also said the state has to apply for an EPA grant to help states “with the reduction of PFAS and other emerging contaminants in drinking water in small or disadvantaged communities”

Pluecker believes it’s still “a little too soon” to know exactly what further legislation will be needed given the EPA’s new standards, but “it’s clear many public water systems will be affected” by the new advisory levels.

“We really need to pay a lot of attention to the levels we are setting for foods from milk to beef to vegetables,” Pluecker said. “We also need to take a harder look at the long-term health effects of people who have been drinking contaminated water.”

Nordell said that regardless of these outstanding questions, “it is great to know the legislature and the Governor are willing to put these kinds of resources to work addressing the problem of PFAS contamination on our farmland and in farmland adjacent communities.”  

“Of course,” he continued, “we’ll have something to celebrate when the aid actually arrives in the mailbox.”

This story was edited to include quotes from Adam Nordell. Photo: Maine Department of Environmental Protection staff testing for PFAS. | Official photo