Top photo: Courtesy of BDP Industries

The regulatory ground under biosolids land application is shifting, and it is shifting fast. With no finalized federal standard in place, states are writing their own rules on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in biosolids, producing a patchwork of monitoring requirements, reporting mandates, and outright bans that biosolids generators and organics recyclers must now navigate in real time.

For the composting and organics recycling sector, the stakes are significant. Biosolids are a valued feedstock and soil amendment, rich in nutrients and organic matter. But their role as a sink for industrial and consumer PFAS, chemicals that leach into wastewater systems from manufacturing processes and everyday products, has placed them at the center of one of the most contentious environmental policy debates in the country.

At the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not finalized enforceable PFAS standards for biosolids.The agency’s draft risk assessment remains incomplete for regulatory use, though the agency has established an analytical method, Method 1633, for measuring PFAS in biosolids. That method covers 40 compounds, a narrow slice of the thousands of substances classified as PFAS. For biosolids operators, this gap matters. Measurement capabilities are advancing faster than the regulatory framework around them, and state agencies are filling the void.

The State-by-State Picture

The legislative table and analysis published by Exponent, an engineering and scientific consulting firm, current as of June 1, 2026, lists more than two dozen active or recently enacted bills spanning bans, monitoring requirements, and reporting mandates across at least a dozen states. That number is likely to grow.

As of mid-2026, the landscape looks like this — Maine and Connecticut have enacted what amounts to bans on biosolids land application. Eight states, including California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Vermont, have existing policies requiring PFAS monitoring at wastewater treatment plants. Rhode Island and Washington passed new monitoring and reporting laws in 2025. And a growing list of states, including Massachusetts, New York, and Oklahoma, have introduced legislation that would ban biosolids or biosolids-derived fertilizers from land application altogether.

New York took a significant step this month, when the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued Program Policy DMM-7A, an interim strategy to address PFAS in biosolids products. The policy extends the requirements of its predecessor, DMM-7, to mandate sampling and analysis of biosolids products — including compost and heat-dried products — produced by in-state facilities permitted under 6 NYCRR Part 361, as well as products imported for use in the state. All permitted 361-3 biosolids recycling facilities and facilities distributing out-of-state biosolids products have 90 days from the policy’s issuance to complete an initial sampling event and submit results to DEC, with annual sampling required thereafter. The interim policy will remain in effect until DEC issues updated regulations.

Proposed bills in Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma illustrate the range of approaches under consideration. Iowa’s SF2193 would require PFAS testing at wastewater facilities and written disclosure to farmers before they apply biosolids to their land, a provision that could reshape procurement and communication practices for organics recyclers who supply agricultural end markets. Oklahoma’s SB2141 proposes a tiered management framework tied to detected PFAS concentrations. Kansas attempted a land application regulation with a carve-out for farmers applying biosolids on their own land, though that bill failed to pass.

Liability Is Moving Too

Litigation against biosolids producers, transporters, and land applicators is active and evolving. A recent federal ruling found that biosolids pellets qualify as a “useful product,” shielding both the producer and transporter from liability under CERCLA, a meaningful precedent, though not a universal shield. Farmers have received some statutory protections in proposed legislation; biosolids management companies often have not, even when contamination sources originate elsewhere in the system.

At the federal level, HR1267 would extend liability protections under CERCLA to public and private water and waste treatment facilities and associated entities. Its passage is not guaranteed, but it signals awareness in Congress of the exposure gap.

What This Means for Organics Recyclers

Three areas warrant immediate attention:

• Monitoring and data quality: Variability in sampling protocols and detection limits can produce results that look different across jurisdictions even when underlying conditions are similar. Organics recyclers working with biosolids feedstocks should establish consistent internal sampling practices now, before state-mandated requirements arrive and set the terms. Understanding which PFAS compounds are or are not detectable under Method 1633, and communicating that clearly to agricultural partners, is increasingly part of responsible operations.
• Feedstock and offtake risk: As state bans and monitoring requirements multiply, the regulatory status of biosolids-derived materials will affect both feedstock availability and end-market access. Facilities, especially composting, with significant biosolids inputs should assess their exposure to the states moving fastest on restrictions, and consider whether supply diversification is warranted.
• Farmer and end-user communication: Proposed legislation like Iowa’s SF2193 signals a clear direction. States want disclosure to agricultural users before land application occurs. Organics recyclers who supply agricultural markets should get ahead of this by developing clear, factual communication protocols around PFAS testing data, covering both what has been measured and what the current regulatory interpretation of those measurements means.
  

The practical imperative is to treat PFAS monitoring as an operational standard, track state legislation in any market served, and build enough flexibility into your compliance strategy to adapt as requirements change.