11/01/2024

Local Rancher Seeks Answers on Biosolids After Johnson County Investigation

The Messenger | Austin Jackson | Oct. 30, 2024

Local Rancher Seeks Answers on Biosolids After Johnson County Investigation

The Messenger | Austin Jackson | Oct. 30, 2024

Monty Clark can smell it coming. 

When rain falls, the creek bending around his family’s homes on his 84-acre ranch starts to rise.

It’s dry now. But during the rainy season, the creek runs deep, with a large culvert off of County Road 3655 emptying water downstream through his property.

The waterway was one of the natural features he thought would bring him peace when scoping out the land for his family and their small cattle operation years ago. Now, he lives in fear of what might be coming through it.

“You’d think it would be tranquil, something nice,” Monty Clark said. “Now it’s like we’re surrounded, like it’s closing in.”

Across the road from Monty Clark’s property is a much larger ranch that he estimated at 4,000 acres. The pasture has been topped with biosolids, with the most recent fertilizer application in January, he said.

Biosolids are repurposed sewage that’s collected, treated and sold as a land application from wastewater providers, in this case, the Trinity River Authority. A Renda Environmental sign is how they were officially notified of the application. What really caught their attention was watching it arrive by the truck load, with front-end loaders and broadcasters coating the fields in a dark layer of the fertilizer, said Joseph Clark, Monty Clark’s son who also lives and works on the property. Renda Environmental had not responded to the Messenger’s request for comment sent Monday as of Wednesday afternoon.

Their idyllic rural lifestyle, with a property that overlooks the southwestern reaches of Wise County, can shift drastically following an application of the fertilizer, Monty Clark said.

When it rains, he said the biosolids come to them. 

The smell is “sweet, but like a chemical smell, overpowered by sewage,” Monty Clark said. During rain showers in June, he snapped a photo of chalky, brown runoff that foamed several feet above the water level at the mouth of the culvert that feeds the creek. He couldn’t explain the foam, which also collected on the banks at another point along his property.

“I just know it’s not normal,” Monty Clark said, before describing the point where two streams meet on his property and difference in appearance of the water draining down from the ranch across the street. “…One looks like water, the other—”

“Like chocolate milk,” Joseph Clark said.

Wise County has a history with biosolids. Several city councils have fought where they are applied, with previous opposition at the county level, despite their limited control on the issue. The unpleasant odor has generally been at the center of the debate, with the stench at times wafting over a large area, affecting not just neighbors, but visitors shopping in town and children waiting on the bus to go to school.

On Monday, reports out of Johnson County became a topic of conversation for Wise County Commissioners as the court considered a resolution on language rules for labeled biosolids.

Instead of an odor nuisance, the court heard citizens and potential state representatives raise health and environmental concerns.

This recent push in Texas seems to have started when Johnson County’s environmental investigator, Dana Ames, looked into the deaths of several cows and a horse adjacent to a property in Grandview where biosolids were applied, according to several media reports.

Upon investigating two properties near the application site, Ames sought help from the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a nonprofit watchdog that provides legal assistance and resources to whistleblowers who speak out about environmental issues in state and federal agencies. Ames and PEER contracted with a private lab, Eurofins Lancaster, to test the soil, pond water, well water and tissue from catfish and dead calves on the two farms in Grandview, as well as sample of Synagro biosolids, which contracts with the City of Fort Worth for the waste reuse.

The tests indicated high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the soil, ponds, well water, and animal tissue, according to a PEER analytical report provided to Johnson County Commissioners. Detection of PFAS, also known as forever chemicals, is not rare, due to their use in a wide range of consumer products, like paper packaging, nonstick cookware and cosmetics. But studies have indicated exposure to several of these man-made chemicals may pose health risks to humans and animals and affect the environment.

In April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released standards for PFAS testing in drinking water while announcing $1 billion in funding available to help states and territories implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems, and to help owners of private wells address PFAS contamination.

The EPA testing standards focus on the following PFAS: Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA); Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS); Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS); Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA); Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA); Mixtures containing at least two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and Perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS).

The maximum enforceable contaminant levels (MCL) for PFOA and PFOS were set at 4.0 part per trillion (ppt). According to the agency, any level of PFOA and PFOS may pose health risks, but 4.0 was the lowest level feasible for effective implementation. The standards for PFNA, PFHxS and GenX Chemicals were set a 10 ppt. TCEQ’s website states that testing is required by 2027, requiring compliance to those EPA standards by 2029.

PFAS are in biosolids, a fact that is not disputed. But what PEER found most alarming from test results were the levels of PFAS detected on the farms in Johnson County.

One water well yielded PFAS levels measured at 268.2 ppt while one of the ponds had over 1,333 ppt of PFAS. The flesh of a stillborn calf tested at 610,000 ppt of PFOS, according to PEER’s analysis of the testing results, which was released in February. Two catfish tested had 74,000 and 57,000 ppt of PFOS, respectively.

“To put these levels in perspective, one 8-ounce serving of these fish would exceed the [EPA’s] reference dose, or the estimate of ingested dose of a chemical that is unlikely to result in noncancer health effects, for PFOS exposure by 30,000 times, and consumption of one serving of the calf liver would exceed EPA’s reference dose by 250,000 times,” said PEER Science Policy Director Kyla Bennett in her report analyzing the test results.

Following the investigation, a series of lawsuits have been filed targeting Synagro and the EPA, the Fort Worth Star Telegram reported, with the EPA lawsuit targeting the agency for not requiring PFAS testing on biosolid agricultural products.

The search for answers

Monty Clark said he had never heard the term forever chemicals before this year. And when he moved to Wise County several years ago, he never imagined he would take any part in environmental activism. 

But he thinks something is off on his property, and he wonders if the runoff from biosolids that he often smells could have more pervasive effects.

He said when his creek is full, he hasn’t noticed tadpoles or frogs. In May, he found a cow dead in his creek. Joseph Clark said there were no signs of it being killed by a predator. 

“I can’t say for sure,” Monty Clark said. “But it sure does seem funny.”

Prior to the livestock death, he contacted the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). While a report did result in an air quality violation, he said testing of the water on the property did not reveal any issues. According to reporting from news station WFAA, TCEQ representatives have said that they do not have the capacity to test for PFAS due to state regulations.

While he doesn’t know whether his property is contaminated with harmful levels of PFAS or not, he has since taken steps to try and protect his livestock and family, like digging 100-feet deeper for his well that provides water to their homes. He said he is also looking into having samples from his property tested at a private lab for PFAS, and is ready to testify if needed.

He became more involved after meeting a politician knocking at his door ahead of the primary. It was Andy Hopper, who is now the Republican nominee for Texas House District 64 currently running against Democratic nominee Angela Brewer for the seat in the Nov. 5 election.

“When he came up, he said, ‘what’s that smell?’” Monty Clark recalled, between sips from a freshly uncapped water bottle while showing the Messenger around his property Tuesday.

During that campaign stop, the rancher asked Hopper if he would do something about it. The two were working together on the issue at Monday’s meeting, addressing Wise County officials, with biosolids appearing to be a priority for Hopper after his time campaigning in South Wise and experiencing the odor himself.

“It’s the right of property owners to use their land how they see fit, often even if it offends the sensibilities of nearby neighbors,” Hopper said during public comment Monday. “However, it is inconsistent with our principles and laws regarding private property rights for one owner to impair the private property rights of others. That includes polluting adjacent lands and the air for days or weeks at a time.”

The meeting also featured comments from another Republican state representative hopeful, Helen Kerwin, who wrote a letter in support of action on biosolids that was read aloud during the meeting. Kerwin is facing Libertarian candidate Richard Windmann for House District 58. The court eventually voted unanimously to support legislation that would require the new language requirements recommended by the Office of the Texas State Chemist. 

While in support of the measure, Precinct 2 Commissioner Kevin Burns said he wished that proposed language covered bulk biosolids, the delivery mode of large scale applications often added to pastures in Wise County. The proposal would add the following language: “contains any deleterious or harmful substance in sufficient amount to render it injurious to beneficial plant life, animals, humans, aquatic life, soil or water” and “shall not contain any deleterious or harmful substance in sufficient amount to render it injurious to beneficial plant life, animals, humans, aquatic life, soil, or water when applied in accordance with directions for use on the label.”

During discussion, commissioners also addressed the investigation in Johnson County, their past experience and their lack of local control on how biosolids are applied in Wise County. Wise County Judge J.D. Clark said he expects continued state action on the issue.

“In Johnson County, we had an issue where cattle were found dead on the property. [Johnson County] Commissioner Larry Woolley has spoken at county association events over the past year about that, and the levels found in that tissue were very concerning. It gave a new impetus that we need legislative help to look at these processes, regulations and what testing is required,” J.D. Clark said. “With Andy Hopper, Helen Kerwin in Johnson County and Brian Harrison in Ellis County, I think we have a group willing to look at that together.”

Hopper said he intends to work with representatives in nearby districts to deal with the biosolids issue and make sure private property rights are protected. Kerwin said the resolution may be important for future legislative efforts.

“What you are doing today to pass this legislation will hopefully enable our legislators to craft and pass legislation which will require testing that will result in prevention of these forever chemical from entering our food chain and environment,” her letter said.

If he’s needed, Monty Clark said he’s ready to keep pushing for change.

“I will go down to Austin,” he said. “Wherever I need to go, I’ll do it.”

While the scope of impacts of forever chemicals and their presence draw a heightened focus in Texas, the rancher thinks about the small impacts, like the customer who he said came to him in search of additional hay. She purchased dozens of bales that went uneaten and stunk up her barn — an odor that Monty Clark said he immediately recognized when dropping off his bales.

He wants a clear answer on if he should or shouldn’t drink out of his well, or if it’s safe for the kids to go back in the creek with their kayaks. Right now, the only avenue he’s aware of to find such an answer now would be conducting testing at a private lab.

“We deserve to know,” he said.