After years of back and forth on how to use funds to address PFAS contamination, the state recently disbursed $133 million to help Wisconsin communities address widespread contamination from these “forever chemicals.”
The money will support PFAS testing and remediation efforts across the state, including funding for new wells and provisions to protect “innocent landowners” who have contamination on their property through no fault of their own.
Maine has followed this path. In 2021, state lawmakers passed a series of bills aimed at solving the state’s own PFAS crisis, which was caused in part by sewage sludge spreading on farms, and invested more than $200 million in the effort.
Let’s understand Wisconsin together.
WPR’s “Wisconsin Today” newsletter helps you stay connected to the state you love without getting overwhelmed. No paywall. There is no agenda. There are no company filters.
Five years later, where does Maine’s PFAS problem stand? That’s the subject of environmental journalist Marina Shuffler’s new book, “Inevitable: Confronting the Forever Chemicals.”
“One of the challenges with PFAS is that it’s very persistent and it takes a long time to recover,” Schaffler told WPR’s “Wisconsin Today.” “And it will not be a complete recovery, because these chemicals have permeated our environment and the health threat will remain for generations.”
Shuffler spoke to Wisconsin Today about Maine’s story with PFAS and the lessons for Wisconsin as the state enacts policies and allocates funding to clean up PFAS.
The following interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Kate Archer Kent: Your book begins with the story of Fred Stone, a third-generation dairy farmer who discovers high levels of PFAS in milk. Can you talk about the sequence of events that started?
Marina Shuffler: When he heard that his well water contained these chemicals and that his milk was also tested for them, he was blindsided at first and couldn’t really understand why. The state did a lot of testing on the ground and it gradually became clearer.
For decades, the state has encouraged farmers to apply sludge, which includes both municipal and industrial sludge, to their land, and high PFAS levels (STONE) have been found to be directly related to sludge use. Initially, the state was reluctant to acknowledge that this could be a broader problem, so he had to repeatedly speak out and ask the (Maine) Legislature to conduct further testing. And when the state further inspected both the dairy farm and other farms that had been allowed to use the sludge in the past, it found that the problem had returned.
KAK: So he had permission to spray this sewage sludge on his fields without even knowing that he was spreading PFAS. And to stop the spread of infection, most of the cattle that are kept have to be killed. Their business has been ruined. Did Maine’s public agencies help?
MS: For the first few years, there wasn’t much support for Fred and Laura Stone, which was devastating for them. They had already begun to struggle with health problems. Their business was devastated. The value of their primary asset, the farm, has declined. It was very difficult, but he finally came forward in public to put more pressure on the country and get more support for the farming community.
Advocating for farmers in Congress was critical to getting policy changes and more state support for farming communities and others affected by past sludge-spraying.
Dairy farmer Fred Stone poses for a portrait on his farm in Arundel, Maine, on August 15, 2019. Fred Stone and his wife Laura’s farm was contaminated with toxic chemicals collectively known as PFAS (the so-called “forever chemicals”), and blood tests showed high levels of PFAS. Robert F. Bucati/AP Photo
KAK: Maine was an early state leader in tackling PFAS contamination, investing money and developing policies. How did Maine get people to care about the invisible “eternal chemicals” that are constantly lurking in water, soil, and elsewhere?
MS: Many people in Maine have a deep attachment to this place and value the health and well-being of our natural environment. The way PFAS ruined it was devastating for many, and the issue became a unifying issue in Congress, given how it impacts rural communities. Initial support was very bipartisan, and it felt like an insult to the people of our state to have this kind of ubiquitous and persistent pollution in a place where we all want to be healthy.
KAK: One doctor you interviewed called PFAS contamination a “slow-growing environmental disaster” that is “uprooting people’s lives.” In addition to the health risks of PFAS exposure, there are also these psychological tolls. What have you heard from people dealing with PFAS contamination on their premises?
MS: That’s a good explanation. Because it’s just a disease to people. They face uncertainty about future health concerns, and the potential health impacts are wide-ranging. One farmer described it as a ticking time bomb with faulty wiring. We just have to wait and see, as there’s not much we can do knowing that there’s a high chance of repercussions.
Additionally, you may experience a decrease in the value of your property or the inability to pursue many of your passions. People can no longer hunt and fish in the places they traditionally hunted and fished. People who had vegetable gardens could no longer eat the produce they grew. They weren’t sure what was safe to buy locally…because there was so little testing for PFAS. It has brought a great deal of uncertainty and stress to people’s lives.
KAK: What steps has Maine taken to address this field sludge problem?
MS: Maine was the first state to ban the spreading of sludge on fields and the use of sludge containing compost. That’s because some of the sludge also goes to composting facilities and is then redistributed to gardens, playgrounds, and everywhere else. Although this helped stop the flow of PFAS to food growing sites, Congress soon realized that it needed to go upstream and turn off the spigot, and Maine became one of the first states to begin banning various categories of consumer products.
(The state) was initially very ambitious in banning that product, but quickly realized that it was very difficult for people to trace back the supply chain and figure out where in the product the PFAS was. And since Maine is a small state with a population of 1.3 million people, having enough influence to change industry practices has been challenging.
Leachate storage tank at Juniper Ridge Landfill in Maine. High levels of PFAS detected in landfill leachate in Maine. Photo courtesy of Marina Shuffler
KAK: PFAS was once a bridging topic for Maine lawmakers and communities, something people could agree on and work together across the political divide. Not anymore, you say. What has changed?
MS: Several important PFAS bills were passed this last Congress with bipartisan support. But I think the tension became apparent when PFAS regulations and laws collided with industry practices. It’s been very difficult for many industries here. We cannot always adapt quickly to remove PFAS from the manufacture of products, especially those not manufactured here. And, of course, the waste industry was focused on low-cost means of sludge treatment.
This is a problem that goes back to the Clean Water Act, and at first they tried dumping it into the ocean, but then they realized it wasn’t a good idea. Then they buried it in a landfill, but its harmful effects became clear, so now it is buried here, which is not the best solution. And for PFAS to persist, it is leaching out of landfills, and landfill leachate must be treated as well.
The really troubling thing about PFAS is that they tend to keep circulating in the system. This highlights the importance of achieving it on the front end.
KAK: There’s a theme that runs through your book about the regulatory vacuum at the federal level. As a result, each state will create its own patchwork of policies and regulations regarding PFAS. Based on Maine’s experience, do you think PFAS is something that can be solved at the state level?
MS: Absolutely not. We need federal leadership. This is a global problem right now, so ubiquitous and circulating in the atmosphere that we really need international leadership. It’s raining. So we really need leadership on a much larger scale.
“Inevitable: Confronting Forever Chemicals” details how Maine has been addressing PFAS contamination at the state level. Image courtesy of Marina Shuffler
