North Carolina’s farmers face a new contamination risk, and for many, the source may already be in their soil.
What Are PFAS, and Why Should Farmers Care?
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” are a large family of synthetic compounds that have been used since the 1940s in everything from nonstick cookware and food packaging to firefighting foam and industrial coatings.
Their defining feature is durability: the carbon-fluorine bonds that make them useful in consumer products also make them extraordinarily resistant to breaking down in the environment. They persist in soil, migrate through groundwater, accumulate in plants, and build up in human and animal tissue.
Health concerns surrounding exposure to PFAS are significant and growing. Research has linked PFAS exposure to an increased risk of certain cancers, thyroid disease, immune system suppression, reproductive issues, and elevated cholesterol. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has established health-based standards for several PFAS compounds in drinking water, and both federal and state regulators have been tightening oversight in recent years.
For North Carolina farmers, this is no longer an abstract regulatory concern but a practical one with real implications for land, crops, livestock, and livelihoods.
The Biosolids Pathway: How PFAS Reach the Farm
The primary route by which PFAS contaminate agricultural land is through biosolids, the nutrient-rich organic material that remains after municipal wastewater has been treated. For decades, biosolids have been applied to farmland across North Carolina as a cost-effective fertilizer and soil amendment. The practice is regulated through non-discharge or land application permits issued by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“NCDEQ”), and farmers who use biosolids must comply with requirements governing application rates, setbacks, livestock grazing restrictions, and waiting periods before harvesting crops.
What those regulations have not addressed is PFAS. Wastewater treatment plants receive inflows from residential, commercial, and industrial sources, many of which contain PFAS from everyday products and industrial processes. Standard wastewater treatment does not remove PFAS from the waste stream. Instead, these chemicals concentrate in the solid residuals — the biosolids — that are then applied to fields.
Once in the soil, PFAS can follow several pathways. They can leach into groundwater. They can be taken up by plants through their root systems and incorporated into the crops themselves. They can run off into surface
water during rain events. And because they do not degrade, they accumulate over time, potentially to levels that raise health and regulatory concerns even if any single application was within acceptable parameters.
What the New NC DEQ Study Found
In January 2026, the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources (“DWR”) released the results of the state’s first investigation assessing PFAS concentrations in biosolids. Division staff collected samples beginning in 2023 from 37 municipal, industrial, and domestic wastewater treatment facilities across the state and soil samples from 19 fields regulated under non-discharge permits.
The findings confirmed what many in the environmental and agricultural communities had suspected: PFAS compounds were present in wastewater, biosolids, and soil samples across the board. The study estimated that while the majority of PFAS entering wastewater treatment facilities annually is discharged directly into waterways, a smaller but still meaningful portion entering the environment through land application of biosolids.
DEQ officials characterized the study as preliminary and limited in scope. It did not assess how PFAS in biosolids move through the environment after application, and the sample size was small relative to the number of wastewater facilities and permitted fields statewide. But the agency was clear about its significance: it is a first step toward understanding the extent of PFAS contamination in North Carolina’s agricultural landscape and it will inform future, more comprehensive studies.
There are no federal or North Carolina regulatory requirements for PFAS in biosolids. That gap means farmers who have used biosolids in compliance with all existing permits may still have PFAS present in their soils, with no clear regulatory framework governing what to do about it.
The Broader Regulatory Picture
North Carolina has a longer history with PFAS than most states. The contamination of the Cape Fear River by GenX compounds discharged from the Chemours Fayetteville Works facility brought PFAS into the state’s public consciousness in 2016 and prompted years of regulatory and legislative focus on drinking water.
At the federal level, the EPA has been steadily expanding PFAS regulation through a variety of existing environmental statutes, including adding PFAS to the Toxic Release Inventory reporting program, expanding PFAS-related requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act, designating certain PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA (the Superfund law), and setting enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for several PFAS compounds in drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act. An estimated 3.5 million North Carolinians currently drink tap water with PFAS levels above the EPA’s health-based standards, and although the EPA established legally enforceable levels for PFAS in drinking water in April 2024 it gave public water systems until 2029 to comply with the MCLs.
On the legislative front in North Carolina, House Bill 569, the PFAS Pollution and Polluter Liability Act, crossed over to the Senate during the 2025 session. The bill would have created a mechanism for holding PFAS manufacturers financially responsible for contamination of public water systems, including retroactive cost recovery for remediation expenses incurred since January 2017. While the bill primarily is focused on drinking water systems, its polluter-liability framework could have downstream implications for agricultural operations affected by PFAS contamination.
Meanwhile, DEQ presented proposed monitoring and minimization rules for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PFOA, PFOS and GenX, to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (“EMC”) Water Quality Committee last fall. Under the proposed rules, industrial manufacturers and publicly owned treatment works are to conduct initial quarterly baseline sampling for the three PFAS the first year and report results to DWR. Next, DWR officials are to determine whether ongoing sampling is needed and whether a minimization plan must be implemented. The proposals passed to the full EMC, and in January the EMC voted to move the rules through the public comment process. Dates and locations for public hearings are set for April in Asheville, Raleigh and Wilmington.
Additionally, NC State University researchers have been conducting studies funded in part by the General Assembly through the North Carolina Collaboratory to evaluate the presence and behavior of PFAS in biosolids and swine sludge applied to cropland in southeastern North Carolina counties. The results of that ongoing research will further shape the state’s understanding of how PFAS move through agricultural systems.
What This Means for NC Farm Operations
For North Carolina farmers, the PFAS issue creates several areas of concern.
Soil and water contamination. Farmers who historically have used biosolids as a soil amendment may have PFAS present in their fields at concentrations that, while not yet regulated, could become problematic as regulatory standards evolve. Although testing soil and groundwater can be a prudent first step, interpreting results is complicated by the absence of established regulatory thresholds for PFAS in soil.
Crop and livestock exposure. Research has confirmed that plants can take up PFAS through their root systems, meaning crops grown in contaminated soil may have measurable levels of these chemicals. Livestock that graze on contaminated pasture or drink contaminated water are similarly at risk. For farms that sell directly to consumers or into supply chains with quality requirements, this could create potential market access issues even before formal regulatory action.
Liability questions. The legal landscape around PFAS liability is developing rapidly but remains uncertain in many respects. A farmer who unknowingly applied contaminated biosolids to their land is usually a victim of the contamination rather than a cause of it. But whether a farmer could face liability for selling contaminated crops or products, or whether a farmer has a viable claim against the wastewater utility or biosolids provider, depends on a complex set of facts and evolving legal theories. Strict liability, negligence, and nuisance frameworks are all potentially in play, and federal Superfund designation of certain PFAS compounds could create more exposure.
Property value and lending implications. Confirmed PFAS contamination can affect the value of agricultural land, its eligibility for certain conservation and financing programs, and the willingness of lenders to extend credit secured by the property.
Insurance. Whether a farm’s existing insurance coverage responds to PFAS-related claims — whether for environmental remediation, crop contamination, or third-party liability — depends on the specific policy language and the nature of the claim. Many standard agricultural policies were not written with PFAS in mind. A careful review of coverage with an attorney familiar with both agricultural and environmental insurance issues is advisable.
What Farmers Should Do Now
While the regulatory framework for PFAS on agricultural land is still developing, there are practical steps North Carolina farmers can take now to understand and manage their exposure.
First, know your history. If your operation has received biosolids at any point, understand the scope of those applications and the sources from which the biosolids originated. Your non-discharge permit file with DEQ and your records of biosolids applications are the starting point.
Second, consider testing. Soil and groundwater testing for PFAS is available only at limited commercial laboratories equipped to test at the validated laboratory method. Results may provide a baseline understanding of conditions on your property. Be aware, however, that testing is not inexpensive and that interpreting results without regulatory benchmarks requires professional guidance.
Third, monitor the regulatory landscape. PFAS regulation is moving at both the federal and state levels, and what is unregulated today may be subject to enforceable standards soon. Staying informed allows you to plan proactively rather than react under pressure.
Fourth, review your contracts and insurance. If you are a party to agreements involving the application of biosolids to your land, review those agreements with legal counsel to understand the allocation of risk and any indemnification provisions. Similarly, review your insurance coverage to understand what is and is not covered if a PFAS-related claim occurs.
Fifth, consult with legal counsel. The intersection of environmental law, agricultural operations, and emerging PFAS regulation is genuinely complex. Attorneys who understand both the regulatory framework and the practical realities of farming can help you evaluate your position and develop a plan that protects your operation and your family.
Looking Ahead
The NC DEQ study released in January 2026 is a starting point, not a conclusion. More comprehensive research is underway, federal regulatory action continues to expand, and the North Carolina General Assembly is considering legislation that could reshape the PFAS liability framework. For farmers, the challenge is navigating a period of regulatory uncertainty while protecting land, operations, and relationships that have been built over years and sometimes generations.
Ward and Smith’s Agribusiness and Environmental practice groups have been closely following PFAS developments at both the federal and state levels and are ready to assist agricultural operations in understanding and responding to this evolving issue.
