from Sky news.

I'm Jasmine Singer and this is Environmental Connections.

Today's environmental connection began on June 12th, 2025, just a couple weeks ago when the New York State Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill proposing a five year moratorium on spreading sewage sludge, also referred to by some as biosolids as fertilizer on farmland.

It was a moment of rare bipartisan unity, driven by mounting concerns about the contaminants hidden in this widely used fertilizer alternative.

For decades, state and federal officials promoted so-called biosolids as a sustainable solution in an expensive way, they said, to recycle nutrient rich waste back into soil.

It seemed like a recycling win.

But recent findings have changed the story dramatically.

Families living near farms where biosolids are applied discovered forever chemicals in their well water.

And scientists warned that our vegetables could be absorbing toxic residues.

Momentum behind the moratorium surged as stories surfaced of residents dealing with contaminated wells and unbearable odors.

New York was poised to join states like Maine and Connecticut, which had already banned sludge after finding contaminated milk and poisoned wells.

But just days after the Senate's approval, the bill quietly stalled in the Assembly after intense lobbying from industry and municipal interests.

The moratorium failed to reach the Assembly floor for a vote before the legislation.

The legislative session ended, and today we're going to explore exactly what happened in those crucial final hours and what's really in quote unquote, bio solids.

And what this political struggle means for our environment, for public health and communities across New York State.

Was the failure of the sludge moratorium just a temporary setback, or does it signal deeper conflicts between waste management and public health and our climate goals?

Joining me to discuss that, we have a panel of experts who can help us make sense of what this means for our environment, our farms and our communities.

With us remotely today, we have Jiang Yun Hahn, my colleague and the Capital News bureau reporter for the New York Public News Network.

Welcome to Environmental Connections, Jiang Yun.

Thanks for having me.

And Doctor Murray McBride, soil and environmental scientist from Cornell University.

Welcome to the show.

Doctor McBride.

Thank you.

And thank you for having me.

And joining me in the studio, joining me again, I should say, because she's no stranger to environmental connections, is Doctor Karen Berger, associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Rochester.

Welcome back to Environmental Connections.

Thanks.

Delighted to be here.

And thank you all so much.

And to our listeners and our viewers on YouTube for being patient with our delayed start today.

Before we dive into the panel conversation, we want to play a report from WXXI, Jiang Yun Han, who I just introduced.

She produced this earlier this spring as the state lawmakers were weighing a five year pause on the use of sewage sludge.

Wastewater treatment plants, some as far away as Massachusetts, have been sending their sludge to New York.

Yes, you heard me.

Right where it's turned into a cheap fertilizer and applied to farmland.

And that sludge contains human waste and anything else that gets flushed or washed down the drain.

And while some farmers see that as cost effective, others, including a growing number of legislators, have raised serious concerns.

So Jiang Yun takes us to a small town outside Albany, where a father noticed something strange coming from his kids showers.

Here's that report.

It was raining when I stopped by Ryan Dunham's house in New Scotland.

There was a streak of foggy mist covering the miles of tree line.

I'm going to grab an umbrella.

The rain doesn't bode well for Dunham.

His house sits on top of limestone, rough rocks and tough soil.

So you can imagine any any sort of liquid that goes in there is going to go straight down and into his water well.

His family found that out the hard way back in late May last year, while his kids were taking a shower.

The next thing I know, I'm in the house and my 11 year old screaming from the bathroom, and I come upstairs and the water's brown.

Dunham got his water tested immediately, and the Department of Health told me that our levels of E.coli and coliform tested, 200 times beyond safe levels, as recommended by the EPA.

Around the same time, the farm across the road from Dunham's house began applying sewage sludge onto the fields.

Some companies market the stuff as biosolids, but whatever you call it.

State lawmakers are asking the question should sewage sludge be used as fertilizer on New York's farmlands?

Basically, sewage sludge is human waste instead of animal waste used as fertilizer.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation has even recommended the state more than double how much biosolids are spread on farm fields and parks.

But here's the thing about sewage sludge it's not just human waste from the toilet.

We have a sewer system that pretty much admits just about anything that gets thrown in there.

That's Marie McBride.

He's an emeritus professor at Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

His research is focused on the other stuff that gets flushed to, like, heavy metals and chemicals from factories and industrial waste, where we're talking about hundreds of thousands of persistent chemicals.

McBride and other researchers say pharmaceuticals, pathogens and other toxic compounds end up in sewage sludge and at concerning levels.

Some of them are bio accumulative in livestock.

And so we have a pathway now of exposure of humans to toxic chemicals, from the soil to livestock to humans.

Those risks are prompting some lawmakers to propose a statewide pause on sewage sludge application.

Our farmland should not be a dumping ground for our waste.

That's Anna Kellis.

She's an assembly member from Ithaca and has a doctorate in nutritional epidemiology.

She co-wrote a bill which would stop the spread of biosolids for five years.

She says that hopefully, the state will eventually study the impact of biosolids on New York's land and the animals and people that live there.

To be clear, this is not a straight out ban.

This is saying, okay, we need to understand how bad things are and when we identify that, we need to start intervening.

Other states have already banned the application of biosolids on land.

Maine implemented an outright ban after they conducted studies, and found traces of PFAs that were found in biosolids, ultimately ended up in Dairy milk, and there were some firms where the accumulation was so high that those farms were shuttered permanently.

And that soil.

It's forever chemicals, and it'll be thousands of years of, you know, termination.

But some towns are not too eager about the bill.

I think it's terrible because and on so many levels.

So.

Rick Neely oversees the Town of Websters wastewater treatment plant system.

I think they're jumping into deep to say, we're just going to cut it off while we study.

Webster is revamping their water treatment plant by 2026 so that they can produce biosolids.

The state even gave Webster $20 million to help out with the project.

Can you?

He says the issue is that factories put out industrial waste that include toxic components, and there should be more regulations on them.

So to put regulations on us that really we can't do anything about.

I mean, it's counterproductive to me.

Sewage sludge also solves a few tricky problems at the state's currently facing.

For one, landfills are so overrun the state will probably run out of space for them within about 20 years, according to the DSE.

That makes it incredibly expensive for municipalities to dump their waste there.

But cannily says there's also environmental consideration.

He says the logic is if the state diverts this waste from landfills, new York could also potentially recycle it back into the Earth full circle.

So those nutrients that we'd be putting back to the Earth help grow product that the cows are beating on.

But even Webster's biosolids aren't without potentially harmful contaminants.

Can.

You told me the PFOA levels of Webster's biosolids were at 3.7 micrograms per kilogram.

But the EPA wrote in a draft risk assessment that there may be human health risks if just one microgram of PFOA is found in biosolids.

There's only about a week left for lawmakers to vote on the bill before the legislative session ends, and Denham is anxiously waiting to see what lawmakers do.

Albany County, where he lives, has implemented a moratorium on the application of biosolids, but the pause will expire by the end of this year.

I'm still worried about my 11 year old.

She's in the shower singing Taylor Swift, and all I can think about is what water is she ingesting in her body and how many forever chemicals are in there.

But Dunham says he's encouraged other places, like Schoharie County and even some towns have temporarily banned the practice.

And Dunham says he hopes the state will follow their lead.

Reporting from New Scotland.

I'm Jon Yuan for the New York Public News Network.

And for those just joining us, you're listening to Environmental Connections here on Sky capital.

Reporter Jiang Yun Hahn has been following the legislation from the start.

So, Jiang Yun, I want to begin with how the bill picked up steam.

It had support in the Senate, backing from environmental groups and even farmers who wanted clearer data.

Tell us that story.

Yeah.

I should first note that originally the bill was meant to do much more than it had proposed.

It was supposed to do three things one, implement a five year moratorium to establish a statewide study about how biosolids sewage sludge have impacted New York's land.

And then third, establish a plan, a funding system to support farmers if their land had been harmed because of the use of biosolids.

But lawmakers in the Senate were able to get support and back just one of the proposals, which would be the five year moratorium.

So that measure passed in the Senate 48 to 11, with broad bipartisan support, for the most part.

And it was on track to be on a set of bills that were considered non-controversial so that it would be passed with Rella a few bumps up in the assembly because it needs both chambers approval to actually reach Governor Kathy Hochul desk for a signature.

But in the last few days, the impression that I got and, you know, environmental advocates also got was that waste company started to pick up on the fact that, oh, this might actually become law.

They didn't really realize that they had gotten and built support among lawmakers.

So in the final few days, a lot of waste companies and trade representatives and municipalities really had a forceful lobbying push to say that this should not take place.

And so ultimately, it did not even get a floor vote.

So what explanations, if any, did lawmakers give for not moving the bill forward?

I should say it's kind of unclear how much support the bill had in the Assembly.

There was a small minority of lawmakers, though, in the Assembly that did ask for it to be laid aside.

That doesn't really necessarily reflect if all lawmakers in the Assembly were for or against it.

It's too hard to say.

But the ones who were opposed to it, basically gave a cost driven argument to to suggest and push for this bill to not get a floor vote for it to be laid aside.

They were speaking on behalf of local municipalities that are responsible for shipping off their sewage, all of their waste to landfills.

And, the argument that they made was that it would just be too expensive to have to send more waste to landfills because they were saying that, you know, if we if municipalities were able to convert some of the sewage sludge that raw waste into biosolids, it could be repurposing and lowering the amount of waste that they ultimately have to send to landfills, thereby saving some money.

And their argument was that having a five year moratorium would leave municipalities stranded in terms of trying to figure out how to make up for the cost of sending effectively more waste to landfills.

And you've reported that lobbying played a significant role behind the scenes.

So who were the the key players and what kinds of arguments and tactics did they use?

Yeah.

There are several large waste companies that, have contracts with farmers here in the state to to put their sewage sludge and spread it on their farm fields.

There are also contracts about which which companies can take waste from other parts of the country and bring it into New York, and then also take waste from downstate New York up to upstate New York to spread waste there or put in landfills upstate.

Some of those companies include Casella and Denali.

And, I heard from environmental advocates that in the final few days of, lobbying that Casella and some other, you know, trade reps within the waste company management ecosystem had come to push for some more lobbying, and making this cost driven argument in the final days of session.

And there are a cluster of waste companies that operate in New York, as you just said.

I want to add that we did send out some invitations for them to join us on this show, as well as to the deck.

We did not hear back.

So how much influence do these companies have in New York's waste infrastructure and regulation?

Junghoon.

Well, given just how closely the waste companies have to work with local municipalities to to figure out landfill space, I think it's like a pretty even level of influence that local municipalities have, along with larger waste companies.

And I think the big dynamic that is shaping all of this is that the state's Department of Environmental Correction or, conservation, that CDC excuse me, they've, you know, directed the state to actually increase the use of biosolids in application, basically doubling the amount of that within the next couple decades.

And they are aware of the fact that the state is running out of landfill space.

And that's something that local municipalities and waste companies are very keenly and, acutely aware of.

And so I think that's the pressure and landfill ecosphere, storm dynamics that are shaping the strains that municipalities were worried that they would have to take on.

And that was the dynamic that we saw play out in the last few days of session.

Janine, just one more question before we move to doctor McBride now that this session is over.

Are supporters regrouping?

Do we expect a new version of this legislation to surface next session?

I think lawmakers will still make the point that the state needs to study how much New York's lands have been impacted, and that one also that the the state should ban, temporarily at least, the usage of sewage sludge, because they will make the point that there may be cost, cost issues for having less waste going to landfill or more waste going to landfills, but that there would be enormous costs down the line if it turns out that land that farmers had been using have been permanently damaged or very excessively damaged, and that that is an enormous cost for the state to have to figure out a part of, recoup that land should that happen.

And so I think lawmakers might try to hone in on that argument and figure out some way to provide some relief to municipalities.

If it turns out that they can't, you know, divert some of the waste from landfills by turning them into biosolids.

Jiang Yun Han, hang on the line because I'm sure we'll have more questions for you.

But fantastic reporting in Albany and I'll give you a a shameless shout out that, that Jiang Yun Han, along with Jimmy Viel, kind do a report that we air on Weekend Edition every weekend.

Mostly every weekend, I would say, where you're just sort of giving the state of Albany and what's been happening legislatively this past week.

So I encourage people to tune in.

So I want to turn to doctor McBride, and I must tell you, doctor McBride, that I promised my wife I would not mention that our poodle is named Murray.

I will not call you a good boy.

I promise I'll stay focused.

You are doing so much incredible work.

And I heard you in Zhang Yoon's report there.

I want to ask.

While the legislative debate centers on policy.

Much of the concern comes down to science.

So specifically, what is it like?

What's actually in the sludge and how does it move through the environment?

I'm curious if you could really break it down for us.

Well, okay.

I mean, the sludge, the sewage sludge, or also called biosolids, is but a roughly 50% organic matter, although, admittedly, some of that organic matter may well be microplastics.

That hasn't been worked out, but there's a lot of microplastics in this material.

But the contaminants, the other contaminants besides microplastics of concern, there's a wide range of them.

I worked on the toxic metals for many years, a long time ago.

Those heavy metals like cadmium, lead, etc.

are still there.

Although at lower concentrations than in the early days of applying these sludge just to farms.

But now we have a very wide range of synthetic organic chemicals that range from plasticizers to flame retardants, brominated flame retardants, phosphates, flame retardants.

We have the PFAs chemicals, of course, which are getting all of the attention right now.

And then we have various biocides like triclosan from biocidal, soap and pharmaceuticals of all kinds.

So we're talking about many thousands of different chemicals, some of which are very resistant to decomposition, in soil.

So that's why some of them are called forever chemicals.

And then on top of that, we have pathogens.

And depending on whether we're talking about class A or class B sludge, the pathogens include bacteria, bacterial pathogens, viruses and parasites.

So that's a quick description of some of the things we have to be worried about.

Besides, besides the, chemicals, which, as I said, are getting a lot of press for our listeners.

I'm talking to Doctor Murray McBride, who, as you heard in Jenkins feature, is a professor emeritus in environmental sciences at Cornell University.

And he has long studied the impacts of sewage sludge.

So you've been sounding the alarm on this for years.

Doctor McBride, what evidence do we have either in New York or elsewhere, that, quote unquote, biosolids can cause real harm to ecosystems or animals or public health?

Well, there are numerous, let's say, case studies.

I guess some people would call them anecdotal because it's these are not replicated studies of, livestock illness, livestock deaths.

The other issue, of course, is people getting very sick.

And this is an ongoing problem.

I don't know how many different individuals I've talked to and met, in different parts of the country, but both in the US and Canada, people living adjacent to these application sites getting very sick.

So we know that not only do these materials smell bad, very bad, but they, give off bio aerosols, depending on wind.

This means people are exposed to pathogens.

These are neighbors, adjacent to land application sites, and they're exposed to endotoxins, which are quite often pieces of dead microbes.

But basically, there's there can be a very strong allergic reaction in many people who can get very sick.

So then, of course, nobody is monitoring what's in the groundwater underneath these application sites.

So we don't have a lot of evidence, direct evidence of groundwater contamination.

We have some, but not many studies have been done.

Okay.

Well, I let's get those studies done.

Right.

I mean, you've been working on this for so long.

This must drive you nuts.

Let me ask you something, doctor McBride.

If biosolids use were, let's say, halted tomorrow, how difficult would it be to clean up what's already in the ground?

Okay, well, on the heavy metal side, it's pretty much impossible.

People talk about using phyto remediation.

That is, using plants to pull these metals out of the soil.

That works to some degree.

Weather for a few heavy metals, but not for the whole suite of heavy metals that we actually have in sludge.

As.

And it's also very slow.

It's not that expensive to do, but it's very slow.

So, you know, what farmers going to want to have is his or her farm set aside for 20 years to pull, you know, to pull, cadmium out of the soil.

Now, having said that, as I said before, the heavy metal problem is less of an issue now than it was 30 years ago when I first started, getting acquainted with this problem, because back in those days, and I won't mention the towns, but there were some slugs that had levels of cadmium that were so high that they literally destroyed farmland.

That the land could not be used for for growing crops, food crops anymore.

And you really can't get those metals out in any, in any, feasible way.

Now, as far as these synthetic organics I mentioned, like the PFAs chemicals, some of those leached to some degree, but a lot of them stay with the organic matter in the soil.

And there's no known way to remediate those soils once once that happens.

And remember, they're forever chemicals.

So we're talking about losing these soils, at least for food production or animal or for livestock, for many decades.

So okay.

Well, I know that supporters of the moratorium have described it as a pause, not a ban.

So from a scientific standpoint, even assuming it it hadn't passed, would a five year moratorium be a meaningful window for research or remediation at all?

Well, it would, but only if we had some if only if there was some way to do the research.

And, for example, at this point, as far as I know, we don't really know how badly contaminated farms in New York State are with the PFAs chemicals.

That's a fairly expensive test to do on soil.

You would need quite a bit of research.

You would need resources to do that study.

Now in, for example, in the state of Maine.

They have done a fairly systematic study of farms where they knew sludge, just where sludge is, were applied over the years.

And, have shown that, in fact, those farms that were applying sludge had much higher levels.

We need to do those kind of studies here to see where we are in New York State.

I don't exactly know how many thousands of acres have actually received sludge, but I know it's thousands of acres.

And it would be really useful to know what levels of contamination are there.

No.

What would that lead to?

I'm not sure, but at least we would know where we're heading.

And maybe it's not in a good direction.

Well, I'm going to hang on to the bit of hope for how something got better in the last 30 years.

That that.

I mean, maybe my bar is too low, but one more question for you, doctor McBride, before I talk to Doctor Karen Berger.

Opponents argue that landfilling or incineration are worse alternatives to get rid of sewage sludge.

So what are the trade offs, both environmentally and economically, when considering other waste disposal options?

Yeah, well, those other options are not are not very, attractive options admittedly.

But are they worse than actually putting chemicals on the farmland where we grow our food?

I don't think so.

No.

Landfilling?

Yeah.

You're going to end up having leachate coming out of these landfills containing a range of chemicals, some of which I mentioned.

So you have to deal with the leachate and then, incineration, which is often done, solve some problems.

Of course, it destroys all the pathogens, destroys all of the organic chemicals, the synthetic organics, with the exception, I guess, of us, which is a problem.

So if someone comes up with a way to destroy the acid and incineration, process, that would be helpful.

But there are other thermal methods, like gasification that are being used in certain parts of the world.

And those needs some more research.

That is, these are high temperature methods that would, basically destroy all of the organic chemicals and, could, if properly designed, I think could also deal with the Belfast chemicals.

Okay.

So there there is potentially hope.

I'm going to act like I said, I'm going to continue to hold on to that.

For those just tuning in.

I'm Jasmine Singer.

You're listening to Environmental Connections.

Today we're discussing the controversy surrounding sewage sludge, also referred to as biosolids, by some, and whether New York should limit its use on farmland.

I am being joined by WXXI journalist young union doctor Murray McBride from Cornell, who you just heard from, and Doctor Karen Berger from the University of Rochester.

So, Karen, let's turn to you.

You study ecosystems and water quality and climate.

So let's zoom out a bit.

How does the biosolids debate intersect with larger sustainability and climate action goals?

Good question.

It really does align with several climate goals in that we want to send less waste to landfills, because in New York State, for example, about 12% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from the waste sector.

We also want to reduce fossil fuel use and a lot of synthetic fertilizer are made from fossil fuels.

So on the surface, it looks like it aligns perfectly.

We can repurpose this waste stream, to use as a fertilizer, take advantage of the nutrients that are contained within it.

The big caveat there is that it contains other things as well.

And as we're seeing, there are serious risks to human and environmental health.

And we haven't understood those well and they haven't been well controlled.

So it's a good example of where I think some of the climate intentions mask some of the other risks that we're facing here.

And some advocates say that we need to treat waste as a resource, not just a liability, but I mean it and could this be an example of a climate friendly solution that unintentionally created new environmental challenges?

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, I would agree with the statement that in general, we want to see how we can repurpose waste.

You know, we take wine bottles and convert them into sand for sand bags or things like that.

But this is a particularly challenging one because we're taking that waste and we're putting it into the environment and in the environment.

It is eventually going to come back to impacting us through our air, through our water, through our soil, through our food.

And so the challenge here is that I think when it was being promoted, really starting in the 1990s, when we stopped being able to dump our sewage sludge into the oceans, people said didn't think about the unintended consequences here.

And so what we're seeing is that we have a history of really folk assuming things are safe until we prove otherwise.

And that is a principle that has led us in many ways to harmful impacts.

And this is a case of that.

One of, the technicians just wrote on our, our shared channel.

Biosolids.

And I think that that's what a lot of people are thinking right now.

The, the New York State desk had a long term plan to expand biosolids use.

So how do agencies navigate conflicting priorities like waste reduction and public health protection when these goals collide?

It's a tricky balance.

And I think part of it is not always looking for the information about all of the risks that we've known about, you know, so it's both the D.C. and the federal government have been promoting this, even though 3 a.m., one of the producers of PFAs chemicals, told the EPA in 2003 that these were being found in sewage sludge.

And it wasn't until the 2020s that the EPA studied it and came up with, with evidence, that that rates of one part per billion could be harmful.

And so I think that's a good example of if we don't have the information, then sometimes we make poor decisions that lead us into harmful situations.

So from a, hydrology standpoint, how might climate change, particularly increased rainfall and extreme weather?

I think maybe both of which you joined me to discuss here on the environmental connections.

How might that affect the risk of contaminants from biosolids or sewage sludge spray getting through water systems?

That's a really good question, because the ways in which the sludge can get into our water systems are that if you have heavy rains, it can, cause runoff that takes it from the surface into waterways.

It can also increase the rate at which it infiltrates into the soil and gets into our groundwater.

And we are we have already been seeing and are projected to continue to see increases in these heavy rains.

I was glad to see that the Dec does have standards about where this can be applied.

It's not supposed to be in in flood hazard zones or to close to on steep slopes.

That would it would decrease that risk.

But we're seeing that those where we've had floods in the past is not necessarily where we're going to have floods in the future.

And so we need to be cognizant of that when we're thinking about how to do this response.

If we're going to do this, how we do it responsibly.

There has been a lot of discussion around quote unquote impacted communities.

Now, listen, I'm not going to jump on the joke.

I want to jump on here.

I'm going to let people think it I'm not going to say it.

So do certain populations face a higher burden from biosolids use or from alternatives like incineration?

Yeah.

So in terms of the biosolids, it's really the rural communities that are adjacent to the farmland where this is being applied, who might rely on for example, well, water from a private well or a municipal well.

We're also going to see more risks if it's an area where people rely more heavily on food that they produce locally.

You know, the EPA said we don't worry about in general about the food supply because we get our food from diverse sources.

But if you are getting all of your eggs and milk from what you produce on your own farm, then you're going to be at higher risk.

I think there's less of a risk for people in urban communities or physically further away from those spots.

All right.

Question.

That might be self-serving.

You just use eggs and milk as the example.

But would people who don't eat animal products still have the same risk for ingesting this?

In general, I would say probably lower because it hasn't accumulated as much through the food chain.

You can you can still potentially see some getting into crops, but the the risks that are considered higher tend to be from animal products.

More fascinating.

Okay, Karen, if you had to recommend a balance approach for handling sewage sludge going forward, would it look like this bill or would it be something different?

It would certainly look something like this.

Bill, I think we absolutely need to stop the process until we understand what the current situation is.

I don't know if five years is what we need.

And doctor McBride brought up a really good point about how many resources will be required.

But I think we absolutely need to assess the extent of this contamination on farmland.

It's about 30,000 acres in New York State, where sewage sludge has been applied.

Once we do that, then we need to set a strict standard the way some states have done.

If we're going to do it, what concentration levels are acceptable, what's the rate at which we're going to do it?

And we need to continue to monitor that.

Ideally, we would also potentially increase setbacks from residences and wells so that you don't have things like we're talked about in that story that we heard earlier in the show.

Possibly some kind of subsidies for farmers if they have to buy more expensive fertilizer.

And I would also want to say this might not be part of the bill, but I would like to see it.

Attached is thinking of other ways to reduce pressure on landfills.

Right.

This is not the only material going into landfills.

If they're using the argument that it's going to get expensive to send this to landfills, let's think about how to extend the life of those landfills.

Love it, doctor Burger hang out for just a moment.

I'd like to bring our other guests back into the conversation for our remaining few minutes.

Doctor McBride.

Given what we've heard so far, the the stalled legislation, the growing body of research, and the need for practical waste management, would you say there's a middle ground?

Like what?

What might a realistic compromise look like between an outright ban on on biosolids and the status quo?

Yes.

I'm trying to think, there of course, biosolids sewage sludge is have been used.

In actual scenarios of remediating really badly, degraded land.

Because they do they do provide the nutrients they do provide, as I said, the organic matter, in, for example, old mined areas and so on, and it has been used that way.

And at least you're not.

And, I mean, there could be some concerns there too, but at least you're not directly putting it on land where food crops are grown or where, livestock are, are being raised.

So there's that.

I don't know if I don't know if that would be sufficient to utilize all of the biosolids that are being produced.

But the other thing I would get it get at is, is whether or not these are actually being these, these sewage sludge is they're actually being applied even according to DDC rules.

Because I have my own experience with this.

Let's see.

Doctor Berger mentioned that DC requires that application not be done on steep land.

And in fact application does occur on steep land.

I know that for well have been seen it and there you have the potential for, runoff and contamination of streams and rivers.

In addition, I think the application rates are often are often rather high.

And the result is you get phosphorus buildup in the soil.

So, I mean, backing off to something more, maybe more responsible application rates that are much lower would produce less of these problems.

Although, again, the problem is do you have enough acreage then to dispose of the amount of sewage sludge being produced by, for example, New York City?

Well, I need to, I need to tell our listeners that unfortunately, this this episode is going to be cut a little bit short just because we began with the live coverage of the, of the presidential, speech.

So I want to turn to John Jiang Yun to close this out.

Jiang Yun, thank you for being so patient.

Let's look beyond New York for just a moment.

So Maine took decisive action, enacting the nation's first statewide ban on the use of sludge as fertilizer.

Really quickly.

What practical lessons can we take from states like Maine, both in terms of science and politics?

Yeah.

So they passed that, ban in 2022.

And, what led to the state to come to that decision was they actually did tests, on farm land in Maine, and they went to dairy farms in particular, to see if that bioaccumulation issue that, doctor McBride and Doctor Burger talked about, if that was playing any role in, in having faster over there, can contaminants show up in dairy milk.

And after those tests, they found that that was the case for some of the farms.

And so that was a concrete proof that I think, animated and catalyzed the lawmakers there to really pass that bill.

And I think it maybe things might become a different conversation if and when New York comes to do those tests themselves.

But I'll also leave one last thing, which is that real?

Well, there isn't a well, there isn't a statewide ban.

Some localities have taken, temporary bans in their towns and counties, including Albany County and Schoharie County.

So there's things that local communities can do.

I love it ending on something hopeful.

Thanks to our guests today and to you, our listeners, for making today's environmental connections.

This program is a production of High Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station, its staff, management, or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience, any rebroadcast or use in another medium, without express written consent of Sky is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the connections link at WXXI news.org.