In late September 2025, a federal court in D.C. dismissed a case filed by farmers and ranchers in Texas against the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) for its alleged failure to regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that EPA had failed to perform its mandatory CWA duty to identify and regulate at least eighteen distinct PFAS pollutants in the sewage sludge that plaintiffs and others use as fertilizer on their farming operations. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that EPA failed to adopt regulations that provide restrictions on additional PFAS pollutants that the agency had previously identified. However, a federal court has disagreed, finding that EPA did not violate its CWA duties. While the court ultimately dismissed the case, it did indicate what future actions the plaintiffs might take to prompt EPA to adopt stricter PFAS regulations.
Plaintiffs’ Lawsuit
The plaintiffs in Farmer v. U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, No. 24-cv-1654 (D.D.C. September 29, 2025) filed their initial complaint on June 6, 2024. In that complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that EPA had violated the CWA by both failing to identify a series of PFAS pollutants present in sewage sludge, and by failing to regulate the PFAS pollutants that the agency had identified.
PFAS is an umbrella term used to refer to a large family of chemicals that contain extremely strong bones between carbon and fluorine atoms which only break down very slowly over time which have earned them the moniker “forever chemicals.” PFAS became widespread in the mid-twentieth century due to their water- and grease-resistant properties. They have been used in a wide variety of consumer products from cookware to food packaging to fire extinguishing foam. However, in the last few decades, research has shown that PFAS are associated with a variety of health risks such as developmental delays in children and increased cancer risks. Because PFAS takes such a long time to break down and were so widely used, they can be present in water, soil, air, and food.
In 2024, EPA classified two specific PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Interest in regulating and cleaning up PFAS present in the environment has grown in recent years, with a particular interest growing among farmers who have been forced to cease or reduce their operations after discovering PFAS contamination on their property. For more information, click here.
Sewage sludge, also referred to as “biosolids,” is the solid waste filtered from wastewater treatment plants. It can contain chemicals discharged in industrial wastewater as well as anything that is flushed down the drains of homes and businesses. Wastewater treatment facilities are permitted to sell sewage sludge as fertilizer to agricultural operations provided that the sludge is first treated to remove certain toxic contaminants identified by EPA pursuant to the CWA.
The CWA was enacted in 1972 in order to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). One of the many ways the CWA works to achieve that goal is by requiring EPA to regulate the disposal and use of sewage sludge. Specifically, the CWA requires EPA to:
identify those toxic pollutants which, on the basis of available information on their toxicity, persistence, concentration, mobility, or potential for exposure, may be present in sewage sludge in concentrations which may adversely affect public health or the environment, and propose regulations specifying acceptable management practices for sewage sludge containing each such toxic pollutant and establishing numerical limitations for each such pollutant[.]
33 U.S.C. § 1345 (d)(2)(A)(i). In other words, the CWA requires EPA to identify toxic pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge at levels that are harmful to human health and the environment and to then propose management practices for the sewage sludge which contains those pollutants. The CWA directs EPA to review its regulations related to sewage sludge every two years “for the purpose of identifying additional toxic pollutants,” and adopting any new regulations necessary for managing such pollutants. 33 U.S.C. § 1345(d)(2)(C).
The plaintiffs in Farmer v. U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency are agricultural producers who claim that their properties became contaminated with PFAS after they applied sewage sludge as a fertilizer. Many of the plaintiffs alleged lost profits, lost farm property, and adverse health effects as a result. In their complaint, the plaintiffs claimed that EPA had violated the CWA by failing to identify at least eighteen different PFAS pollutants present in sewage sludge in its most recent biennial report. The plaintiffs claimed that by failing to identify the PFAS pollutants, it had violated the CWA’s requirement that EPA “identify those toxic pollutants which […] may be present in sewage sludge” in amounts that could affect human health and the environment. 33 U.S.C. § 1345 (d)(2)(A)(i).
Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that EPA had further violated the CWA by failing to regulate the eleven PFAS pollutants that the agency has identified as present in sewage sludge. The plaintiffs argue that along with requiring EPA to identify toxic pollutants present in sewage sludge, the CWA also requires EPA to adopt regulations for the management of sewage sludge containing identified toxic pollutants. The plaintiffs claim that because EPA has not adopted or even proposed regulations for the management of PFAS in sewage sludge, the agency is in violation of the CWA.
Court Order
On September 29, 2025, a federal court in the District of Columbia issued an order to dismiss Farmer v. U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency. In its ten-page decision, the court explained that EPA had not violated the CWA either by failing to identify PFAS pollutants in its most recent biennial sewage sludge report or by failing to adopt regulations to manage the PFAS pollutants it has already identified as present in sewage sludge. While the court did dismiss the case, it did so without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the plaintiffs could refile the claims on a later date. Additionally, the court suggested other avenues that the plaintiffs could pursue to prompt EPA to more strictly regulate PFAS.
In its ruling, the court first examined whether EPA had violated the CWA by failing to identify eighteen different PFAS pollutants in its latest biennial sewage sludge report. The court noted that while the CWA imposes a mandatory duty on EPA to review its sewage sludge regulations every two years, it does not require EPA to “identify and regulate” sewage sludge pollutants under that same timeframe. The court emphasized that the text of the CWA at issue in the case states that EPA “shall review the regulations promulgated […] for the purpose of identifying additional toxic pollutants” every two years. 33 U.S.C. § 1345(d)(2)(C). While the plaintiffs argued that this phrasing should be interpreted to require EPA to identify toxic pollutants in sewage sludge every two years, the court disagreed. It concluded that the plain language of the CWA requires EPA to review its existing sewage sludge regulations every two years in order to “facilitate the subsequent identification and regulation of pollutants.” For that reason, the court found that EPA had not violated the CWA by failing to identify the eighteen PFAS pollutants in its most recent biennial report.
For that same reason, the court concluded that EPA had not violated the CWA by not adopting regulations for management of the eleven PFAS pollutants that have been identified in sewage sludge. Once again, the court noted that while EPA had a mandatory duty to review its sewage sludge regulations every two years, it was not required to adopt new regulations according to the same schedule. For that reason, the court dismissed the case.
Although the court rule in favor of EPA, it dismissed the plaintiffs CWA claims without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the plaintiffs could bring those claims again at a future date. The court also noted that the plaintiffs could submit a petition to EPA to request that the agency initiate a rulemaking to regulate any PFAS pollutant, regardless of whether that pollutant had been identified in EPA’s sewage sludge report. Should EPA then deny that petition, that denial could then be challenged in court.
Going Forward
While it is not currently clear what the next steps are for the parties in this lawsuit, there are several possibilities. The plaintiffs have a 60-day window in which they could appeal the court’s decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for further review. They could also petition the court to reconsider the matter or attempt to file a new case because their claims were dismissed without prejudice. It is also possible that either the plaintiffs or another party could petition EPA to adopt PFAS regulations. Whatever the case, PFAS contamination continues to be an ongoing issue for many in the agricultural industry.
To read the court’s decision in Farmer v. U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, click here.
To read the plaintiffs’ complaint in Farmer v. U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, click here.
For more National Agricultural Law Center resources on the CWA, click here.