Department of Environmental Quality; prohibiting land application of sludge and biosolid material after certain date. Emergency.
Summary
SB3 would phase out the land application of sludge and biosolid material in Oklahoma and ultimately prohibit it statewide beginning July 1, 2027. The bill directs the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to stop issuing new permits for land application of sludge or biosolids upon the bill’s effective date, while leaving renewal decisions to DEQ’s discretion. It also requires existing permit holders to reduce the amount they land apply by 25% by September 1, 2025, and by 50% by September 1, 2026.
The bill further requires any permitted person or entity to submit a plan to DEQ by September 1, 2025, for full cessation of land application, and it authorizes DEQ to promulgate rules to carry out the new law. SB3 defines “biosolid material” as sewage sludge containing any PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance), tying the restriction specifically to sludge with these chemicals. The measure includes an emergency clause, meaning it would take effect immediately upon passage and approval.
Impact
SB3 would add a new section to Title 27A of the Oklahoma Statutes and significantly restrict DEQ’s permitting authority over land application of sludge and PFAS-containing biosolids. It would impose mandatory reduction and cessation planning requirements on current permit holders, prohibit new permits, and create a future statewide ban on land application of these materials. The bill would directly affect wastewater treatment operators, landfill and agricultural land-application businesses, and any entities currently permitted to spread sludge or biosolids on land.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support in the Senate. It passed Senate committee 10-0 and advanced on third reading by a 42-4 vote, indicating broad bipartisan approval with only limited opposition. No committee transcripts were provided, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote margins suggest the bill was viewed as a public health and environmental protection measure by most legislators.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the practical and economic impact of banning land application of sludge and PFAS-containing biosolids, especially for permit holders that rely on this disposal method. Opponents may be concerned about compliance costs, disposal alternatives, and the feasibility of meeting the required reduction schedule and cessation plan deadlines. Supporters appear to prioritize health and safety concerns tied to PFAS contamination and the environmental risks of land application, as reflected in the bill’s stated purpose and strong vote totals.