Biosolids; requiring disclosure of use of biosolids for agricultural products and land application; requiring reporting. Effective date.
SB620 creates new disclosure and notice requirements related to the use of biosolids in Oklahoma. The bill defines “biosolid” broadly to include sludge and PFAS-related substances, and then requires businesses and entities involved in industrial, municipal, or commercial operations to disclose biosolid use when labeling products for sale or distribution. Covered products include compost, fertilizer, soil amendments, topsoil replacement, and mulch, and the bill also requires full disclosure to purchasers of agricultural crops or vegetative material grown on land where biosolids were permitted to be applied.
The bill also imposes property-based disclosure requirements. Entities using biosolids on property must post public signage, and any sale or lease of that property must include a disclosure that the land was used as a biosolids application site. In addition, the Department of Environmental Quality must publish and annually update a public map of biosolid land application sites, including application dates and landowner/lessor information, and retain records permanently. The department must also notify agritourism businesses within four miles of a planned land application at least 60 days in advance, in consultation with the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry.
SB620 would add a new section to Title 27A of the Oklahoma Statutes and expand state-level reporting, labeling, and public-notice obligations for biosolid use. It would affect businesses that produce or distribute agricultural inputs and soil products, landowners and lessors of sites where biosolids are applied, and state agencies responsible for environmental oversight and agricultural coordination. The bill also creates a public disclosure framework that could influence real estate transactions, agritourism operations, and consumer purchasing decisions by making biosolid use more visible and traceable.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be driven by a precautionary and transparency-focused approach to biosolid application, especially where agricultural products, property use, and nearby agritourism businesses may be affected. The overall tone of the legislation suggests concern about public awareness and potential environmental or health-related risks associated with biosolids and PFAS-related materials.
The likely points of contention are the breadth of the disclosure requirements, the inclusion of PFAS-related substances in the definition of biosolid, and the operational burden on businesses, landowners, and state agencies. Producers and landowners may object to mandatory labeling, public signage, permanent recordkeeping, and disclosure in sales or leases, while agritourism operators may support the notice provisions as a way to protect visitors and business interests. Environmental and consumer transparency advocates would likely favor the bill’s notice and mapping requirements, while opponents may argue that the requirements are overly expansive or could stigmatize lawful biosolid use.