A federal district court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by farmers, environmental groups and local governments against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to the opinion issued by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich in Farmer v. EPA. The plaintiffs—who filed their suit in August 2024—alleged that EPA failed to meet its statutory duty under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to identify and regulate PFAS in agricultural biosolids.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that EPA failed to identify 18 PFAS chemicals present in biosolids and failed to regulate 11 PFAS chemicals previously listed in EPA’s biennial reports. They claimed these omissions posed risks to public health and the environment, and asked the court to order EPA to take regulatory action within specific deadlines.

The court dismissed the CWA claims because “[e]ven assuming that Section 402(d)(2)(C) requires EPA to identify and to regulate additional sewage-sludge pollutants at some point, it does not specify a ‘date-certain deadline’ by which the agency must do so.” The court found that the CWA only requires EPA to “review” its regulations every two years, but does not require the agency to take further regulatory action within a specific timeframe. Without a clear, non-discretionary duty tied to a deadline, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ CWA claims.

The court dismissed the APA claims because EPA’s biennial report is “informational in nature” and “is not a final agency action” because “it does not tell regulated parties what they must do or may not do in order to avoid liability.” Therefore, without a final action subject to judicial review, the plaintiffs’ failed to state a claim under the APA upon which relief could be granted.

While the court made clear that biennial reviews alone cannot be used to force regulatory action, it noted that interested parties, including the plaintiffs, may still petition EPA to initiate rulemaking, and a denial of such a petition could be subject to judicial review. This decision may prompt further alternative administrative or legal actions from industry groups seeking to address the regulation of PFAS and biosolids, and also outlines the procedural hurdles for those seeking to compel EPA action.

By Associate Caitlin Robb

Read more stories in Issue 842 of the Food and Beverage Litigation and Regulatory Update >>