After months of winding legislative debate, major amendments, and at least one procedural snarl that temporarily stripped the measure of its core provisions, House and Senate negotiators have reached a conference agreement on HB 1275, New Hampshire’s bill addressing the contamination of agricultural land by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS or “forever chemicals.” The deal, reported Wednesday by the New Hampshire Bulletin, marks a potential turning point for a bill that has been repeatedly reshaped since it was introduced earlier this session.
The legislation centers on a difficult problem that has been quietly damaging New Hampshire farms for years: the widespread use of treated wastewater sludge, also called biosolids, as agricultural fertilizer. The practice was considered routine for decades, with little regulation. But biosolids from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants can contain high concentrations of PFAS, a family of thousands of synthetic chemicals used in everything from non-stick cookware to firefighting foam. When that sludge is spread on farmland, PFAS can leach into soil and groundwater, contaminate crops and livestock, and ultimately make it into the food supply and drinking water.
The consequences for farmers who unknowingly spread contaminated biosolids on their land can be devastating. Crops may need to be destroyed. Livestock must be tested and, in some cases, removed from the food chain. Wells can become undrinkable. And because the farmers typically had no way of knowing what was in the sludge they purchased or received for free, they find themselves holding the bill for a problem they did not create.
What the Bill Does
HB 1275, sponsored by Merrimack Democratic Rep. Wendy Thomas, was designed from the outset to give those farmers both financial relief and a measure of legal protection. As originally introduced, the bill contained three main pillars: a moratorium on new applications of PFAS-contaminated sludge to farmland, a state remediation fund to compensate farmers for documented losses, and liability protection for farmers who had applied sludge before the risks were understood.
The bill passed out of the House with broad bipartisan support, but not without modification. The moratorium on sludge application was one of the first elements to go, stripped out through an amendment offered by Democratic Reps. Nicholas Germana of Keene and Linda Haskins of Exeter and recommended by the House Environment and Agriculture Committee in early March. Supporters of the moratorium argued it was essential because it did not make sense to protect farmers from past contamination while continuing to allow more contaminated material to be spread on fields. Critics countered that a moratorium could create problems for the wastewater treatment industry, which relies on the land application of biosolids as a cost-effective disposal method.
The bill’s journey through the Senate proved equally turbulent. In early May, the Senate adopted a “replace-all” amendment that, in what legislators and staff later acknowledged was a procedural error, removed all references to sludge from the bill entirely. That created significant uncertainty about what the bill would ultimately accomplish. Lawmakers said at the time that they expected the sludge provisions to be restored when the Senate returned to the measure.
The agreement reached by the conference committee appears to preserve the core financial and legal elements of the legislation even if the original moratorium did not survive the process.
Why PFAS Contamination Is an Escalating Crisis
To understand what this legislation is trying to address, it helps to understand how serious and widespread PFAS contamination has become in New Hampshire. The state has been grappling with PFAS in drinking water for years, particularly in communities near industrial sites, military bases, and landfills. But contamination through agricultural sludge represents a distinct and in some ways more insidious pathway.
PFAS compounds do not break down naturally in the environment. They accumulate in soil, water, and living tissues over time. The Environmental Protection Agency has established strict maximum contaminant levels for several PFAS compounds in drinking water, acknowledging that even very low concentrations can pose health risks, including increased cancer risk, effects on the immune system, thyroid disruption, and developmental harm in children.
Farms in multiple New England states have discovered that land application of biosolids contaminated their soil and wells with PFAS at levels far exceeding safety standards. In Maine, where the problem came to light earlier and more dramatically, some dairy farms have had to shut down entirely. Farmers who raised and sold livestock discovered their animals contained PFAS at levels that disqualified the meat and milk from sale. The state of Maine eventually enacted among the strictest biosolids regulations in the country, including liability provisions and a ban on the land application of sludge above certain PFAS thresholds.
New Hampshire has lagged behind Maine in regulatory response, even as evidence of farm contamination within the state has grown. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has documented PFAS contamination at farms across the state, and advocates have long pressed for legislation that would give affected farmers a path to financial recovery.
The Farmer’s Dilemma
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of agricultural PFAS contamination is the position it places farmers in. Biosolids have been spread on New Hampshire farmland for decades, often with the encouragement of state and local agencies that saw it as an environmentally responsible way to recycle nutrients and reduce the volume of material going to landfills. Farmers were not warned about PFAS content because, for much of that period, there were no PFAS testing standards and the risks were not widely understood.
That left farmers in a position of having followed all applicable regulations and acted in good faith, only to discover years or decades later that the practices they were advised to follow had contaminated their land. Without liability protection of the kind HB 1275 seeks to provide, those farmers face potential lawsuits from neighbors whose wells were contaminated, from buyers of their produce or livestock, and from a cascade of other legal exposure that could be financially devastating.
At the same time, the cost of remediating PFAS-contaminated soil is substantial. Cleanup is technically difficult, and in some cases it may not be feasible to fully restore contaminated land to pre-contamination conditions. The remediation fund created by HB 1275 would give farmers a mechanism to seek state financial assistance for documented losses and remediation costs, rather than bearing those costs alone.
The situation is not unlike that of homeowners who installed asbestos insulation or lead paint following the standards of their era, only to discover decades later that those materials posed serious health hazards. In those cases, policy eventually evolved to provide relief and accountability mechanisms. HB 1275 represents New Hampshire’s attempt to do the same for the PFAS-on-farmland problem.
The Sludge Industry’s Position
The wastewater treatment industry has played an active role in shaping this legislation, and not always in directions that farmer advocates have welcomed. Utilities that generate biosolids have a direct financial interest in maintaining land application as a disposal option. If spreading biosolids on farmland is restricted or banned, utilities must find alternative disposal methods, which are typically more expensive and can involve their own environmental complications.
Industry representatives have argued that blanket moratoriums or liability frameworks could expose utilities to enormous financial risk and force rate increases on ratepayers. They have also pointed out that biosolids contain genuine agricultural value, nutrients that can reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers, and that eliminating land application could have downstream environmental consequences.
Those arguments found a receptive audience in some parts of the legislature, contributing to the removal of the moratorium and shaping other provisions of the bill. Environmental advocates have pushed back, arguing that the interests of farmers and rural communities who bear the direct costs of contamination should take precedence, and that the wastewater industry should be investing in PFAS treatment technology to reduce contamination at the source rather than lobbying to continue spreading contaminated material.
What Comes Next
With the conference committee agreement reached, the bill now needs to be ratified by both the full House and Senate before it can go to Governor Kelly Ayotte’s desk. Ayotte has not publicly taken a position on the legislation, but it has attracted broad bipartisan support throughout the process.
Environmental advocates have cautiously welcomed the agreement while noting that the loss of the original moratorium on sludge spreading leaves a gap. Without a prohibition on new applications of contaminated biosolids, the remediation fund could face ongoing and expanding claims as more farmland is contaminated. Some advocates have called for the moratorium to be addressed in subsequent legislation, framing it as unfinished business even if HB 1275 ultimately passes.
For now, the conference agreement represents meaningful progress for New Hampshire farmers who have watched their livelihoods threatened by contamination they did not cause. If the bill clears final legislative hurdles and earns the governor’s signature, they may gain both financial relief and protection from legal liability they sorely need. The agreement also puts New Hampshire in a stronger position on agricultural PFAS policy, even if it falls short of the most comprehensive protections that advocates had originally sought.
For related coverage, see our reporting on New Hampshire Just Had Its Best Ski Season in 15 Years, With 2.28 Million Visits.
For related coverage, see our reporting on New Hampshire’s Dark Skies Are a Vanishing Resource as Light Pollution Grows ….
What is HB 1275 and what does it do?
HB 1275 is New Hampshire legislation designed to address PFAS contamination on agricultural land caused by the historic use of sewage sludge or biosolids as fertilizer. The bill creates a state remediation fund to help farmers cover losses and cleanup costs, and provides liability protection for farmers who applied biosolids before the PFAS risks were understood.
How does PFAS get onto New Hampshire farmland?
PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” can enter farmland through the application of treated wastewater sludge, also called biosolids. This material was used as agricultural fertilizer for decades and was considered environmentally responsible, but biosolids can contain high concentrations of PFAS from industrial and municipal wastewater. Once spread on fields, PFAS leaches into soil, groundwater, and crops.
Why was the moratorium on sludge spreading removed from the bill?
The moratorium on new applications of PFAS-contaminated sludge was removed through a House committee amendment early in the session. Opponents argued that a moratorium would disrupt the wastewater industry, which relies on land application as a cost-effective disposal method. Supporters of the moratorium countered that it was essential to prevent ongoing new contamination while addressing past harm.
What happened with the Senate's "replace-all" amendment in May 2026?
In early May 2026, the Senate adopted a sweeping “replace-all” amendment that, due to a procedural error, removed all references to sludge from HB 1275. Lawmakers acknowledged the error and said they expected the bill’s core provisions to be restored. The conference committee agreement represents the reconciled version of the bill now moving toward a final vote.
What other New England states have addressed agricultural PFAS contamination?
Maine has been a leader in responding to agricultural PFAS contamination, enacting some of the strictest regulations in the country after farms there were devastated by sludge-related PFAS. Some Maine dairy farms were forced to close after livestock were found to contain PFAS at unsafe levels. New Hampshire’s HB 1275 is seen as bringing the state closer in line with Maine’s regulatory approach, though advocates note it still falls short of the most comprehensive protections.
New Hampshire is addressing PFAS contamination on multiple fronts. For background on how the state has tracked PFAS in Manchester wastewater, see CLF and EPA efforts on the Merrimack River. For more on the resilience of NH farms generally, see New Hampshire bicentennial farms. For more on drinking water PFAS challenges, see EPA PFAS rollbacks and New Hampshire communities.
