Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: 233 names. A $250 prize.
100 years.
In 1925, most cities buried their sewage sludge.
Milwaukee turned it into fertilizer. It also ran a contest to name it.
The winning name came from a fertilizer company in Charleston, South Carolina, my hometown, which honestly I didn't see coming when I was looking this up.
But the name Milorganite Milwaukee Organic Nitrogen.
This past year, Milorganite turned 100.
A century of proof that what leaves the treatment plant can in fact be a product and not just a waste.
But now that the product, along with other land spreading fertilizer products, it has a problem.
Pfas.
Sometimes referred to as forever chemicals.
These chemicals persist through treatment, sludge, drying, and ultimately make their way back into the ground through land spreading and sometimes into the water table.
It's simple math. You can see the cycle and solve the problem.
So the question is, what are we going to do about it now? Foreign.
I'm Rhys Tisdall and this is the Future of Water in which talk about all the ways which companies, utilities and people are addressing the challenges and opportunities in water.
This is episode 152 and I'm joined by my colleague Pat Byrne, who just wrapped up a deep dive into biosolids. How PFAS is changing the rules, the costs, and quite honestly, the options for what utilities do with their sludge. And there's a lot of it. Here's a number that frames, at least in my mind, everything today. And that's 56. That's how many wastewater plants in the entire country incinerate their sludge. Almost everything else ends up on farm fields or in landfills. And now states are writing their own PFAS rules for that sludge, with no national standard coming anytime soon.
I get it if you want to think about this, but the cost is real for utilities and the supply chain that supports it. Bluefield sees this market doubling to almost $5 billion by 2035.
So today's thesis and conversation with Pat is PFAS isn't going to end land application. What ends is the cheap one adoption approach.
Utilities that keep their options open will pay less and the company selling those options, they're more likely to win.
So let's get into it with Pat, talk about PFAS and biosolids and a lot of regulations and what it all means.
All right, so I'm joined here by Pat Byrne. Pat, what's going on?
[00:03:01] Speaker B: Nothing about Dries. It's a nice cool morning and I'm excited to talk about Biosolids a bit more.
[00:03:07] Speaker A: Cool. Morning. We're about to get hit blasted with a nor'. Easter. In fact, I'm actually recording from home today because I'm trying to get to weftech this weekend, and I'm a little concerned. I have to be there for an event. I'm speaking out on Sunday night, and I just want. I'm supposed to fly out Sunday morning, but I'm scared my flight's not going to make it. So I'm trying to get on a flight either today, worst case tomorrow. Really worst case Sunday.
I just need to make it.
[00:03:36] Speaker B: That's true. Just got to get there in time.
[00:03:38] Speaker A: Yeah, we might get, like, six inches of rain. So, you know, and to your point about being cool, it'd be nice to be in New Orleans. You know, being from the south, warm weather is good for the skin.
All right, well, let's jump to it. So, sorry about Green Bay packers last night.
[00:03:58] Speaker B: It's okay. The brewers hit 100 wins for the first time in franchise history, so it kind of evens out.
[00:04:04] Speaker A: That brings me back to the days of Robin Yount.
So. All right, well, you've done a big study on biosolids. You've been looking really, at the regulatory environment on biosolids and PFAS. And this one might call it the $64 million question, or even maybe $5 billion question, in that there's not a lot of policies in place, and it's. Developing is a better way to put it, and developing as fast as legislative sausage is made, which is very slow. So what I'd like to do, hopefully, is maybe start at the beginning and sort of think about, like, what role does PFAS play? Or how does it just even get into the system itself? So most people flush. They forget for good reason.
Walk us through the trip. How does PFAs, how does PFAs, from a factory, chemical factory, to firefighting foam to nonstick pants, how does it end up in the farm fields? Why can't the treatment plant just filter it out? Is it that big of a deal?
[00:05:11] Speaker B: Yeah. So I'm glad you kind of pointed out those three pathways, because those are kind of the main ways that pfas, you know, gets onto the farm field. So from the factory, it's being used in manufacturing or maybe even being produced at the facility. Um, it doesn't quite all get taken out of the wastewater. And when that wastewater goes to the treatment plant, it winds up then either in the treated effluent or in the biosolids, uh, National Pre treatment regulations haven't quite caught up to this yet, but they're getting there. Uh, so we don't quite have a handle on this pathway, but in individual instances where we, we know what the issue is, um, the firefighting foam, that is something we have a bit better of a handle on. Um, you know, we're better about training and it going down storm drains than we used to be.
And we're kind of phasing out some of the worst stuff. So this isn't too much of an issue. It's more of an issue for groundwater contamination. Consumer goods is where it gets a lot more complicated. Right. Because product bans on consumer. On PFAs and consumer goods, they're at a utility's hands. And it's kind of like a symptom of a broader problem of what do we do about PFAS on these goods. In any case, though, like you mentioned, like, the utilities are just passive receivers in all of this. They get the stuff from other sources and then they have to deal with it. And why can't they just deal with it or, you know, filter it out? Wastewater is a lot more complicated to treat than treated drinking water or even just raw water from the environment.
By the time the PFAS is in the wastewater, or especially in the biosolids, it's really, really quite difficult to get out.
[00:06:50] Speaker A: So is it hard to treat? Also? Is it just because it's irregular, like different, you know, volumes, flows, viscosities, is kind of gross. I don't know how to frame it. Why is it difficult?
[00:07:01] Speaker B: It's kind of like you alluded to, it's the physiochemical properties. So it's really varied and inconsistent. Yeah. Like you're saying. And what makes it up. But then also the technologies that we use to treat pfas in drinking water, activated carbon ion exchange, all the organic material in wastewater, they are competing for, like, treatment ability in those technologies. And so it reduces your ability to actually pull up the PFAS itself because you're also pulling other stuff all the time.
[00:07:35] Speaker A: And one quick question about that also is we're thinking about. One of your comments is PFAS has been. It's not a new substance or application. It's been around for, I don't know, half a century.
Is that about right?
[00:07:50] Speaker B: Yeah, something like that. Yeah. And so this definitely isn't a new problem.
Interestingly, if you have different sources of data about PFAS concentration and biosolids, it actually has gone down over time as we have phased out some of the worst stuff, like if you look 20 years ago in New Hampshire for say, your levels of PFOA and PFOS are going to be a lot higher than they are today.
[00:08:14] Speaker A: Okay.
So one thing that surprised me. So in 2026, there have been bans, right. And we'll get into different states and what they're doing. But there have been bans in certain states, but bills or legislation died in New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii. So four states move toward lower tiered limits. Instead, 22 states have. My numbers are correct. They've done nothing.
So if PFAS is this alarming, why are legislators backing away? And I guess there are also no federal guidelines either.
[00:08:51] Speaker B: Yeah. So I think a big part of why legislators are backing away is quite honestly, I think it is the cost of these. This is still a bit of a blind spot for the industry and actually how much it would cost, but it's pretty safe to say that it would be a drastic increase in disposal costs. And utilities are communicating this. We can kind of combat this, that part later. It's also, they're very difficult to reverse.
In Maine, for example, where they have banned biosolids land application over PFAS concerns, it's a little bit politically difficult for somebody to then stand up and say, hey, actually I think we should repeal this legislation. That's not really a super attractive path forward for a lot of legislators. And I think the biggest thing though is that, and this maybe gets a little bit lost in I think some of the media coverage around this is utilities are good faith actors in all of this.
Biosolids management is a routine business practice for them. And until something drastic changes about like our guts, how our toilets work, how our treatment plants are set up, it's going to keep being a routine business practice. Land application is kind of a win win situation for everybody when they can do it right. And they're passive receivers in that whole this no longer works. But I think even kind of beyond that, protecting the environment and preventing contamination is very fundamental to not just utility's mission, but also like self image. And like this kind of like just spreading contamination to them is like, that's kind of existential for them. And so like they really do want to find the best path forward in terms of like preventing contamination. But at the same time, like they also are very aware that like just banning it would be really, really expensive.
[00:10:36] Speaker A: And I think that's a really good point. I think your point about wastewater utilities and treatment plants being passive recipients or receivers of this waste, they're not putting it in there. Yet they're being held responsible. Right. They're being held responsible for the cost of treatment, for the disposal, whatever it
[00:10:56] Speaker B: may be, and kind of even for the actual taking the heat itself. They're kind of a face almost to the problem that a local person who's concerned about the broader issue of PFAS is like, well, okay, our utility is spreading biosolids that might have PFAs. I'm going to get mad at them.
[00:11:13] Speaker A: Yeah. And I, I don't know. I mean if at the intro I think the fact, which I z. Throw out a fact, I was talking about malorganite out of Milwaukee. You're from Wisconsin. So I mean it's been around 100. They've been using this fertilizer. It's 100 years old at this point. So I think your point is interesting about it's win win. Right. The they have to dispose of the biosolids. It is a byproduct of the treatment process.
So there has been the ability to sell it as fertilizer. So there's beneficial reuse, if you will. And now PFAS over the last 40, 50 years has injected itself into this process which is now potentially.
Well, it is disrupting not only the legislative process, it's disrupting how wastewater utilities treat, but also there's an entire services industry surrounding land spreading. You know that, that addresses that. Not massive, but not insignificant either.
But back to the sort of legislative piece, states seem to be writing their own rules to keep, but they keep landing on sort of the same points or same levels, maybe 20 to 25 parts per billion. And then after that, whether it ramps up, they disagree or they're just different, wildly different. How they're addressing it with bands kicking in from 50 to 150 parts per billion. This is all details.
Is it just a number that everybody's copying from one another? What's the story? And Michigan is playing a role. I know in your report and analysis there is a discussion about sort of the Michigan model, so to speak, how is it playing out at the state level.
[00:13:03] Speaker B: So I'm not exactly an expert on the actual rulemaking process behind some of these legislative decisions. So with that caveat, it kind of seems like they might just be copying Michigan. I'm admittedly a little bit stumped by this because we don't really still know a whole lot about the actual environmental risks of this. So it's not really a function of that. Is it something to do with the accuracy itself of the standardized test method? That we're using for these. Not really sure. Is it as simple as just humans like tens and 10 PFOA plus 10 PFOS equals 20? I'm not really sure. At the very least it is a level of consistency between states where you kind of know if your total concentration of PFOA and PFOS is below 20 that it is probably good to be land spread. I think one of the things with that kind of variability we see after that initial 20. One of the advantages of the federalist system we have here in the US and how Clean Water act works is it kind of lets different states experiment with what they think is the acceptable level of risk.
But I do think that is kind of a broader question of yeah, what level of risk is acceptable when you really don't quite know what the actual long term ramifications of it are. At least with this program that's a decision that the state is making and not something that the utility has to wrestle with quite as much they can know. Like okay, if I'm under this level of PFOA and pfos, I think I'm good to go for the time being.
[00:14:39] Speaker A: Do you think this has just came to my mind.
Do you think while we're talking about Michigan.
[00:14:46] Speaker B: Right.
[00:14:46] Speaker A: You talked about Maine and sort of a ban on land spreading and that's been in the news for several years now for Michigan. Do you think there's also greater focus in that state because of the Flint problem and water quality issues? Are they just more acutely aware of water quality and in this case clean water and contamination?
[00:15:09] Speaker B: I think it is a little bit of that kind of Great Lakes, a bit higher level of consciousness of yeah like clean water and water supplies and kind of maybe a recognition too of specifically with Michigan's history with the auto industry and how we know that chrome plating and metal plating is a pretty big. And that's been apparent for a little while now that it's a pretty big source of pfas. I think it's maybe there was and again, yeah, possibly given the timing, maybe there is a bit of a connection at least just in the mindset of responding to the Flint crisis, that hey, maybe we should get ahead of this.
But I think it is interesting though that Michigan, you know, started their industrial pre treatment program for PFAS all the way back in 2018 and the biosolids program was in 2021. So they've really been ahead of the curve on some of this stuff.
[00:15:56] Speaker A: Yeah, I think my, my thinking is that's partly the case, or at least it's in the back of everybody's minds.
Water quality, disadvantaged communities and what this means. So one of the questions, I know we've jumped into sort of details in some cases about sort of what is it, where does it come from? But let's just say a state bans land application tomorrow, where does the sludge go? Like when I think in the intro I'd mentioned, I think in the report you say there are 56 plants in the country that run a sludge incinerator. That's one way of destroying it. So I guess the question is where does it go? Who gets stuck with the bill? What happens to the farmer, ratepayer?
Any thoughts on that?
[00:16:42] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean that really is the million, if not like you were alluding to maybe the billion dollar question of all this. So yeah, I mean there kind of are right. There are three pathways for biosolids right now in the U.S. that's incineration, landfill and land spreading. There are other pathways, but those are the big three.
So with the incinerators, like you mentioned, only 56 plants in the country that are running them. They're also relatively concentrated in the northeast part of the country, in the Midwest. They're old, their capacity is maxed out. They're expensive to build, they're expensive to operate. And again this is if we're talking about tomorrow, we certainly can't build more quickly. Landfills are probably the game. If the state bans land application tomorrow, landfill is probably where the sludge goes and it goes there for a bit. But there are a lot of issues with it being there long term. So I mean, one, it's just really expensive. Two, there are logistical issues that have to deal with moisture and the different material materials you actually have to combine biosolids with to put them in a landfill. And there's really not, especially in the northeast and like around major cities, there's not really a long term option due like the capacity constraints and you know, our inability to expand landfills quickly like what happened in Maine, you know, maybe it goes to other states via long distance trucking or like rail, but I don't know. I think it's pretty obvious why that is not really a viable long term option at a certain point. Run out of states. I think the uncomfortable truth is there aren't really a whole lot of options if a state bans land application and there definitely aren't really any good long term ones. The other potential pathways are just not ready to pick up the slack when we rely so much on land spreading because at the end of the day, we're going from, like you mentioned, that services industry, we're going from a reusable resource that you can get some value out of to just a commoditized waste disposal where you have to just put it in a landfill and, and try and minimize that cost.
In terms of who gets stuck with the bill.
An unfortunate little bit of clarity in this entire complicated problem is that it's the rate bear. This is an operating cost. That cost goes up, that cost gets paid by rates. Farmers in some instances might see some issues in terms of if they were getting biosolids.
Interestingly enough, that's maybe a bit of a more widespread issue in other countries that they tried to do this. But by and large this is more of a good arrangement for the wastewater industry than it is for farmers a lot.
It's actually a relatively small number of farm fields overall compared to the total area of farmland in the US that gets biosolids. There's some momentum to get the factory to maybe chip in for all of this, but again, the regulation isn't there. So if we're talking tomorrow, they're really not going to see too much of that cost. They might see some higher sewer charges in the near future, but that's about it.
[00:19:33] Speaker A: Yeah, I think there have been lawsuits and settlements on the drinking water side. Right. I think that's first and foremost what maybe lawyers are more focused on water quality, drinking water quality. So there have been settlements where some of the chemical companies are now paying for upgrades, whether it be deploying activated carbon and other treatment systems at drinking water facilities.
And part of that is also at the federal level. There are guidelines that have shifted somewhat over the past couple administrations, but nonetheless they're in place. Biosolids or wastewater? There's not.
And I think part of it is it's hard. I think also legislators are not excited about adding costs to cities and towns. You know, there's a pushback, is it necessary, is it over regulated, etc. So as I said at the beginning, I'm going to weftech. Hopefully maybe today we'll see.
I just wish Delta would waive the fee and the cost of the ticket, but that's an aside.
So I'm going to go to weftech and every conference like weftech has a vendor promising to destroy PFAS for good. Right. There's a new mousetrap out there all the time being proposed, but the 20 year cost runs, you know, 63 million 230 million per plant. So it's assumed to be out of reach of most small plants. I think in the US are about 18 or so thousand wastewater treatment plants.
So is destruction a real solution or is this just a big city problem for the Bostons and New Yorks of the world that have big budgets, more sophisticated in those cases, like you said, maybe they're closer to incinerator so they have that luxury. What happens if you're a small utility in Oklahoma?
[00:21:37] Speaker B: Yeah, so I think like again, to really specifically answer your question, like, is this technology, are these technologies a real solution or a luxury for big cities? I think it's, you know, right now.
Are they a real solution? Yes, in the sense that the technology works, but deployment is a bit more complicated than just the benchtop.
I think it's both a real solution and a big city luxury. Like in certain regions where you have not a whole lot of landfill space, you're running out of land application options.
The math on some of these bigger facilities works out if you can set up a regional facility, but the siting for those is pretty tough.
Communities don't like having them in their backyard.
And even beyond the actual character of the place itself, they aren't a huge fan of truck traffic or odors. And I think, like, I don't know, I think the idea of it being a luxury is a bit of a mischaracterization because I think a lot of utilities are only seriously looking at this if they feel they don't really have another option or if they're actively choosing to take on a risk on behalf of like other smaller utilities around them that actually can't afford to do this. So I think it's kind of going to be a bit of like a wait and see, like as these technologies mature a bit more. Do the costs come down? As they scale up, do the costs come down? You know, if things change about pfas and we're thinking a bit harder about no end application, maybe the math looks pretty different in a couple of years.
[00:23:09] Speaker A: Yeah, I think that's fair on the luxury, but I mean, at the end of the day, you said it, Wastewater utilities, they're. They're good faith actors, right? They're not doing this because they necessarily want to do it. They want to do it because they want to comply. They're also potentially taking on liability. Right? And some may be trying to think it through, how to get out ahead of it, but they also want to do it at a more cost effective solution or cost effective way in which, you know, one can only assume that with time, with scale, prices will go down on some of these things. How long do they wait? It's a bit of a game, right? But that's life.
So I think your point about sort of where it goes and how it goes. You mentioned trains, but you also mentioned trucking, right? So for anybody not aware what's happening in the world, diesel prices are through the roof right now. So operating costs for utilities, whether they want to or not, are going up. Right. Partly because they have their own supplies delivered for treatment, but also biosolids. Right. Which is a line item in their OPEX budgets.
But those costs, if they have to truck more. Tipping fees are going up at the landfill for various reasons, but then the trucking fees are going up specifically because of diesel prices. So Bluefield has the market doubling, I think in our last forecast to about 4, almost 5 billion by 2035.
But if the strictest states, like said Maine or Michigan, you know, if these create the biggest market, economic, biggest market with the worst economics, is that growth good news? If you're an investor, where do you put a dollar towards testing, dewatering, hauling, destruction, what gets you excited? I know we've had a lot of discussions about areas of opportunity.
What's on your mind in regards to that question?
[00:25:12] Speaker B: Yeah, it's a really good one. Like, because, you know, as, as states get stricter, especially some of those bigger states, that 4.8 billion definitely would go up.
Unfortunately, if that number goes up for that reason, it's probably only good news if you own a landfill or an incinerator already.
Otherwise it's bad news.
It seems like it could be good news for the hauling folks, but in reality, like you said, hauling is pretty tricky. Right now you're juggling a lot with diesel prices, maintenance prices, labor costs while trying, you know, you're operating on annual, potentially multi year contracts with utilities. How do you like manage that risk?
I'm an optimist. I say, you know, put your money in testing and dewatering. I think, you know, testing just because as this is going to become a routine thing like, you know, I think it's worth pointing out here like PFAS is not the first contaminant to pop up in biosolids. We've done this before with pathogens, with heavy metals. Like, you know, we've kind of been down a version of this path before. I think as this becomes a bit more of a routine thing, testing is also just going to become part of the nature of the beast. And then also dewatering, because it's just kind of a good idea regardless. Like even if the market kind of maybe gets back to more of a track of looking more at land application and reuse, dewatering is still a good idea because it's going to just kind of improve your economics there. And then also conversely, if we kind of move away from land application, dewatering prepares you to deal with some of the other pathways that kind of pop up in its place, maybe drying too. But that's tougher, it's more complicated, it's higher capital costs. It has its own issues that are tougher to deal with than dewatering, but definitely also part of the same family of potential solutions.
[00:27:06] Speaker A: Yeah, I think the dewatering piece, and this is what I was referring to, I think we've talked a bit about this. Like you're just shipping water, right, or trucking water and so why not dry it as much as possible, PFAS or not. But like I said, you know, this is the challenge with utilities, municipalities sort of like you've got to put, you got to put down some capex, you got some capital to procure the equipment, manage it and install it. So there's an upfront cost and then what's the payback? And, and it may vary, right? And you know, wastewater, it's, it's not consistent. So that's sort of the challenge. And some utilities are far more progressive or active in doing so than others, which is interesting. So.
All right, well, when we look geographically, so, and maybe it's just the size of the market and if I interpret this correctly, California is the biggest land spreading state in the country.
It's tested at sludge. I think overall it's found fairly low levels of pfas.
So it's not regulating it, which is surprising given that it's California.
But meanwhile farmers in Johnson County, Texas, which you know that state is open for business, Johnson County, Texas, they're suing. Is it a national crisis, A regional industrial problem?
What would it take to change anybody's mind?
[00:28:40] Speaker B: So I, I personally think at the moment it's a bit more of like a regional problem. Like you kind of mentioned the industrial inputs, like the ones that are really the issues from like, you know, some of the most intensely PFAS discharging industries.
Those are a bit more localized and a bit more of an issue for the treatment plants that they directly discharge to. Now there's definitely also, I think between states, like differences in the ability to manage that situation, like the cost to manage it. This is kind of one of those instances in which the solution is kind of defining the problem. You only have so many options here. I think one of the things that really would, I guess there are a few different things that would change my mind here.
One is actual data on what our PFOS level is, immunosupal biosolids. Unfortunately, that data just doesn't really exist yet. It's a known problem for the industry. They're not terribly happy about it because they're really flying blind in this problem that they can't manage what they can't measure. I think also maybe more studies on just what are the risks here to people, to contaminate drinking water supplies to broader ecosystems.
I think also one thing that could make it a national crisis is if we start having, I don't know, cascading land bans, I guess you could call it.
If, say Massachusetts bans land and then New York bans land and then Pennsylvania bans land, all of a sudden we kind of have in the Northeast a bunch of biosolids who know where to go. Do they maybe get shipped, say to Ohio or to Alabama?
I imagine they wouldn't be terribly pleased about the situation. Maybe all of a sudden we're talking about interstate commerce. So it could become a national crisis pretty quickly. I think at the moment though, it does really seem like it's kind of more localized to kind of specific states and regions where there are different types of industrial activity.
[00:30:37] Speaker A: And I suspect it'll remain that way partly because of the state of Washington, the polarization. There's not a lot of legislation coming out of D.C. right now in any form. So I think that probably will have an impact definitely in the near to medium term.
[00:30:56] Speaker B: And I do think it's also kind of worth mentioning too, like, you know, with biosolids and pfas, like this is already something that even before the Trump administration, the EPA generally is not a super huge fan of getting involved in. Again, this is kind of one of those moments where they prefer to kind of take that cooperative federalism model, the Clean Water act, and say, hey, you know, I think you guys can figure it out. And especially with something like PFAS where the science isn't really settled one way or another, I think that if at all possible, I think the EPA would like to wait and see just a little bit longer.
[00:31:31] Speaker A: Yeah, no, I agree with you. I think you're exactly right.
Well, this is super interesting, so I'll leave a open ended question for you because you put out this analysis, you've been looking at bias hollows for a while in a number of different forms. So, anything else to add or closing thoughts on sort of the topic or what you're thinking?
[00:31:54] Speaker B: I guess the only thing I would add is I have been thinking about the concept recently of wicked problems, which is a concept from social planning science. And the term wicked doesn't mean that they're evil or bad, but kind of like these problems that are so big and complicated and intractable that they almost seem like they're actively resisting being solved. So global climate change is a really classic example, but homelessness, nuclear weapons, proliferation, a lot of different things, you could kind of fall into this label. I think PFAS in biosolids does too for a variety of different reasons. And I think just kind of talking through some of the ways these problems are defined kind of reveals that one thing is with these problems is that there is no definitive formula or definition for them because a given person's values and worldviews shape how they see the problem. So like PFAS and biosolids, I think for a lot of folks they would say that the issue is the PFAS and the biosolids. I think others would maybe say, well actually the issue is that we're putting biosolids at land at all, we just shouldn't do that at all, period.
And also kind of that they're often like symptoms of a different problem. So I think here, right, the symptom is kind of like, hey wait, there's PFAS in everything in society. We are super reliant on it, but it doesn't get destroyed at all. And this is a growing issue.
It's not really just the issue of the biosolids themselves.
Again also with these problems there aren't really clear true or false, right or wrong answers. They're just kind of better or worse strategies. They have a lot of trade offs, they have consequences too. If you get the answer wrong, there is a consequence to it. And then also you don't really get the ability to trial or test different strategies here. I guess in the US you have the luxury of maybe some other states trying something out, but you don't know how that's going to go in your own state.
And at the end of the day these problems, the longer you wait, the worse they get. So with PFAS and biosolids we can't just kind of sit around and do nothing.
There definitely is some amount of PFAS and biosolids somewhere. We have to deal with this we can't just wait and see because the clock is just ticking the whole time. And again, I think that this is really interesting here because with this whole problem, again, it's going beyond just this issue of how does a utility manage their operations. It's like, what is waste? How do we define waste?
How hard should we even try to be using, reusing different waste resources? And what's the acceptable level of risk when we do that? These are really big questions that I think that this problem of PFAS and biosolids kind of reveal.
[00:34:44] Speaker A: Yeah, I didn't, honestly, I'm not gonna lie. I didn't know where you're gonna go with that when you're saying wicked problems. I didn't know if you're saying that because you're in Boston and you're just going wicked. But it's super interesting, right? And you can turns into almost, I mean, a philosophical question, right? Like, what is waste? Is it really waste? Do you reuse it? I mean, and that raises a lot of questions. Whether is waste, should we be reusing it for drinking water? Should we not? Should we be?
Yeah, and there's a whole movement towards mining wastewater because there are other.
I mean, there are minerals and there's, there's even data in there. Right.
You know, mining it for that. Not that that's necessarily a problem. Is it really an opportunity?
Yeah. And PFAS is a big.
Yeah, it's, it's. I don't want to say if it's existential, but then the question is, well, if you know, it's there, shouldn't we be dealing with it? Is it bad for us? Well, we're not sure. And their arguments, scientifically speaking?
Yes. No, maybe.
Sometimes it takes time. I think, you know, if you read the news, everybody was. Everybody's got PFAS in their body at certain levels. I think that's what arguments have been made. Whether that's true or not, I can't, you know, empirically vouch one way or the other. So yeah, it's super interesting, but I like the topic. I really like the idea, just biosolid management as a whole. I mean, for years, you know, we've had clients, both investor owns, but publics, but also suppliers coming to us asking about one, what's the size of the market? Which I think you've done a great job of sizing the biosolid market because it is a line item in OPEX budgets that's rising for various reasons, whether it be because of landfill tipping rates or costs but also trucking.
Yeah. It's now pfas kind of throws a whole wrench into the.
A spanner in the works, as my old friend Andy Ranson would say.
So I like it. Well, Pat, thanks for jumping on.
Yeah. On a Friday before weftech, and hopefully that all works out. But with that being said, I will set you free into the. Into the weekend.
[00:37:16] Speaker B: Thank you. Yeah, I hope you enjoyed the show and make it there without too much incident.
[00:37:21] Speaker A: Just make it there. All right. Sounds good. Thanks, Pat. Talk soon.
All right. It's fantastic having Pat on. Like I said, super interesting topic, biosolids, but then also the impact of pfas and what it all means. Lots of uncertainty, which is cause for lots of good discussion. So.
All right, before we wrap up, as always, what caught my eye this past week? Well, looking at the Western U.S. again, on September 21st, day before my birthday, Gavin Newsom declared state of emergency in California. Not for a storm, for a storm season that hadn't even started yet. So NOAA is now giving this super EL NINO A 75% chance of becoming the strongest since records began in 1950.
Not a good sign for the Western U.S. so what stopped me was the timing. You know, for a better part of the last two decades, we've talked about California as a drought story that's led to conservation, rationing, desalination, water reuse. But now the state is staging pumps and sandbags months in advance because the problem is not too little water. It might be too much water now on the coast. I think the El Nino lines up with the peak of an 18 year high tide cycle. That's what I was reading, and that's why I caught my eye. You see, Santa Cruz researcher estimates that higher water puts another 170,000 people at risk. This could add up to about $60 billion in property risk. So it's pretty significant.
Why does it matter? Well, utilities are going to potentially draw down reservoirs. I think that's part of the planning. They're going to have to fight muddy water from wildfire, scarred hillsides, which have been a problem. I think I talked about that on the last podcast out west about reservoirs filling up with just sediment.
Now if there's sediment, there's runoff, just compounds the problem.
So the smart utilities will maybe, you know, hopefully. I don't know if there's enough time, try to bank it, steering some of the stormwater into basins, maybe even recharge aquifers. So like I said, California doesn't just have a drought problem or a flood problem. It really has a storage problem, so it'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.
So that's what caught my eye this past week.
And with that being said, this is future water.
Not just making the calls, but sometimes looking back at them as well. And I look forward to seeing what happens with biosolids and PFAs in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years.
Who knows what episode we'll be on? This is only 152, so we'll be in the thousands at that point. Hopefully.
If you got a topic you want us to cover, send us a Note to water expertsluefieldresearch.com that is where we receive emails about topics. Really appreciate it, not going to lie, don't get tons of them. Partly because we are self managed and topics selective. Partly because of our analysis and the people on our team. Our water experts, like patients, provide some really interesting and ongoing insights into the water sector, whether it be water, wastewater, stormwater, municipal, industrial, US, Canada, global Europe, etc. So it's always great to get on with them. So this is the future of water from Bluefield Research. Until next time, be well, be safe and take care.
