Ohio County court passes first reading of ordinance regulating proposed bio-digester amid community concerns

The Ohio County Court voted to approve the first reading of an ordinance intended to regulate proposed bio-digester facilities in the county, following extended discussion about local impacts, public information and regulatory gaps. The vote was taken by roll call and passed on a majority vote. The court said it will advertise the proposal and hold a public hearing before the second reading.

Supporters of drafting an ordinance told the court the measure would give the county tools to protect neighbors while the county considers potential projects. Commissioners and community members focused discussion on setbacks, fencing, spill containment and the need to require flaring of methane that escapes production systems, modeled in part on landfill flaring practices. Commissioners also discussed adding state and federal regulatory references to the county ordinance.

Opponents and some commissioners said they wanted more technical information from companies that might build or operate a digester before enacting restrictions, and several residents urged the court to hold a town‑hall meeting with the developer. Speakers said commercial details were often proprietary and that companies on site had declined to answer some questions; county officials said the county is still in an information‑gathering phase.

The ordinance as presented to the court will proceed as a first reading; court members said the commission can revise the text before a second reading. The court scheduled a public hearing to occur as part of the second reading and directed staff to advertise the ordinance as required. No final adoption occurred at the meeting.

Community members raised specific operational questions the court said remain unresolved, including how much fertilizer product or other material would be moved by truck or rail, whether the company would agree to on‑site tours or public briefings, and how long farmer pilot programs would be subsidized. Commissioners noted that some counties have adopted outright bans; the ordinance before Ohio County is narrower, focusing on neighbor protections and technical controls. The court encouraged residents to submit written suggestions and said members of the public will be able to speak at the scheduled public hearing.

The court’s action was a first‑step procedural vote rather than final regulatory approval; commissioners emphasized the second reading and public hearing will be the venue for more detailed public input and any ordinance amendments.