Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Materials Management Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Freedom Township residents urge county to seek site exemption from proposed methane biodigester
Summary
Multiple Freedom Township residents told the board the Materials Management Plan should include a site exemption to prevent methane-producing biodigesters in their township, citing pipelines, fuel storage, contaminated soils, wetlands and limited local emergency response capacity.
Residents from Freedom Township and surrounding rural areas urged the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners on Dec. 3 to work closely with the Materials Management Planning Committee (MMPC) to secure a written site exemption in the county Materials Management Plan (MMP) that would block methane-producing biodigesters in Freedom Township.
Carol Westfall told the board that the township faces an unusually dense set of hazards — pipelines, a gas plant, fuel storage tanks, gravel mines, PCB-contaminated soil and high radon levels — and lacks dedicated police, fire and hazmat capacity to manage major incidents. "How can it possibly be fair to burden us with another risk?" she asked. Christine Mike Sell, who said she had reviewed state law governing MMP siting provisions, said her group had identified a legally defensible exemption and asked the county to ensure the MMPC adds it to the plan.
Other residents with emergency-response experience raised specific preparedness questions: whether mutual-aid agreements are in place, what memoranda of understanding exist with partner agencies, and how a county response would meet the demands of a multi-day level-3 incident. Matthew Prouch, a retired veteran and fire-investigation captain, argued that groundwater contamination, road access and the cost of water-shuttle operations were practical concerns for rural response.
Commissioner Beaman thanked Freedom Township speakers and said she would take their concerns "to heart." Commissioners did not adopt any specific policy or vote on the MMP at the meeting; several said they expected substantive discussion with staff and the MMPC in coming months. State law governing county MMPs was cited by speakers as the controlling framework; no textual change to the county plan was made at this meeting.
Next steps identified in public comment were that residents want early engagement with MMPC deliberations and that the board represent local concerns before a final county MMP is adopted. The board signaled it would follow up through staff and committee processes rather than by immediate vote.
