Residents urge Twin Valley School District to oppose proposed Kirtland Farms co‑digester, solicitor says township has final authority

Dozens of residents told the Twin Valley School District board on Jan. 20 that a proposed anaerobic co‑digester at Kirtland Farms would pose unacceptable risks to students, neighbors and local wells.

"This project is based on greed," said Jeff Altier, a resident, who raised concerns about ownership and said his opposition was driven by potential contaminants and "forever chemicals" in biosolids spread on local land. Several other speakers cited the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and draft risk assessments they said link biosolids to persistent chemicals in soil and groundwater.

Parents and neighbors described the planned digester as sited too close to district facilities. "It is literally sandwiched in between the schools of this community," said Christine, a resident, who urged the board to oppose the project to protect students. Erin Mazoka, a district parent, asked the board to add the matter to a future agenda, hire independent experts and consider retracting the lease the district holds for the farmland used by Kirtland Farms.

Speakers raised multiple technical and operational concerns: potential contamination of private wells, emissions of ammonia and nitrogen oxides, increases in heavy‑truck traffic (residents cited traffic estimates of multiple tanker trucks per day), deficits in insurance or lease terms, and local emergency‑response capacity if an incident occurred. Tim McKeown, a former firefighter, said he was not satisfied by answers he received at a developer event about how quickly on‑call staff could respond to a mechanical or hazardous release.

The board’s solicitor, Leah Rutenberg, said the district has no unilateral authority to approve or deny the digester. "The ultimate decision regarding the anaerobic digester project rests entirely with the Carnarvon Township municipality," she said, adding that the district does, however, have standing as an adjoining landowner and has submitted a set of conditions for the township to consider in the conditional‑use process.

Rutenberg listed the district's recommended conditions: third‑party testing of materials applied to district property with timing tied to the specific batches being land‑applied; immediate mitigation of odors, pests and bird issues; keeping the digester site within agricultural security protections while ensuring municipal odor controls can be enforced; disclosure of where methane fueling and transfer facilities will be sited to allow an accurate traffic assessment; and relocating the access road or creating a signalized intersection at the State Routes 23/401 intersection if needed to mitigate traffic safety risks.

District leaders and residents diverged on whether those conditions would amount to formal support. Some residents urged the board to adopt a position of opposition similar to neighboring municipalities; others asked for the district to pursue neutral third‑party studies. The board instructed residents to submit written questions to the superintendent's office or to tvsdboard@tvsd.org for formal responses and said the administration would attempt to locate an independent environmental engineering firm and obtain the most current lease documentation for the farmland.

The solicitor and several board members emphasized that public participation in the township’s hearings remains the most direct avenue for affecting the outcome, and they encouraged residents to attend future municipal hearings where zoning and conditional‑use decisions are made.

Next steps: the district said it will post a statement on its website summarizing its position and the steps it has taken to gather information; the board moved into an executive session at the end of the meeting to discuss legal matters related to the issue.