Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and residents urge Twin Valley board to halt proposed digester, demand soil and water testing
Summary
At the Feb. 17 Twin Valley School District board meeting, multiple parents and residents urged the board to oppose a proposed co-digester/biodome near school property, citing PFAS/PFOS concerns, petition signatures and reported violations at existing facilities; the board did not take formal action but said it is gathering information.
Several parents and residents told the Twin Valley School District board on Feb. 17 that a proposed co-digester or ‘‘biodome’’ near school property poses environmental and health risks and should not proceed until the district requires baseline testing and transparent lease terms.
Joseph DeGarry, introduced by the chair as a public commenter, urged the board to require grid-pattern soil sampling and comprehensive testing of all wells and on-site water for PFAS, microplastics, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals. "There should be soil samples taken in a grid pattern and find out what exactly a baseline is going on now," DeGarry said during the public-comment period.
Megan Zager told the board the district should competitively bid any lease of school land and set clear terms. "Let's get a baseline. But really importantly, let's get our lease bid out for the ground," she said, adding that current lease rates are far below what some farmers pay.
A resident speaker reported collecting about 770 petition signatures from Twin Valley families opposing the project and asked the board to add PFOS testing and remediation to a future agenda, saying some district schools have shown elevated PFOS levels. At least one parent and teacher, who identified herself as Jessica Fiore, described a child with special needs and urged the board to protect students. Fiore and other commenters also cited reported violations at existing co-digesters operated by private firms, including membrane breaches and a 25,000-gallon digestate spill, asserting those incidents demonstrate risks to community health.
Board members acknowledged the comments and said staff and trustees are gathering information. The chair thanked speakers and noted the district has posted a statement and information about recent water testing on its website. No formal board vote or change in district policy was taken on the digester at the meeting; members stressed the limits of district authority while asking for more publicly available testing information.
The public-comment speakers asked the board to consider adding a formal agenda item on water testing and remediation, and to require competitive lease procedures and protective lease provisions before any district land is leased for industrial projects. The board did not schedule a decision on the digester during the Feb. 17 session; trustees said they will continue to review information and listen to community input.
