Residents tell Twin Valley board proposed farm digester risks wells, odors and traffic

Public commenters pressed the Twin Valley School Board on Jan. 13 to investigate and possibly oppose a proposed anaerobic-digester project on farmland the district rents, saying the project could threaten drinking wells, create persistent odors near three schools and impose heavy truck traffic on neighborhood roads.

Several residents who identified themselves at the meeting described longtime community ties and professional experience they said qualify them to judge the risks. "If the school district knowingly lets him spread digestate, there's going to be a lot of lawsuits for people whose wells get ruined," said Joseph Dagari, a local farmer and remediation specialist, who urged the board to disclose the lease terms and explain why the land was not put up for competitive bid. Dagari listed materials he said appear in the permit application — including glycerin from biodiesel refining and wash water from milk-processing — and warned that those wastes “have all this different chemical makeup” that could affect groundwater and soils.

Neighbor Ron Grant, a 25‑year resident, told the board he did not "sign up for that when we moved into this neighborhood" and said he was worried about explosions, offensive odors and declines in property values if the digester goes in near three schools serving roughly 2,500 students. Grant and another commenter also questioned the accuracy of the project's traffic study, arguing that the applicant's estimated truck movements understate the number of tanker runs that would be required to transport incoming feedstock and to return outbound material.

Speakers asked the board to seek full disclosure about the district's relationship with the farm operator and to engage township officials, noting several nearby municipal jurisdictions would be affected. At the meeting, one resident specifically requested that the board add a polling‑location agenda item for Honey Brook Township at a future meeting; other public comments were limited to the digester concerns.

The board did not take formal action on the digester at the Jan. 13 meeting; members acknowledged that interested residents may file Right‑to‑Know requests for documentation. Board members said they would seek more information and encouraged residents to provide technical evidence to staff and to township supervisors, who have land‑use authority.

Next steps: residents requested that the board disclose any lease agreements, nutrient‑management plans and permit applications; the board agreed to obtain additional information before taking any policy action.