Part 1:  Questions on township liability, taxes, road damage &

truck traffic

 

Question 1: What assessments (legal, environmental, precedent setting, etc), of our townships’ overall liability related to on-farm co-digesters have occurred while considering this proposed zoning amendment? Has our township explored the legal consequences of adopting this proposed zoning amendment in relation to setting a precedent and/or repercussion long-term for any other future proposals? Does approving this particular zoning amendment “future proof our township against any other questionable proposals in the future?

 

Question 2: Throughout the country, we are seeing the environmental damage and contamination of prime farmland and our water from pollution and contaminants found in treated municipal waste (biosolids) where regulations, testing, and oversight are much more stringent than for on-farm co-digesters.  Does this proposed zoning amendment require Pollution Insurance in addition to General Liability Insurance by the co-digester owner/operator/landowner where the co-digester would be sited?  

 

Question 3:  Does this proposed zoning amendment address any biosecurity issues that may arise related to the co-digester as well as the injection of gas into existing or new gas pipelines? 

 

Question 4:  Does this proposed zoning amendment limit the amount of off-site industrial food waste per day that can be brought in?  Does this proposed zoning amendment lists percentages of manure versus outside waste that would be allowed?

Question 5: In WI, co-digester companies and land owners where co-digesters are sited are exempt from personal property taxes and sales taxes. In addition, public utilities are also exempt from real estate taxes.  Does this proposed zoning amendment require a Payment in Lieu of Taxes so that townships can recoup the loss of taxes, expenses of emergency services such as police, fire, EMT’s, road damages, decommissioning costs and any other costs associated with the co-digester and its by products?

 

Question 6: Does this proposed zoning amendment limit the hours of operation for the delivery of off-site waste and the removal of packaging waste and digestate to certain days of the week and put limits on daily hours of delivery/removal are permissible?

 

Question 7: Does this proposed zoning amendment limit engine braking in nearby residential areas?

 

Question 8: Does this proposed zoning amendment limit the number and types of trucks (double or triple tankers) allowed per day, limit trucks from waiting along or on township roads, limit the routes that this increased truck traffic must abide by?

 

Question 9: How does this proposed zoning amendment address and make whole property owners whose property values decrease because of the industrial co-digester being located nearby?  Does the proposal address how the town will be compensated for lost revenues from decreased property values?

​

Part 2: Questions on Public Health and Environmental Protections

 

Question 1: Does the proposed zoning amendment limit the amount of outside industrial waste to be brought into the township?

 

Question 2: Does this proposed zoning amendment require the independent testing of the outside waste being brought into the township for contaminants such as forever chemicals, heavy metals, antibiotic resistance bacteria and other pathogens as well as microplastics? Does the amendment ensure that the co-digester owner/operators/land owner where the co-digester is sited are solely responsible for these testing costs?

 

Question 3: Because industrial food waste and its packaging often contain forever chemicals, heavy metals, antibiotic resistant bacteria and other pathogens as well as microplastics that are not destroyed during the digestion process, Does this zoning amendment proposal require the testing of the digestate (both liquid and solid by-products of co-digestion) for nutrient content as well as for multiple contaminants, including those mentioned, prior to land application? Does the proposal call for the co-digester owner/operator/landowner where co-digester is sited to solely cover the costs for this independent testing?

 

Question 4: Does the zoning amendment require that any digestate that is deemed unsafe for land application be disposed of in a State certified hazardous waste facility, with costs solely the financial responsibility of the co-digester owner/operator/landowner where co-digester is sited?
 

Question 5: Does this proposed amendment require that any water used in the digestion process be tested by an independent contractor prior to and after digestion to determine if any new contaminants are present at the sole cost to the co-digester owner/operator/landowner where co-digester is sited?

 

Question 6:  Does this proposal detail the types of storage structures and the amount of storage needed for both the solid and liquid digestate?  Does this proposal require adequate storage year round so that digestate is only applied during spring/fall spreading times due to the increased risk of soil and water contamination from digestate?

 

Question 7: Does this proposed amendment ensure that if the digestate (liquid or solid) is to be sold or bartered, a full analysis of the test results for the digestate is provided to the purchaser/barterer prior to application? 

 

Question 8: Does this proposed amendment require that all private and public wells located near a co-digester or near land where digestate may be spread are tested, by an independent contractor, prior to the co-digester star-up for the presence of pathogens, forever chemicals, heavy metals, and microplastics so that a baseline study is available? Does the proposal require that the co-digester owner/operator/landowner where co-digester is sited bear these costs rather than the township?

 

Question 9: Does this proposed amendment require that the co-digester owners/operators/or land owners where the digester is sited pay for any new wells or special water filtering devices that may be needed for any private or public wells negatively affected with new levels of or newly found contaminants from the co-digester or its byproducts?

 

Question 10: Does this proposed amendment address the increased risk to neighbors living within 2 miles of a co-digester site to toxic air emissions including hydrogen sulfide from the co-digester, digestate, and the flaring off during start-up, process upsets, and when gas can’t be injected into the digester? What does this proposal do to address odor issues, especially related involving the storage lagoons where digestate containing industrial food waste/manure are stored?