Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water And Project Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners hear resident water complaint tied to AquaBounty testing and discuss right-of-way and performance-bond concerns
Summary
During the March 6 meeting, commissioners reviewed a resident's investigation of a water odor complaint he associated with nearby AquaBounty activity, clarified that no ODNR claim had been filed, and discussed right-of-way access, performance bonds and maintenance agreements for the project.
A resident reported to the Wayne County Commissioners on March 6 that he visited neighbors who had said their well water smelled and that the neighbors had believed they had submitted a complaint to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) about AquaBounty activity on County Road S. The resident said the Kaisers (Mr. and Mrs. Kaiser) did not have a filed ODNR claim and that sampling the household water had an odor attributable to nearby cooking and to soap during a laundry cycle rather than an obvious external contamination source.
The speaker said a local well driller had advised routine bleaching of wells and that, in the Kaisers' case, annual bleaching had been used as a remedy. The speaker reported being reassured that no ODNR claim showing a formal water complaint had been filed for the household.
Commissioners and staff then shifted to access and project responsibilities tied to the AquaBounty site. County staff reported they had not seen the maintenance or performance-bond agreements for the infrastructure referenced at the site. Todd (the county engineer's assistant) said even if the project proceeds, performance bonds and contractor arrangements will need to be reviewed to ensure the county is protected. The commissioners discussed ownership and liability for potential line breaks or wastewater-discharge noncompliance, noting that if wastewater is discharged into a public sewer the village could have responsibilities to ensure compliance but that state regulators (EPA/ODNR) also have oversight of discharge permits.
The board heard that some neighbors worry about groundwater drawdown (pumping millions of gallons) and possible flooding of fields; staff said they had not observed evidence that the local draw would flood the Saint Joe River and that well installation practices cited by project personnel (a welded cap on the monitoring well) made certain contamination scenarios unlikely. The resident and commissioners treated some details as local perceptions rather than established findings.
No formal vote or order resulted from the discussion. Commissioners said staff should continue to work through performance-bond and contract details and verify maintenance agreements and applicable regulatory compliance.
