Dearborn County adopts redevelopment-area designation for Whitewater project after hydrology study

Dearborn County commissioners on an evening meeting approved a confirmatory resolution designating part of Moore Drive as an economic revitalization area and a separate resolution approving a 10-year, declining real-property tax abatement for a proposed processing facility. The votes followed a presentation of an independent hydrologic review and a company briefing about operations, jobs and local investment.

The redevelopment commission’s president, Tim Deaton, told the council the county sought an independent analysis after concerns raised at an earlier meeting about potential water withdrawals and wastewater discharges. “We were really enthused about this project and what it was going to bring us. We didn’t want any bad consequences either,” Deaton said as he introduced the hired consultant’s findings.

The county hired Intera, an environmental consulting firm, to run a desktop hydrologic and water-quality assessment of the proposed Whitewater project. Intera hydrologist Red Moore summarized the study’s two goals: to assess potential impacts of proposed groundwater withdrawals on the aquifer and neighboring wells, and to evaluate potential effects of treated wastewater discharged to the Whitewater River. Moore said modeled drawdowns in a worst‑case scenario would be modest — on the order of 1 to 2 feet “in the surrounding area” — and that registered high‑capacity wells shown in state databases would not be affected. He added that any privately drilled well that suffered lowered yield because of the facility’s pumping would be the developer’s responsibility to mitigate.

Intera colleague Brad Schrader described how the plant’s two process streams would be permitted and managed: a noncontact cooling flow (about 1.6 million gallons per day in the engineering presented) and a separate, stronger wastewater stream (about 0.2 million gallons per day) that would be treated before any outfall. Schrader said limits and monitoring for temperature, biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, ammonia and bacteria would be set and enforced through the state’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting process and routine inspections.

Ryan Top, identified as a company representative, said the proposed facility would use on‑site wells and a tailored wastewater‑treatment system; the company already operates a similar plant in Harrison. He described daily and weekly monitoring, an on‑site operator, and contractual management of byproducts and sludge. Top said the new facility would be built with modern controls to reduce odor and manage waste streams.

Commissioners asked substantive follow‑up about lagoon lining, temperatures of cooling water, the potential for groundwater‑surface‑water interaction and whether the Intera analysis was a desktop study. Intera told the council the work was a desktop review of state databases, published reports and engineering materials provided by project proponents; the county paid for the study to speed review and to have an independent technical record.

After the presentations and questions, the council unanimously adopted the confirmatory resolution designating the revitalization area and later approved the resolution accepting the statement of benefits and tax‑abatement schedule for the project. One commissioner abstained on the second resolution.

The resolutions formalize the next step in the redevelopment commission’s process: they establish the geographic area eligible for redevelopment tools and record the company’s proposed investment, job counts and abatement schedule. The council did not vote on any specific permits, water‑withdrawal permits or discharge permits at the meeting; those remain subject to state agency review and separate permitting processes.