Brookfield trustees oppose access for injection well project; company and landowner request easement and power

Representatives of SelectWater Solutions and a landowner seeking to develop an injection well in Brookfield Township asked the Board of Trumbull County Commissioners for permission to use a narrow county‑owned parcel for a surface easement and to bring three‑phase power to the leased parcel. Brookfield Township trustees and residents opposed the request, citing past problems at other disposal sites and potential impacts on nearby wells and school property.

SelectWater Solutions director Justin Moore said the injection well already has been drilled and that “it is a permitted well under ODNR as of now.” He said the company had received a letter from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources that sought access to inspect the well and that the company was willing to put up signage, lighting and insurance and to hold the county harmless for work on the access route. Moore asked commissioners to allow a surface easement across an approximately 80‑foot strip of county property adjacent to a proposed Marks tower so the company could bring three‑phase electric service and continue required integrity verification prior to injection.

Brookfield Township Trustee Dan Settles and others opposed allowing access across the county parcel. Settles said prior injection activity in the area had produced problems, including abandoned wells, and asked the county to deny access. A nearby resident, Joe Ray, who said he monitors the county property regularly, told the board he had carried out maintenance and monitoring for years and supported the company, saying the firm had improved the site and would “do it right.” Ray said SelectWater had restored the property and that the company employs environmental monitoring and insurance.

County commissioners noted a prior board decision had denied a similar request to cross county property and that alternatives exist — including extending road improvements to a location on private land so access would not traverse county property. Commissioners said they were concerned about setting a precedent for allowing rights of access across county parcels, and they cited liability and neighbor‑relations considerations. They asked staff to circulate the company’s written proposal, to confirm whether ODNR has completed its permitting steps and to report back on alternatives and legal exposure before taking any action.

Why it matters: The dispute involves county‑owned property, local school proximity and public concerns about injection‑well operations, environmental monitoring and emergency response planning. The county’s decision on the access request could establish a precedent for future requests for use of county property by private operators.

Ending: Commissioners asked for written proposals, clarification of permits from ODNR and solicitor review of liability and alternatives before bringing the matter back to the board.