Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the River Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local resident urges Campbell County to pursue public boat launch on Ohio River
Summary
In public comment, lifelong resident Dave Waters urged the fiscal court to restart talks about a public watercraft launch and riverfront park, citing limited local access, safety concerns at nearby ramps and willingness to help the county pursue Army Corps feasibility and site options.
Get email alerts on the River Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the opening of public comments, Dave Waters, who identified himself as a lifelong Campbell County resident, urged the fiscal court to 'reignite' discussions about a public watercraft launch and park along the Ohio River to provide more access for boaters, anglers and casual river users and to improve emergency response access.
Waters described the county’s limited options for river access—Fredericks Landing in Wilder and a closed or limited ramp in the City of California—and said nearby ramps in other jurisdictions can be long drives. He said the Foster ramp is 'crime ridden' and has had thefts from parked vehicles, which he said makes the site unattractive for local users. Waters offered his time and assistance to help the county pursue siting, funding and regulatory steps, and said he has contacted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and was awaiting follow-up on the Corps’ role in feasibility and permitting.
Judge Pender and other court members acknowledged past attempts to identify public landing sites and told Waters the county has already contacted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to request a feasibility study of the riverbank and has reached out to the City of California to ask why its ramp closed and whether reopening would be feasible. The court emphasized technical constraints—changing river morphology, underwater slope and shoaling—and private property ownership as complicating factors for siting a public launch. The court did not commit to a specific site or funding plan during the meeting but said staff will continue to pursue Corps input and local options.
The exchange was framed as a citizen petition and exploratory discussion; the court did not take a formal vote or make a directive beyond ongoing outreach to the Corps and local officials.
