Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landfill Pfas Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McCreary County Fiscal Court votes to join lawsuit opposing proposed Scott County landfill
Summary
After extended testimony from residents and experts about PFAS and leachate risks to downstream water supplies, the McCreary County Fiscal Court voted to join a private lawsuit challenging a proposed Scott County landfill; the court acknowledged costs are unknown and said funding questions will be addressed later.
The McCreary County Fiscal Court voted April 16 to join a private lawsuit challenging a proposed landfill in neighboring Scott County after hours of testimony warning the project could contaminate downstream water supplies.
The decision followed testimony from local advocates and utility officials who said the landfill’s leachate could carry PFAS and other toxins into Lake Cumberland and the county’s intake. Jennifer Shockley, president of the group Cumberland Clear, urged the court to act quickly, saying, “we're not gonna stop until the solid waste permit is off the table.”
Why it matters: Members of the court and multiple speakers said the proposed facility sits upstream of McCreary County’s water intake and could expose residents to long-lived contaminants known as PFAS (often called “forever chemicals”). Steven Whitaker, superintendent for the McCreary County Water District, told the court, “this is the most significant thing that has happened that can affect our community and that I know of in my 30 years,” and described how leachate and transported wastes could reach the district’s intake.
Speakers raised technical and regulatory concerns about testing and treatment. Darlene Price, who identified herself in the meeting as an experienced advocate on the issue, described PFAS as persistent and toxic and criticized what she characterized as insufficient state testing. “This stuff is called forever chemicals for a reason,” she said, adding that existing wastewater plants are generally not designed to remove PFAS.
Court action and votes: The court voted to join an existing private lawsuit filed by local plaintiffs that seeks to block or limit permitting for the landfill. Members discussed that joining litigation could carry costs that are not yet defined; the county attorney advised the court that it had authority to join the suit but that financial implications would need to be handled as they arise.
The motion to join the lawsuit carried by roll call (recorded votes: Mister Hale — Yay; Mister Macklin — Yay; Mister Strunk — Yay; Mister Taylor — Yay; Judge Green — Yay).
What the court and commenters said about next steps: Speakers called for continuing outreach to state and federal officials and for pursuing both litigation and parallel advocacy, including appeals and efforts to press regulators to require more testing. Several speakers urged the court to join now to strengthen local legal standing; others noted the county must consider long-term costs associated with water treatment if contamination occurs.
The fiscal court adjourned after the vote. The court did not specify a budgeted amount for joining the lawsuit; officials said funding, reporting and any required follow-up would be addressed in subsequent meetings or through administrative action.
