Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County to pursue site investigation on Parcel 11 using Monsanto settlement funds
Summary
Kenosha County public works asked the finance committee to use approximately $22,980 from Monsanto settlement funds for soil and groundwater testing at Parcel 11 after DNR required further investigation; staff said roughly $581,500 remains earmarked for similar projects and supervisors asked for follow-up reporting.
Get email alerts on the Environmental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public works staff told the finance committee they will request use of Monsanto settlement funds to pay for a NR‑716 site investigation at County Parcel 11, a parcel taken for a county trunk highway project at the CTH S/38th Street intersection. The proposed work — a soil and groundwater test package from the county’s environmental consultant — was priced at approximately $22,980.
Staff explained the testing follows a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) review: a prior "no action" filing for the parcel prompted the DNR to require further investigation. The public-works presenter said the Monsanto settlement money was received as part of a class-action-like distribution tied to long‑lasting soil and groundwater contamination, and the county received about $1 million; the funds had been earmarked to address remediation and related investigations. Staff reported about $581,500 remains earmarked after prior project allocations.
Supervisors asked whether the county could be responsible for remediation costs if contamination were found and whether grant funding would be available for cleanup. Staff said the county owns the parcel and therefore would be responsible for cleanup if required but indicated grant opportunities exist for remediation work. Supervisors asked that staff return with a report on testing results to avoid downstream surprises.
One supervisor moved approval to use the Monsanto funds; the record reflected discussion that the original resolution allowed spending on projects of a similar environmental remediation nature and that the committee was being kept apprised. The committee did not take a separate county-board-level appropriation within the transcripted discussion; staff characterized the item primarily as a notification but supervisors requested periodic follow-up on the testing progress.

