Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Concerns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press commissioners on drainage complaint and urge scrutiny of Senica Resources after charges
Summary
During public comment, a resident identified as Connie accused county staff of mishandling a property drainage/engineering matter and faulted employee Cliff Clark for procedural failures; another resident, John Rosenberger, said the attorney general filed criminal charges against Senica Resources and asked the board to scrutinize future permits or approvals for the company.
Two public commenters used the meeting’s public-comment period to press the commissioners on separate but substantive local concerns.
A resident identified in the meeting record as Connie outlined a long-running dispute over a property she described as having a 21-foot slope with an 18-foot drop to her house. She alleged that an engineer’s report omitted a spring and that county employee Cliff Clark failed to follow protocol by not contacting the conservation office, leaving her property vulnerable to erosion and water damage. Connie described repeated contacts with county staff over roughly 18 months and said her house was now sinking; she told the board “Cliff Clark is to blame because he did not go to the conservation department.” Commissioners acknowledged her frustration, advised her on complaint procedure and documentation, and said staff had discussed the matter with her.
Later, resident John Rosenberger (who identified himself by name) spoke about a July 2022 incident he says involved a rupture of a fracking wastewater line that entered the aquifer and contaminated his well. He said his family has pursued a civil suit for more than three years and that the attorney general’s office recently filed criminal charges related to that incident and two others. Rosenberger said the presentments and charging documents had been unsealed and offered to share them with county staff. He asked the commissioners to scrutinize any future permit or approval requests from Senica Resources rather than automatically granting them while the company faces pending charges.
The board did not take formal action on either matter during the meeting; commissioners directed residents to the county’s complaint process and accepted Rosenberger’s offer to provide documents to staff for the record. No adjudication or staff investigation outcome was announced at the meeting.
