Residents urge Leavenworth County commissioners to halt Project Blue Stem over health, water and fiscal concerns

Dozens of residents used the public-comment portion of a Leavenworth County Commission meeting to press the board to reconsider a proposed hyperscale data center often referred to in testimony as Project Blue Stem or Cloverleaf, citing health risks, noise and water use, and arguing the county could be fiscally harmed by incentives.

Several speakers asked the commission to postpone or tighten approvals and to convene independent expert reviews. "If you're serious about this...put things in place that will protect the people," Kim Culbert said, urging the county to require the highest-standard (Tier 4 Final) diesel generators, to set lower boundary noise limits, and to model tonal noise and infrasound using dBA, dBC and dBG metrics. "Don't just listen to Cloverleaf on what they want to do," Carl Kent said, calling for a work session with industrial hygienists brought to the area by residents.

Why it matters: Commenters argued the project could affect groundwater, family health, farm livelihoods and the county's fiscal bottom line. Richard Paw, who said he had run fiscal models, warned that after state incentives (he referenced Senate Bill 98) the county could face a net fiscal loss over 20 years and urged an independent third-party fiscal analysis. Several speakers raised water-use concerns and cited 'forever chemicals' (PFAS) and other persistent contaminants as a risk to wells and aquifers.

What residents said: Testimony emphasized multiple, overlapping worries. A public commenter who described independent measurements said residents detected elevated electromagnetic fields, harmonics and tonal noise near comparable sites and linked those readings to health complaints; Brooklyn Patton, a 15-year-old, told the board that "data centers will ruin their health" and urged commissioners not to approve the project. Multiple speakers asked why county leadership had not allowed an advisory vote and expressed frustration that community sentiment felt ignored.

County response and next steps: County staff responded to a separate procurement complaint about the county's Meals-on-Wheels contract (explaining sealed bids were opened publicly and the law required awarding the low bid). On the data center matter, commissioners debated whether an advisory vote would be legally defensible and whether staff should assemble additional reports. One commissioner asked staff to prepare a report on taxpayer dollars spent on lawsuits in recent years; other commissioners emphasized the need for independent fiscal and technical analyses before final actions.

What was not resolved: No legislative or quasi-judicial action (motion or vote) on the data center was recorded during the meeting. Multiple technical claims raised from public comment (PFAS release pathways, measured EMF/tonal-noise exposure, precise water-consumption figures for this project) were not rebutted by the applicant in the meeting record and therefore remain unresolved in the transcript.

The commission paused the meeting for a scheduled break; commissioners indicated interest in additional information but gave no final direction or vote on Project Blue Stem during the session.