Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Injection Well Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marietta council completes first reading of resolution directing legal challenge to ODNR injection-well permit as residents warn of aquifer risk
Summary
After extended public comment warning that a proposed Class II injection well could threaten the city's aquifer, the Marietta City Council completed a first reading of a resolution authorizing the law director to challenge the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' permit to Deep Rock Disposal Solutions for the Stephen No. 1 well. The council did not vote to adopt the lawsuit resolution at the meeting.
The Marietta City Council on Tuesday completed a first reading of a resolution that would authorize the city law director to challenge the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' (ODNR) Aug. 28, 2025, issuance of a Class II injection-well permit to Deep Rock Disposal Solutions for the Stephen No. 1 well.
The measure, presented as Resolution No. 80, directs the law director "to prosecute or defend on behalf of the city all suits, complaints, and controversies" and to "specifically challenge by writ and/or appeal" the ODNR permit, according to the language read aloud by the council clerk. Councilors Gossett, O'Neil and Nolan were listed as the sponsors of the resolution.
The council heard roughly an hour of public comment before moving into formal business. Several residents urged the council to block the project, citing past contamination episodes and long-term health risks. "If our aquifer is contaminated, the real issue is our future because children will have learning disabilities and ongoing chronic health conditions," said Margaret Lazer, a Marietta resident who said she has watched the city grow and does not want that progress undone.
Deb Reed, who described herself as a Belmont County resident and recounted earlier work opposing a fracking-waste site that operated above an aquifer, criticized ODNR enforcement practices and urged more aggressive action from local government. "They allow problems to go on for years without addressing them," Reed said, recounting a case she said took more than a decade for state action and cost taxpayers about $1.2 million to clean up.
An area trustee speaking during public comment framed the matter as nonpartisan, saying "This is not political. This is our future. This is my grandchildren's future." Others emphasized PFAS/C8 contamination and said prior cleanups had cost millions.
Council discussion after public comment touched on options for more public input, the structure of an advisory task force, and the legal strategy. Councilor Nolan, a listed sponsor of Resolution 80, said he supported moving forward with a legal challenge and called safe drinking water "the most important single issue" for the city.
Earlier in the meeting the council took procedural votes related to forming an "injection well task force" (Resolution No. 79). A motion to suspend its readings and declare it an emergency failed when the suspension received four votes in favor and three opposed; council rules required six votes to suspend. Resolution No. 80, by contrast, completed its first reading but was not adopted at this meeting.
What happens next: Resolution No. 80 was presented in first reading only; the council did not adopt the measure at this session. Council sponsors said they want more public input and additional readings before any final action. The clerk confirmed the resolution as introduced; the city's next regular council meeting was announced for Oct. 2, 2025.
