Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Blue Stem Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge independent environmental, health and fiscal studies before Leavenworth County considers Blue Stem data center
Summary
Public commenters pressed the Leavenworth County Commission to require independent studies — on groundwater, air emissions from backup generators, noise, water use and fiscal impacts — before approving Cloverleaf Infrastructure’s proposed Blue Stem hyperscale data center, and asked for enforceable operational standards and clarity about a reported $450,000 pledge.
Residents and local business owners urged the Leavenworth County Board of Commissioners to pause consideration of the proposed Blue Stem hyperscale data center, saying independent environmental, health and fiscal studies are needed before any approvals.
"They've only been in business for 2 years and they are backed by two private equity firms that gave them $300 million to make these deals work," Linda Sturgeon told the commission, arguing that Cloverleaf Infrastructure's short corporate history and investor incentives heighten the need for independent scrutiny. Sturgeon also asked, "what happened to the $450,000 that apparently Cloverleaf pledged... We want to know where that money is."
Why it matters: Speakers said the project could affect groundwater, air quality, noise, traffic and property values for neighborhoods, child-care centers and farms near the proposed site. Gretchen Mitler, who operates child-care facilities near the proposed site, said children are especially vulnerable and asked the board to require studies on noise, emissions from diesel backup generators, water use and emergency-response capacity before permitting moves forward.
Multiple commenters recommended that the county follow the comprehensive plan and not rely solely on developer commitments. Jim Carl cited the county’s adopted policy framework and requested a set of independent analyses before action: a hydrogeologic study of long-term groundwater availability and well impacts; an environmental and public-health assessment (including emissions from backup generators and hazardous-materials management); a property-value impact study; and a comprehensive fiscal and infrastructure analysis identifying the cost of roads, utilities, emergency services and who will pay for them. "If these studies reveal significant risk, the county should strengthen its regulations before moving forward," Carl said.
Community concerns included the permanence and future utility of large industrial buildings, and potential long-term liabilities if a facility is abandoned after a tax-abatement period. Amy Patton asked, "Do you really think that in 20 years when this tax abatement is over ... those buildings are actually going to still be needed? Who will pay to remove these buildings?" She also cited examples from other states where local ratepayers absorbed costs tied to new power-plant and transmission investments for data-center demand.
Speakers pressed the commission for enforceable, not voluntary, commitments: continuous noise and groundwater monitoring, public reporting of compliance, emergency-response planning, fiscal assurance for infrastructure and environmental obligations, and clear enforcement provisions if conditions are violated. Several asked the board to extend or impose a moratorium until independent studies are completed.
What’s next: Commissioners took public comment and agreed to a short recess amid rising tensions; no formal vote or permit decision was recorded in the public-comment period. The project remains under review at the county level; speakers asked the commission to confirm where pledged study funds are held and who is responsible for commissioning independent assessments.
