County surveyor warns council: plume behavior, review costs and long-term control remain unclear

Ken Kucinski, who identified himself as the county surveyor, said he has pushed for a moratorium to allow time for proper technical and legal review. He said he asked project representatives why a plume could be bounded at a given distance and quoted inconsistent technical answers: "How do you tell a plume in the ground you can only go 1.2 miles?" Kucinski said the community meeting he attended felt like a controlled Q&A and that he left with unanswered questions about plume extent and monitoring.

Kucinski also warned about review costs and governmental responsibilities: outside technical reviews can be expensive and local governments must avoid conflicts of interest among reviewers. He detailed how proposed tax incentives and prevailing-wage requirements could function and raised concern that if a project is sold to an outside entity, local oversight could be limited. He pressed for clear bonding and decommissioning assurances for the 12-year injection period and beyond. "You get one shot and do it right," he said, urging caution and thorough due diligence.

Kucinski raised procedural concerns about community access to information, saying the earlier meeting appeared invite-only and that many residents were not present; he encouraged council and staff to coordinate with the county to ensure a fuller public process before any approvals or ordinance changes. The council acknowledged these questions and agreed to pursue additional information and coordination with county officials rather than vote on the project at this meeting.