Tim Grosser What’s Already in Lawrence Creek
Timothy Grosser lives on Forest Hills Drive in Maysville and owns property directly adjacent to the proposed data center site. He raises three concerns in the lawsuit: forever chemicals leaching into Lawrence Creek where his cattle drink, increased flash flooding from impervious surfaces, and a claim that local government officials harassed and pressured him to sell his land.
Let’s take each one.
Forever chemicals. Mr. Grosser is concerned that chemicals from the data center could reach Lawrence Creek via runoff. That is a legitimate concern. But here is what is flowing into Mason County’s creeks right now, today, before the data center breaks ground: Roundup, Atrazine, and fertilizer, including nitrogen. Agricultural chemicals are applied to cash grain fields upstream of those same waterways every growing season — chemicals with well-documented risks to aquatic life, livestock, and human health, applied under far less regulatory scrutiny than anything a data center would ever face.
The data center must comply with federal, state, and local environmental regulations governing all chemicals it uses. The corn and soybean fields upstream are not held to the same standard. They never have been.
If Mr. Grosser is genuinely concerned about what his cattle drink from Lawrence Creek, the data center may be his best ally. Protecting over 2,000 acres from generating the chemical runoff associated with cash grain production — replacing it with sod, landscaping, and engineered stormwater control structures — removes a significant source of the chemical load those waterways carry today. Lawrence Creek may well be cleaner after the data center is built than it has been in decades.
Flash flooding. The lawsuit claims the data center’s impervious surfaces will dramatically increase flooding risk. What it does not mention is what currently manages stormwater on this site. The answer, as documented at https://s4-mc.com/stormwater/, is: nothing engineered, nothing permitted, nothing designed to protect downstream properties. Agricultural soil absorbs rainfall until saturated, then passes water downstream uncontrolled — carrying topsoil, sediment, and chemicals with it. The data center proposes 15 engineered stormwater control structures, designed by licensed professional engineers, regulated by Kentucky’s Energy and Environment Cabinet, and built to a 500-year storm standard. That is categorically better flood protection than the unmanaged runoff it replaces.
Harassment by local officials. This is the most serious claim and warrants a direct response. Mr. Grosser says he was repeatedly pressured by local government officials to sell his land. If that happened, it was wrong. Full stop. But notice what it does not justify: using that grievance to void the purchase agreements of thirty other landowners who made their own free choices about their land. One person’s perceived bad experience with a local official is not a legal basis to block an entire community’s economic future.
The folks behind this lawsuit have deep pockets and can afford to base their future on yearning for a time before Mason County lost tobacco, dairy, and several major industries. This second lawsuit proves large legal bills don’t faze them as they yearn for an economic foundation that was — but is no more. Will you speak up and let them know not everyone in Mason County can afford to live in the past?
Lets review the relative size of the data center project to keep the size of the project in perspective
