Question #1. Flooding is one of the most serious environmental issues facing West Virginians. In 2023, the Legislature created a Flood Resiliency Trust Fund to enhance flood prevention and protection, using primarily nature-based solutions and concentrating in low-income areas. For many years, this Trust Fund was unfunded. In 2026, the Legislature approved $5 million for the Trust Fund, which CWV believes is wholly inadequate. Will you support dedicated, ongoing state funding for flood resilience and oppose efforts to weaken or divert those funds?

Yes. It has always been my belief that the government should work for the people, and part of that is disaster relief, or “postvention.” Yearly funding via taxpayer funds should be allocated to this Trust Fund. I believe the best approach would be to have an initial trust yearly rate with allocated emergency funds past that, and every fiscal year the use of funds be reviewed and added to, based on what was used the previous year. Funds should not be subtracted from following years that flooding was diminished from the previous year. That money should be rolled over to the following year.

Question #2. The Ohio River and its tributaries supply drinking water to communities across West Virginia and support many other water uses. This critical water source may soon become overburdened with new petrochemical facilities and data centers. But permitting is still done separately by facility, with no limits on overall water withdrawal rates. Will you support legislation that establishes enforceable limits on cumulative water withdrawals from the Ohio River basin, prioritizing the protection of drinking water supplies and existing users?

Yes. West Virginian lives are more important than any sort of manufacturing agencies. Not only would I support and draft legislation to create enforceable limits, but also steep fines for those companies and organizations that fail to follow said legislation. Fines paid should be allocated to cleanup of their mess and fund nonprofit organizations created to help provide clean water to West Virginians.

Question #3. PFAS, a family of “forever chemicals” linked to cancer and other serious health effects, have contaminated drinking water in West Virginia for decades. Yet the state has no enforceable limits on PFAS discharges from industrial facilities into surface water, forcing communities to rely on slow or inadequate federal action. Will you support legislation establishing enforceable state limits on PFAS in industrial discharges?

Yes. Not only do I support legislation establishing enforceable state limits on PFAS in industrial discharges, but I would also draft legislation that would require companies and organizations that cannot control the release of PFAS into the water supply to pay fines in which the money would go towards relief efforts and scientific research into means to cause PFAS to be broken down into safer elements. I foresee this being implemented into water treatment facilities (which there should be more of).

Question #4. West Virginia’s Ohio River communities already live with air and water pollution from a dense concentration of petrochemical and chemical facilities, and more are being proposed or expanded. The state currently permits each facility separately, with no requirement to consider the combined burden on host communities. Will you support legislation requiring cumulative impact assessments before new or expanding petrochemical facilities are approved in areas already overburdened by industrial pollution?

Yes. There must be standards across the board to ensure West Virginian wellbeing. Compounding effects from multiple facilities need to be acutely observed and the enforcement of facilities’ reports on their own output should be mandatory for them to provide followed by rigorous testing by the state to maintain standards and accountability.

Question #5. Methane is often leaked from improperly maintained, orphaned or abandoned gas wells. It is the most potent greenhouse gas known, can contaminate groundwater, and be hazardous to local residents. During the 2026 session, legislation was proposed (HB 5414, HB 5415) that would prevent future orphan gas and oil wells by requiring an operator to post a bond sufficient to cover the full cost of plugging, or to pay production-based amounts into an escrow fund sufficient to plug the well at the end of its useful life. If similar legislation is introduced in 2027, will you support it?

Yes. Operators must be held accountable for the damages done. They need to be tasked with paying for any damages left from their extraction, enough to cover the cleanup effort as well as large fines for long-term damage to the environment.

Question #6. Large solar generating arrays are often located on farmland. Will you support incentives and permitting reforms that encourage large solar to be sited on brownfields/degraded or previously mined/industrial lands, to help West Virginia protect prime farmland and intact forests?

Yes. Solar arrays and farmland can be built in harmony. There is the opportunity to not only provide both bountiful crops and livestock but also keep land cool for better turnout. We must protect and make most of West Virginia’s fertile lands.

Question #7. Currently, West Virginians have no local control through their municipal or county governments over the siting, construction, operation, water use, or environmental compliance of micro-grids and data centers. Will you support legislation to restore local control over these factors?

Yes. I am a proponent of “Power to the People.” As representatives, we are the voice of West Virginians, but that doesn’t mean it ends with us. Those that fail to hold true to their constituents should not gatekeep those represented from being heard.

Question #8. During the 2026 session, legislation was introduced that would have protected private wells, and controlled groundwater and aquifer depletion by data centers and other industrial development (HB 4683). If similar legislation is introduced in 2027, will you support it?

Yes. I am against data centers in this state, and will do everything in my power to stop them from coming into the state. For those that do, I will draft legislation that tightly controls the environmental impact they cause. That includes requiring the companies to provide their own energy, limit the pollutants released (including noise pollution), and use other forms of coolant that do not draw from our water resources.

Question #9. West Virginia leads the nation in deer/vehicle collisions, killing over 10,000 deer and creating property damage and risk to human life. Highway fencing and the construction of wildlife under- and overpasses dramatically reduce this needless damage and risk. If legislation is proposed in 2027 to study the feasibility of wildlife crossing corridors in high-risk areas, will you support it?

Yes. European countries have used wildlife over-/under- passes with great effect, and since West Virginians are in a position to live with wildlife as neighbors, it’s important we do our best to protect our neighbors. Protecting our neighbors protects ourselves.

Question #10. In the last several sessions, legislation has been introduced that would have opened West Virginia state parks and forests to development, thereby changing their character. This legislation included opening these protected areas to motorized vehicles and developing them for commercial use. If similar legislation is introduced in 2027, will you oppose it?

Yes. Keep West Virginia Wild and Wonderful. We must do what we can to avoid destroying the natural beauty of this state. To do that we must limit our impact on the environment.

Question #11. Why should West Virginia voters concerned about the effects of climate change, such as destructive storms that can cause flooding, and environmental pollution on their daily lives choose you over your opponent?

Keep West Virginia Wild and Wonderful. We must do what we can to avoid destroying the natural beauty of this state. To do that we must limit our impact on the environment.

Question #12. If the greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by electric utilities must be reduced, what is the best way to do this while still supporting fossil-fuel workers and communities?

We must work in tandem to bring green energy to support fossil fuel workers. If we cannot fulfill our needs without fossil fuels, it is important we reduce their environment impact as much as possible. I think this would work best with using green equipment, such as solar powered infrastructure; battery-operated machinery; and conservation practices to help heal the land. This state has a proud history of coal miners, and I do not want those working in the mines to feel forgotten or not supported. Training miners on use and construction of green energy sources and engineering would be a benefit for when fossil-fuels are dried up in an area and companies leave. Green energy infrastructure would be a safety net for out of work miners.

Question #13. Suppose an industrial development is proposed for your district. Promises of jobs are made in support, but you have doubts about how many and what types of jobs would actually result. Environmentalists oppose the development, citing concerns about harm to water resources, but you have doubts about how serious the harm would really be. How would you resolve these doubts on both sides? To whom would you listen?

Absolute transparency is paramount to understanding. The people should have the deciding vote. I would host a kitchen table discussion to listen to my constituents’ concerns. I would bring those concerns to the development heads for discussion and facilitate a Q&A for healthy discussion. Based on how the people feel after being heard, I would support the will of those that vote for me to represent them.