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. Flooding continues to impact communities across West Virginia, and we need to take it seriously. I support ongoing state investment in flood resilience and prevention so communities are better protected before disasters happen. I also oppose diverting those funds away from their intended purpose.

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! I support protecting our drinking water and making sure growth doesn’t come at the expense of existing communities and users. I’d support taking a closer look at cumulative impacts and setting reasonable, enforceable limits where needed so the Ohio River remains a reliable resource for both current and future generations.

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! I support setting enforceable state limits on PFAS discharges. Communities shouldn’t have to wait years for federal action while contamination continues. We need to protect drinking water, hold polluters accountable, and make sure West Virginians have access to clean, safe water.

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. I support looking at the cumulative impacts on communities before approving new or expanded petrochemical facilities. It makes sense to consider the full picture instead of reviewing projects in isolation, especially in areas that are already carrying a heavy industrial burden. Economic growth shouldn’t come at the expense of people’s health and quality of life.

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. I’d support legislation aimed at preventing more orphaned wells and making sure cleanup costs don’t fall on taxpayers. If companies are benefiting from extraction, there should be a plan and funding in place to properly plug wells at the end of their life while also being mindful of impacts on responsible operators and energy jobs.

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. I’d support incentives and permitting reforms that encourage large solar projects to be built on brownfields, previously mined land, and other already disturbed sites when possible. West Virginia should grow energy opportunities while protecting productive farmland and intact forests, and making better use of land that’s already been impacted.

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 support giving local communities more of a voice when it comes to decisions about micro-grids and data centers. Local governments and residents should have meaningful input on issues like siting, water use, and environmental impacts so development works for the community instead of being imposed on it.

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’d support legislation that protects private wells and makes sure industrial development, including data centers, doesn’t put unnecessary strain on local groundwater resources. Growth is important, but communities shouldn’t have to worry about losing reliable access to their own water.

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. I’d support studying the feasibility of wildlife crossings in areas with high rates of deer and vehicle collisions. If there are practical ways to improve safety, reduce property damage, and protect wildlife, it’s worth taking a serious look at.

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. I’d generally oppose opening state parks and forests to development that would significantly change their character. These spaces are meant to be protected and enjoyed by the public. I’d support maintaining access and recreation opportunities while being careful about proposals that could damage natural areas or shift them toward commercial development.

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?

Voters concerned about climate change and environmental pollution should choose me because I believe West Virginia can protect our communities and environment while still supporting jobs and economic opportunity. We’ve seen firsthand how flooding, severe weather, and pollution affect families across the state. I support practical solutions that strengthen infrastructure, protect clean water, hold polluters accountable, and make sure communities have a voice in development decisions. I also believe we should protect existing energy jobs while investing in a responsible path forward that keeps West Virginia strong and competitive for the future.

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?

If emissions need to be reduced, the best approach is a practical transition that protects workers and communities instead of leaving them behind. That means supporting existing energy jobs today while investing in new industries, grid modernization, energy efficiency, and diversified energy development over time. We should make sure workers have access to training, good-paying jobs, and economic opportunities so communities that have powered our state for generations continue to have a strong future.

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?

I’d want to see independent data and hear from everyone involved before making a decision. That means looking closely at realistic job projections, the types and quality of jobs being created, and whether those benefits actually stay in the community. I’d also want credible environmental review on impacts to water, air, and public health rather than assumptions from either side. I’d listen to local residents, workers, local officials, environmental experts, industry representatives, and state agencies; because good decisions come from weighing the evidence and making sure the long-term costs don’t outweigh the short-term promises.