Unfortunately, the West Virginia Senate has adopted the wholly undemocratic practice of advancing bills at the opening of the annual legislative session without public notice, referral to committee or debate. Senate Bill 171, passed unanimously on January 12, 2024, is the most recent of these.  It is now with the House of Delegates.  If it becomes law, SB 171 will usurp and prevent local land use planning and zoning authorities from regulating industrial operations which fall under the broad state definition of “agriculture.”

The bill appears to be a thinly disguised attempt by the Senate to override strong public and local government opposition to the relocation of a timber fumigation plant near Baker in Hardy County.  The facility, proposed in 2023 by Allegheny Wood Products (“Allegheny”), would treat or fumigate timber harvested elsewhere and intended for shipment overseas with methyl bromide, a highly toxic chemical.

Though the Division of Air Quality was prepared to issue an air pollution control permit to Allegheny, construction of the plant ultimately required re-zoning approval from the Hardy County Board of Zoning Appeals.  However, public reaction to the proposed plant was fierce, and over 150 County residents attended a May 4, 2023, public hearing.  Facing intense public opposition and a zoning appeal board that signaled it would deny the rezoning request, Allegheny withdrew its application.  But that’s not where it ended.

Because SB 171 was passed by the Senate with no debate, we don’t know what levers were pulled behind the scenes or by whom. But somebody is opposed to local control of agricultural issues, including the use of pesticides, and influential Senators are listening. The bill would never have been included in the fast-track package rammed through at the beginning of the session without the complicity of Senate Republican leadership, led by Senate President Craig Blair (Berkeley). Other sponsors of the bill were Patricia Rucker (Jefferson/Berkeley), Charles Trump (Berkeley/Morgan) and Mike Oliverio (Marion/Monongalia).

“Agriculture” is broadly defined under state law to include operations or land used in the production of woodland products.[1]  SB 171 would expressly prohibit county commissions from taking any action that would interfere with a permissible use of approved pesticides, herbicides or insecticides and would exclude agricultural lands or operations from local regulation.  If enacted, the bill would have a far-reaching effect and would further diminish local control over land use in favor of legislators in Charleston.

One feature of SB 171 is that any ordinance, rule, regulation, license requirement, or other authorization previously adopted by a county commission that contravenes or is stricter than any state law, rule, or regulation regarding agricultural operations would be revoked. This is certain to create uncertainty and frustration in local government.

If the bill passes the House and becomes law, Allegheny will be back with its proposed wood fumigation operation and the citizens of Hardy County won’t be able to do much about it. Despite the West Virginia Senate’s disdain for democracy, the democratic process can work for us if citizens speak up and object. CWV opposes this legislation. Let your delegates know how you feel.

UPDATE February 13, 2024

SB 171 was introduced in the House of Delegates on January 25, 2024, and was referred to the Committee on Governmental Organizations. When the bill was reported out of committee, two amendments were offered on the House floor and both were defeated. By a vote of 84 to 16 the House passed this bill on February 13, 2024. Here is the vote count. Now county control over any proposed facility loosely based on “agriculture”, like the proposed application of a hazardous, toxic pesticide on wood products in Hardy County destined for export, will be permanently impaired. This is short-sighted legislation.

[1] West Virginia Code § 19-19-2 as amended.

A bill authorizing community solar programs in West Virginia was introduced in the House of Delegates on January 17, 2024. The bill, HB 4834, would extend the benefits of solar energy to electric consumers who have no roof space, live in shady areas or rent their homes. It would enable subscribers to get a credit against their electric bills for their portion of the electricity generated by the solar cooperative to which they subscribe.

The community solar concept has caught on in many states around the country. It has many benefits. It would give consumers a choice of the source of energy they consume in their homes, instead of being stuck with the fuel source their electric utility favors. It would reduce the cost of electricity. And it would reduce carbon emissions, especially here in West Virginia where over 90% of our electricity is generated by burning coal.

HB 4834 was introduced by Delegate Evan Hansen from Monongalia County and Delegate Kayla Young from Kanawha County. The Public Service Commission would establish regulations ensuring the efficiency and fairness of the program. Community solar generating facilities would be constructed within PSC guidelines. They would then offer subscriptions to consumers for a share of the electricity produced.

The electricity produced by the facility would go into the overall electric grid, but the subscriber would get a credit on her electric bill for her proportional share of that electricity. The credit would be on the dollar-per-kilowatt-hour basis already used by the utility to calculate the consumer’s monthly electric bill.

HB 4834 protects the electric utility by limiting each community solar facility to 5 megawatts of production and ensures that no utility’s territory would have more than 100 megawatts produced by community solar. In addition, PSC rules would guarantee the utility a reasonable set-off for interconnection to the grid and the costs of administering their part of the program.

Nevertheless, electric utilities are likely to oppose community solar, or to insist on reducing the credit available to community solar consumers as they have recently proposed for homeowners with solar panels who enjoy net metering. There will be a lot of activity in the Legislature on solar power this session. Stay tuned.

Update February 13, 2024

Two companion community solar bills have been introduced in February in the House and Senate. These are HB 5626 and SB 638, both of which are titled Community Solar Pilot Program. These two bills may have a greater change of passage than HB 483 because of introduction in both chambers.

These two bills place greater emphasis on the availability of participation in community solar programs for low-income consumers. They preserve the current bill credit for electricity generated by solar power. They also encourage siting community solar facilities where they can co-exist with agriculture and on lands undesirable land previously used for mining or manufacturing.

Anyone who has been to Weirton in the last decade has seen the shuttered steel plant, with its miles of pipelines, squarely in the middle of town. Now there is new life and hope in Weirton thanks to Form Energy’s long-duration battery facility under construction at the steel plant site. Form Energy represents the new energy economy and what is possible for West Virginia.

Form Energy’s batteries harvest and store the electricity created when iron rusts. The long-duration storage batteries can discharge power for about 100 hours, providing needed electric grid stability. The Weirton plant will employ 750 workers in jobs integrated with the energy economy of the future, not in declining fossil fuel industries so typical in West Virginia.

This was a no-brainer for West Virginia, right? Well, no. Politics and downright ignorance conspired to jeopardize the whole deal. The Form Energy story highlights the need for West Virginia voters to elect candidates for office who are sensitive to climate-related issues and who welcome the economic opportunities that are available in the new energy economy.

West Virginia development authorities salivate over practically any potential industrial development. State and local tax credits are liberally used as inducements. The Rockwool plant in Jefferson County is an example. Rockwool’s sweet tax deal breezed through the state’s legislative and regulatory authorities.

Rockwool’s insulation may reduce energy costs, but Rockwool’s operations aren’t a part of the new energy economy. Rockwool uses use natural gas, which isn’t a “clean” fuel no matter what anyone says. Burning natural gas produces 117 pounds of CO₂ per million BTUs (compared with 200 for coal) and is responsible for much of the country’s methane pollution through leaks and accidents.

Yet the Form Energy deal was not as easily accomplished as the one for Rockwool. It required a legislative act to create a supplemental appropriation of $105 million to the state Economic Development Authority. No new taxes were necessary because of available surplus tax revenues from the previous year. Still it was opposed by some legislators.

HB 2882 was introduced in the West Virginia House of Delegates to authorize the supplemental appropriation. This bill passed the House by a vote of 69-25. Del. Bill Ridenour (Jefferson) frustrated climate activists and most of his Republican colleagues by voting No.

In the Senate critics questioned the use of taxpayer funds to support a “green energy” company. Sen. Rupie Phillips (Logan) called the deal a “pig with lipstick.” He argued that coal severance taxes supported the state’s finances and said, “This is coal money we’re giving to a woke company.” His attitude could be the poster child for self-defeating, extreme ideology.

Some Senators who should know better, such as Patricia Rucker (Jefferson), voted No. Other Senators, such as Mike Azinger (Wood) and Robert Karnes (Upshur), always vote against anything progressive. Nevertheless, HB 2882 passed the Senate 21-13 and was signed by Governor Justice.

In late 2022, Berkshire Hathaway Corporation announced a solar-powered micro-grid facility in Jackson County that will use renewable energy to run an aerospace industry manufacturing plant. This plant will be located in the long-shuttered Ravenswood aluminum plant.

Other manufacturing plants attracted to the site by the clean power available through the micro-grid are expected. A drive past the Berkshire Hathaway Ohio River site, now under construction, reveals a jaw-dropping scope. A similar sense is created by seeing the size of the Black Rock wind power project in Grant and Mineral counties.

Young West Virginians searching for a reason to stay in the state need look no further than career opportunities in the new energy economy. There is a bright future for our state if it embraces clean-energy technologies during the painful winding down of our coal and gas economy. This can only be done if policymakers in the Legislature and the State House get on board. It is our job as voters to ensure they do.

This year, Virginia donors sent 12 tons of acorns and other tree seeds to the Virginia Department of Forestry to secure Virginia’s arboreal future. It is all part of a decade-old program to grow and plant hardwood seedlings in Virginia’s forests. The program promotes a natural remedy for climate change in that trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester it for many years. It allows Virginia residents to be a part of that process in a satisfying way. There is no such program in West Virginia.

The acorns are collected at the Virginia state nursery at Crimona, Virginia, where the seedlings emerge eighteen months after planting. The seedlings are sold to landowners and the timber industry.

In West Virginia, the timber industry is big business. 78% of land in West Virginia is forested, ranking us third in the U.S. The industry generates around $3.2 billion each year for the state and provides more than 30,000 jobs with 12 million acres of forestland and 75 billion board feet of timber inventory. Each of West Virginia’s 55 counties has a piece of the wood industry as an employer. The labor force is predominantly located in rural areas and small towns, and in many cases, these companies are the largest employers in the community, offering high-paying jobs and creating stability for families.

Trees not only remove carbon dioxide, they also filter the water and air, reduce temperatures to decrease demand for electricity during the summer months, and lure leaf-peeping tourists in the autumn. Mature trees can be harvested for home builders, furniture makers and other businesses.

The West Virginia state nursery is located at Clements, WV, in Mason County near the Ohio River. Several years ago, the nursery sold seedlings of native trees in containers to landowners. The current Division of Forestry website makes no mention of that effort.

This seems like a low-cost, high-return idea that would interest many segments of the state. Perhaps some bright West Virginia Legislator will see the virtue in backing proposed legislation that could satisfy environmentalists, the forest industry and conservation community all at once.

Montana is a lot like West Virginia – rural, sparsely populated, scenic, and dominated by coal interests. There is one significant difference. In the 1970s, Montana amended its constitution to create a right on behalf of citizens to “a clean and healthful environment.” That provision was the basis of a stunning legal victory on August 14, 2023, by sixteen young people who challenged a Montana law that barred consideration of climate impacts during the environmental review of fossil fuel projects.

The case, Held v. State of Montana, was heard in a Montana state trial court. The Judge found that Montana youth are being harmed by climate change, a necessary predicate for any relief. One plaintiff with asthma described being a prisoner in his own home during a period of intense wildfire smoke. Another described how extreme weather harmed her family’s ranch.

The Judge ruled that there was a connection between these injuries and the state’s emissions, which could be traced to the legal provision blocking the review of climate effects from energy projects. She found the state’s law unconstitutional.

Attorneys for the state argued Montana’s contribution to global greenhouse emissions is small and awarding victory to the plaintiff would have “no meaningful impact or appreciable effect.” But the state chose not to challenge the evidence of harm to the individual plaintiffs or the connection between fossil fuel production and climate change.  Afterward a spokesman for the Montana Attorney General called the ruling absurd and promised an appeal.

The Judge made clear that she did not have the power to order Montana to create a plan to address climate change. Nevertheless, the fossil fuel industries reacted to the case by claiming that there would be fewer permitted energy projects in the state and that complex litigation would slow them down. A spokesman for the Montana Petroleum Association said the decision would cause great economic harm to the state of Montana. Where have we heard that before?

Montana’s constitutional provision is known as a “green amendment.” Green amendments were added to the constitutions of Pennsylvania, Montana, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Illinois in the 1970s. In 2022 New York also added one to its constitution. Several other state legislatures have considered green amendments – including in West Virginia – but no others have passed.

West Virginia’s proposed green amendment, modeled on the one in Pennsylvania, was offered in 2019. It read:

The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment. West Virginia’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the State shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.

This proposed amendment never emerged from committee, although it could be reintroduced in a subsequent legislative session.

West Virginia’s Green Amendment would substantially change the legal landscape regarding environmental rights and law. Presently, any rights to environmental cleanliness are created by statute or regulation. For example, DEP regulations now govern the amount of various chemicals that are permitted in our drinking water. The determination of what is permissible is heavily influenced by the industries that are affected by the regulation.

With a Green Amendment, the people’s right to a clean and healthy environment would occupy a higher order of legal significance. Statutes and regulations would have to be consistent with the right or be subject to rejection in a court as unconstitutional. If the West Virginia Legislature or the DEP created a statute or regulation affecting the cleanliness of drinking water, they could do so only after considering how the protected environmental rights could be preserved with the least impact. This is a feature of acting as a trustee of those rights. Where protected environmental rights would be destroyed, no governmental action could be taken.

What a wonderful world it could be.

PFAS is an acronym used as shorthand for several related synthetic chemical compounds. These compounds have unique properties that make them highly stable and resistant to degradation in  the environment. For that reason PFAS are called “forever chemicals.” Recently we have discovered that humans have PFAS in our bodies through all sorts of ingestion, from using non-stick skillets to dental floss covered in smooth film. Scientific evidence indicates that several serious health problems can result, such as poor fetal growth, compromised liver, thyroid and immune functions and increased risk of certain cancers.

One major and preventable source of PFAS exposure is our drinking water. Identifying the location, source and amount of PFAS in West Virginia drinking water has occupied the legislature and state public health agencies over the last three years. Recently the federal EPA proposed very low drinking water standards for PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The Background in West Virginia

Public consciousness of PFAS awakened after the 2019 film “Dark Waters,” which exposed years of unlawful PFAS pollution of the Ohio River by DuPont near Parkersburg, West Virginia and followed the subsequent lawsuit to hold the company accountable.

Environmental activists both in and outside West Virginia government recognized the danger and sought a legislative solution. In 2020 the Legislature passed SCR 46 requesting a study of all raw drinking water sources for possible PFAS pollution. The US Geological Survey was contracted to perform this research.

The  USGS reported that between 2019 and 2021 PFAS had been detected above the then-current EPA drinking water health advisory in 13% of the West Virginia raw water sources sampled. Before USGS could update this research, the EPA issued new health advisories for four PFAS compounds.

The USGS’s updated research was completed in June 2022 with a Report on PFAS in West Virginia groundwater and surface water sources used for public drinking water. This was raw water, not water after treatment. Nevertheless, the result was shocking. The Report disclosed that PFAS was found in levels above the new EPA standards in 130 community water systems used to supply drinking water to roughly 700,000 West Virginians. This was 49% of the raw water sources sampled.  The heaviest concentrations of these contaminated water supplies was along the Ohio River and in the Eastern Panhandle.

Legislative Response in 2023

The 2023 West Virginia Legislature, which concluded its regular session in March 2023, took action. A coalition of Republicans and Democrats passed HB 3189. The effort was led by Del. Evan Hansen of Monongalia. The thrust of the new law is to identify the sources of PFAS in drinking water so that an effective remediation can be developed.

HB 3189 directs the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to develop action plans to identify and address PFAS sources in drinking water on a relatively tight time schedule, depending on the level of PFAS found in the water source. It also directs manufacturers who discharge into surface water to report the use of PFAS in their operations. Quarterly monitoring of PFAS levels at those facilities will follow.

The key to this monitoring is that when the EPA issues final water quality criteria under the Clean Water Act for any PFAS, DEP is directed to develop a legislative rule adopting criteria for industrial discharge permits no more stringent than the federal standards, but likely to be identical to those standards.

But here is the important point: the new West Virginia legislation does not require DEP or any other state agency to begin removing PFAS now. Some critics wonder aloud what more is needed for action in the Mountain State to remove pollutants known for 22 years to be harmful.

Federal EPA Action

On March 14, 2023, EPA announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for six PFAS compounds. This proposed Regulation requires no action until it is final, which should be before the end of 2023. The proposed Regulation will establish legally enforceable maximum contaminant levels for the PFAS, which for the two most prevalent compounds will be zero. The Regulation will also require monitoring and notification to the public of PFAS levels and reduction of excessive levels of PFAS where found.

To help communities on the frontline of PFAS contamination, the Biden Administration’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act invests $11.7B in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and $9B in additional money to help communities deal with “emerging contaminants,” especially small and disadvantaged communities of which there are many in West Virginia.

Recent Update

On May 12, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Resources and DEP announced that 27 of 37 public water systems sampled (post-treatment) showed detectable levels of some PFAS. Of these 27, PFAS levels above at least one of the  EPA proposed standards were found in 19. Dr. Matthew Christiansen, state Health Officer, said that the new sampling results did not call for do-not-consume orders, but that those concerned could use home filtration systems that address PFAS.

In West Virginia, environmentalists need to be realistic about how far the state can depart from fossil fuel power generation. Much of the state’s economy and many jobs are tied up in fossil fuels, both coal and natural gas. Currently, West Virginia relies on coal far more than any other state in the nation for electricity generation. Coal comprised 91% of the state’s electricity generation in 2021, well above Missouri, the next heaviest user of coal. All this is cemented by the powerful fossil fuel lobbies.

But competition between coal and gas interests, as well as the inevitable decline of coal, are leading some legislators to nudge the state toward more use of relatively cleaner natural gas.  West Virginia is the nation’s fourth-largest producer of natural gas, but only 4% of the state’s electricity generation in 2021 was gas-generated.  Proponents of gas generation complain that West Virginia offers fewer sites for gas power plants than surrounding states.  This “state-vs.-state” competition argument always seems to have particular persuasiveness with West Virginia legislators.  But the coal industry is pushing back against any favoring of gas.

SB 188, sponsored by Sen. Charles Trump (R-Morgan), would direct the Department of Economic Development Secretary to identify and designate sites considered appropriate for natural gas electric generation projects. An amendment offered by Sen. David Stover (R-Wyoming) to include coal in this site designation process was defeated in the Senate Economic Development Committee. The bill would also expedite the approval process for new plants.

SB 188 is backed by the West Virginia Manufacturer’s Association and the gas industry.  Conservation West Virginia has taken no position.  We favor shifting to cleaner fuel sources, even cleaner gas fuel over coal.  We recognize that increasing natural gas power generation would lower greenhouse gas emissions. But we are concerned by the unduly fast approval processes mandated for gas plant applications in SB 188, which we think will not allow opponents of a particular site a fair chance at influencing the decision.

As of February 17, SB 177 is only a few steps away from the Governor’s desk.

Midway through the fourth week of the 2023 legislative session, it is possible to get an overview of what seems important to legislators and their constituents. It is land use, both public and private. Several important bills affecting how we can use public lands, such as state parks and forests, as well as privately owned land, have been introduced. Some have already made it over the finish line. Here is a summary.

DNR Sale and Leasing of Public Lands

Early in the session, two bills affecting the authority of DNR to sell or lease public lands blew through both House and Senate. In the Senate where these bills originated they bypassed consideration in any committee, received no public comment and their text was not posted in advance on the Legislature’s website for public review. SB 161 and SB 162 authorize the Department of Natural Resources to auction off “pore space” underlying state forests, natural and scenic areas, and wildlife management areas. Pore space is defined elsewhere in the code as underground natural or manmade cavities. Only a last-minute amendment saved state park land from this pore space auction.  SB 162 is  aimed at companies in the business of sequestering carbon dioxide, a by-product of the process of creating “blue hydrogen.” The bills quickly passed both Senate and House and were adopted by the Governor on January 24.

ATVs on Public Lands

All-terrain vehicles have become controversial as a result of a proposal to make permanent the ATV trail trail system in Cabwaylingo State Forest and to link that system with other private or public ATV trails in the state with connector trails. SB 468 is the creature of Sen. Mark Maynard, who chairs the Outdoor Recreation Committee. A Committee substitute version of that bill that would have allowed the DNR Director, with approval of the heads of the Commerce and Tourism departments, to authorize the connector trails but it failed on a tie vote of 5-5. The bill in some form is expected to be brought back up in committee. SB 468 is opposed by Conservation West Virginia, West Virginia Rivers Coalition and outdoor sporting groups.  ATVs are noisy, create dust and mud potentially fouling valuable trout streams, and destroy wildlife habitat.

Zoning Override for Non-Utility Wholesale Power Generation

HB 2459 was introduced in 2022 in roughly the same form by Del. Wayne Clarke of Jefferson. The bill would override any zoning restrictions on non-utility wholesale power generators, such as large solar farms or wind farms. Under the HB 2459 these installations are declared a permitted use in any zoning district, even residential. This bill was introduced last year to solve a problem faced by a single Jefferson County developer who faced opposition to siting a solar farm.  But the bill’s overreach is obvious and it has stalled in committee.

Taxing and Otherwise Limiting the Sale of Carbon Offsets on Private Forest Land

Carbon offset agreements are private contracts between producers of greenhouse gasses and owners of forested lands. These lands act as a natural carbon sink. Producers pay landowners not to cut the carbon absorbing timber on their lands. In exchange the producers get carbon credits against pledges to de-carbonize operations or in carbon markets. Somehow these agreements are such a threat to the timber industry in West Virginia that HB 3294 has been proposed to discourage such agreements. The bill would limit the term of such agreements to 20 years, with the possibility of renewal for another 20 years, and would impose an excise tax of 30%  on the amount of the payment to the landowner. The carbon producer would be required to pay the tax. The bill is opposed by environmental groups, the West Virginia Farm Bureau and property owners’ groups as a threat to a legitimate income stream for farmers and forest property owners, and an obvious incursion into the freedom to direct the use of one’s own land. Perhaps most importantly, carbon offset agreements are a market-based device to reach carbon neutrality and should be encouraged. Conservation West Virginia opposes HB 3294.

 

West Virginia has had one long history of selling valuable natural resources and public lands to commercial interests. When the dust settles from these transactions and they can be viewed without the hyped rhetoric of the moment, we often conclude that the price has been ridiculously low and the damage to our natural heritage catastrophic. In other words, we deeply regret them. The state was once covered with first growth hardwood forests. These are now gone. The southern Appalachians represent a unique biosphere of plants and animals. This is now threatened by mountaintop removal and other practices on lands owned by coal companies purchased on the cheap a century ago.

Isn’t there is always some enticing narrative that makes the sale of our natural heritage seem attractive? Sometimes the narrative is as simple as cash on the barrelhead for poor and unsophisticated mountain people. Now the narrative is to make way for a hydrogen hub — an industrial complex that will use West Virginia natural gas to produce “blue hydrogen,” the holy grail of clean energy. That hydrogen hub would be right here in West Virginia! And it will create many jobs! And the state’s economy will improve! And so on, and so on. Shouldn’t we have a hangover from this kind of talk by now?

The problem is that the process of creating blue hydrogen from methane frees carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas causing climate change.  We’ll have to dispose of that carbon dioxide somewhere. Guess where? The West Virginia Legislature has just provided the answer in yet another example of short-sighted behavior right as the 2022-2023 session opened. SB 161 and SB 162 authorize the Department of Natural Resources to auction off “pore space” underlying state forests, natural and scenic areas and wildlife management areas. Pore space is defined elsewhere in the code as underground natural or manmade cavities. Only a last-minute amendment saved state park land from this pore space auction.

What could possibly go wrong with selling empty space underneath environmentally sensitive state-owned land? Quite a bit. The requirements for obtaining a permit to sequester carbon are contained in legislation passed last year but obviously geared to the use of existing gas and oil wells for that purpose.  Creating a manmade cavity solely for the purpose of carbon sequestration is something completely new. Nothing restrains the DNR from complete discretion as to the scientific or economic soundness of the project contemplated by the bidder. The only thing the statute requires for a successful bid is the highest price.

Have we learned our lesson from earlier sales of the public patrimony? No, we most certainly have not. Carbon capture and storage technology is currently unproven at commercial scale.  Nevertheless SB 161 and SB 162 zoomed through the Senate bypassing consideration in any committee, receiving no public comment and without advance posting of the text on the Legislature’s website for public review. The only thing that could justify this anti-democratic behavior is fear of a public backlash.

The Charleston Gazette has reported that an unnamed source said the legislation is aimed at a single company with a carbon sequestration plan in order to secure its investment in West Virginia. But the existing legislation from last year already allows a company to purchase privately held land for the purpose of carbon sequestration. Evidently this is not compliant enough with the needs of this unnamed company. The availability of sensitive public lands, which have only one owner, is necessary. So West Virginia has rolled over like a warm puppy.

I am all in favor of new technology to minimize greenhouse gasses and preserve the environment.  I am not in favor of throwing over all caution about sensitive public lands for a speculative benefit the dimensions of which cannot now be measured, particularly without the searching public inquiry generally required for things of this nature. But it is ever thus in West Virginia. What we need is a public advocate for the environment much like a guardian functions for a minor who cannot speak for herself. We just can’t depend on the Legislature for this.

 

The Division of Highway’s proposed final route for the Corridor H Highway is the so-called “Canyon Route” between Parsons and Davis which would construct a massive concrete overpass with numerous exit ramps between the historic towns of Davis and Thomas. It would cross over the North Fork of the Blackwater Canyon, be visible from Pendleton Point at Blackwater Falls, and would degrade the natural beauty and historic sites there.  We support the Friends of Blackwater, over fifty business owners in the area, and over two thousand citizens who champion the alternate “Northern Route”, north of Thomas.  The comment period deadline is December 12, 2022.

We urge your support, voice, and donation to the “Go North” project by using this link on the Friends of Blackwater website:

This controversy also has the attention of The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/10/09/west-virginia-corridor-h-blackwater-falls/