If you are looking for another example of how the Legislature in West Virginia favors big industry over the little guy, look no further than SB 822, introduced in the Senate on February 16, 2024. This bill attacks carbon offset agreements and conservation easements — two different kinds of contracts currently used by small landowners to generate income from private land. Sometimes these contracts prohibit future timbering of the land. The timber industry hates this.

Carbon offset agreements are private contracts between emitters of greenhouse gas – say a manufacturer or a package delivery company — and owners of forested lands. Forested lands act as a natural carbon sink, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and converting the carbon to wood fiber while releasing oxygen back into the atmosphere. That wood fiber keeps the carbon from the atmosphere over many years. Carbon dioxide emitters 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.

Conservation easements are a different sort of private contract. They are made between a private landowner and a charitable group like the Eastern Panhandle Land Trust to preserve the natural character of valuable land by prohibiting development, including commercial timbering. By their terms, easements are perpetual. If an easement is donated to a charity the landowner gets a tax deduction, so both conservation easements and carbon offset agreements create a revenue stream for the landowner.

SB 822 seeks to interfere with a private landowner’s freedom to restrict her property from future timbering, all in service to the West Virginia timber industry. In 2023 a similar bill was 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. Fortunately, last years’ bill died in the Finance committee.

SB 822 would create a strong disincentive for carbon offset agreements. First many of them would be removed from the Managed Timberland Program and lose the tax break that accompanies it. Carbon capture agreements that impose substantial restrictions on “commercial production and harvesting of timber” would be removed.

Second, purchasers of carbon offset agreements would have to register with the state and be liable for an excise tax payment of up to 50% of the underlying value of the carbon offset. That kind of heavy-handed tax would deter many of the agreements.

SB 822 would also create huge uncertainty regarding the common use of conservation easements. It would amend the article on “covenants” in the Code chapter on Estates and Property to declare a state policy in favor of land development and timber harvesting. It would void any future easement or contract that effectively restricts land development or timbering longer than 20 years for the purpose of carbon offset or sequestration.

If the Legislature passes this bill, it will favor the economic interests of large industry over small landowners, deprive farmers and small landowners of a revenue stream from their own property, interfere with the freedom of contract, and eliminate a means of reducing greenhouse gasses and climate change. This is bad legislation, and it deserves to be firmly rejected.

Update 2/29/24. SB 822 was taken off the Senate calendar on the last day a bill could be passed out of its chamber of origin, effectively killing the bill. This resulted from strong opposition on the Senate floor by Minority Leader Mike Woelfel (Cabell) when the bill was read for the third time . Woelfel asked “Why are we taking away the property owner’s right to manage his property and his timber as he sees fit?” This “property freedom” rationale overcame the industry argument advanced by Sen. Eric Tarr (Putnam). Tarr argued that the bill was necessary to keep private carbon offset agreements from encumbering thousands of acres of forestland and “putting them out of reach of the timber industry.”

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.

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.

Carbon offset agreements are private contracts between emitters of greenhouse gasses and owners of forested lands. These lands act as a natural carbon sink. West Virginia’s trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert the carbon to wood fiber while releasing oxygen back into the atmosphere. When utilized in long-term wood products such as lumber, that wood fiber stores the carbon from the atmosphere over many years. Carbon dioxide emitters 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.

More than 12 million acres of forestland stretch across West Virginia, covering 79% of the state. It’s the third-most heavily forested state in the nation, making it prime real estate for carbon offsets. Currently, the participants in these carbon offset agreements are not required to report the existence of the agreements to the state. That didn’t stop Peter Shirley, director of the West Virginia Legislature Division of Regulatory and Fiscal Affairs, from telling the Legislature last year that active forest carbon offset projects covered at least 616,044 acres across 14 counties in the southern and central parts of the state.

Somehow these agreements are such a threat that HB 3294 was proposed last session to discourage them. The concern seems to be two-fold: potential state revenue reduction and the potential abuse of landowners who don’t understand the agreements. The bill would have limited the term of such agreements to 20 years, with the possibility of renewal for another 20 years, and would have imposed an excise tax of 30%  on the amount of the payment to the landowner. The carbon emitter would be required to pay the tax.

The bill was 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 opposed HB 3294 and, fortunately it died in the Finance committee.

However, just before the session ended a bill to impose a moratorium on contracts limiting timber harvesting was introduced in the Senate. SB 739 only covered contracts related to carbon capture, storage or sequestration. The bill’s sponsor, Eric Tarr (R-Putnam), claimed that there was “an emergency” because these contracts hindered timbering and potentially coal and gas severance. Although passing the Senate unanimously, the House amended the bill slightly and the Senate did not have enough time to concur — and may not have. At present there is no moratorium on carbon offset agreements.

Just exactly how to integrate carbon offset agreements and the state’s Managed Timberland Program will be a topic raised in the next legislative session. In 1946, the Forestry Amendment to the West Virginia Constitution was ratified, which was intended to provide for cooperation by contract between the State and the landowner in the planting, cultivation, protection, and harvesting of forest lands. Forest lands that were included in any such contract could be exempted from the full normal rate of taxation for timber property.

Recently, the Post Audit Division of the Legislative Auditor produced a report on the Managed Timberland Program and identified carbon capture agreements as a potential problem because some of these agreements restrict timbering completely. If the owner of a property participating in the Program also has a carbon capture agreement forbidding timbering, the owner would be in violation of the Program terms. The report estimates that there are 12.2 million acres of forest land in the state, 2.6 million acres of which are under a Managed Timberland Program agreement. Known carbon capture acres total 616,044 — although part of the problem is the state isn’t notified of the existence or terms of carbon capture agreements.

The report suggests that the Legislature could modify the statutory structure to classify carbon capture agreements as “deed restrictions” just as a conservation easement, thereby rendering land subject to a carbon capture agreement ineligible for the Managed Timberland Program. Conservationists and land owners should brace for this approach, which will surely be attempted by legislators hostile to addressing climate change.

Perhaps the way around this issue is to recognize those carbon capture agreements that still permit timbering and reforestation as eligible for the Program. The Post Audit Report itself states that “sustainable forest management practices, such as selective logging and replanting, can maintain
or even increase the carbon sequestration capacity of a forest over the long term. By replanting
trees or allowing for the natural regeneration of the forest, it is possible to offset carbon emissions
while also providing economic benefits to the landowner.”

The Nature Conservancy says that 80 percent of all forest harvesting in West Virginia is via “high grading,” a poor management technique that removes only the best timber from a forest, and therefore degrades carbon stocks, timber quality and wildlife habitat over time. The Conservancy operates several programs designed to help timber owners, both large and small, manage their forest lands profitably while also helping owners participate in carbon markets through offset agreements. Many carbon offset agreements still allow timber harvesting.

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/

Conservation West Virginia is pleased to announce the candidates we endorse for the West Virginia House of Delegates and Senate in November’s statewide election. We focused on nineteen races throughout the Eastern third of the state. To make our endorsement decisions we collected candidate biographical information, reviewed their public statements, surveyed their views on conservation and environmental legislation, and conducted interviews. Only clear conservation candidates could win our endorsement. Here they are:

Paul Detch, Delegate District 46 (Greenbrier)

Elliot Pritt, Delegate District 50 (Fayette)

Gabe Peña, Delegate District 51 (Fayette)

Robert Sheets, Delegate District 66 (Randolph, Pocahontas)

Susan Benzinger, Delegate District 100 (Jefferson)

Hannah Geffert, Senate District 16 (Jefferson, Berkeley)

A full explanation of the reasons for our endorsements may be found here –> Read more.