By Hannah Heishman
“Agriculture is not just our work, it is the backbone of our family and of this valley,” said Nick Martin, fifth generation farmer, to the County Commission at their regular meeting Dec. 2.
Martin was one of four citizens who prepared and presented remarks.
Miriam Leatherman, who introduced herself as “a retired WVU Extension Agent, Farmer, and resident of Hardy County for 43 years,” introduced the group that was there to oppose industrial solar projects.
“As you know, MN8 Energy has leased 3000 acres in the Old Fields area,” she said, adding that the project will cover an estimated 1500 acres.
Leatherman acknowledged the project is complicated, with many aspects and impacts on Hardy County land and citizens.
Leatherman said 150 “landowners and residents” attended a Nov. 13 meeting the group held.
Petitions both for and against the project have been circulated, both accruing signatures, although the exact number for each isn’t clear. Leatherman said that as landowners signed in opposition, they documented their reasons: farmland preservation, property values, health, environmental issues, fire safety, tourism, wildlife habitat/hunting, ground water and erosion were the top concerns. Historical preservation was also mentioned several times.
There was a packet provided to Commissioners that included information the group had collected. One compared the Old Fields Solar Project (3000 leased acres; approximately 1500 acres of panels; producing 250 mega-watts of energy) and Mount Storm (1500 total acres; 1600 mega-watts of energy).
Hardy County has the sixth highest farm acreage in the state, with approximately 33,739 acres in cropland and 56,450 acres in pasture. It’s the top producer of poultry and eggs in the state, the #4 producer of cattle and cows, and the #5 crop producer.
Hardy County is in the top 20% of United States agricultural production counties. In West Virginia, Hardy has 28% of total agricultural sales.
Approximately 96% of Hardy County farms are family-owned.
Martin, who graduated from WVU with a bachelor’s degree in agribusiness, told the Commissioners he had opportunities other places, but chose to come back, “because agriculture here still offered a future — a future built on access to farmland, the ability to expand, and the chance to continue a generational legacy.”
He made clear that his concern is not with renewable energy, but with farmland as a finite resource itself.
“Once it is placed under long term industrial use, it is no longer serving agriculture,” he said.
The project’s lease is 30 years.
“Industrialization changes land values, land use patterns, infrastructure and the community identity,” Martin explained. “Agriculture requires a continuous, connected landscape. Industrial uses break that continuity, making agriculture less viable over time. When thousands of acres of pasture are tied up in 30-year industrial leases, that land is effectively removed from the agricultural economy for an entire generation: my generation.”
Martin went on to explain that converting pastureland to industrial infrastructure affects soil health, limits grazing systems, and restricts future agricultural use.
“When future farmers lose access to land, we lose the ability to grow our local ag economy. We lose the opportunity for younger farmers to come back. And we lose the identity that has sustained this valley for centuries.”
Martin further clarified that his concerns are not a fight against landowners who have signed leases.
“Many of these families have contributed enormously to agriculture and to this community,” Martin said. “The fight is against the industrialization of agricultural land, because once farmland is industrialized, it does not come back easily, and the consequences are felt for generations.”
He asked the Commission to consider long-term impact.
“Short term construction jobs and temporary revenue cannot outweigh the permanent loss of productive agricultural land,” he said, and reminded the Commission that decisions made regarding the project will, “shape whether young farmers like me have the opportunity to continue to thrive here.”
George Leatherman, a former County Commissioner first elected in 1988, has farmed his family’s land since 1974.
“At the time, corn prices were high and we were encouraged to ‘feed the world’ by planting fence row to fence row,” he said, noting that markets changed and it became harder to make a living farming.
Ultimately he became interested in politics.
When he first served on the County Commission, zoning was new and Leatherman recalled a meeting in which a citizen said he didn’t want the county telling him what he could and couldn’t do with his land.
Leatherman recalled fellow Commissioner Winston Teets saying afterward, “’If that man’s neighbor did something on his property that he didn’t like he’d be the first one in here saying there outta be a law against that.’”
Leatherman, who’s served 36 years on the County’s Planning Commission, said, “Zoning has become more important to help resolve what is best for most people in Hardy County. Our comprehensive plan gives our citizens the opportunity to express what they feel is important to the county and our rural lifestyle. Agriculture ranks highest on the list of what they feel is important to our county.”
He reminded listeners about the 1985 flood, when Hardy County received a large amount of rain in a very short amount of time, resulting in a 500-year flood.
He also recalled a 4-H project which was a sloped display of worked land, grassland, and forested land. Worked ground showed muddy runoff. Grassland showed clear runoff. Forested land showed no runoff.
“I know this is an oversimplification of what happens during a rain event, but it got me to thinking,” he said.
“Heavy rains need to be absorbed and the more impervious surfaces we create, the shorter the absorption time and the higher the likelihood of devastating floods.”
Leatherman concluded his remarks with, “Timing is everything.”
County Planner Melissa Scott said solar fields are only allowed in areas zoned industrial, that only about 500 acres are zoned that way, and that it may go to a public company by eminent domain for a power substation.
There will need to be a request to rezone the acreage, Scott said. That request can come from the County Commission, the Planning Commission, or the landowners.
A representative from the company planning the project called into the meeting. He said the project will likely be less than 1500 acres, and that studies must be done with results presented to and approved by the state’s Historic Preservation Office.
Scott clarified, “It’s far from a done deal.”
