Public Comments

• wage increases,
• job creation tied to livable wages,
• local reinvestment,
• or measurable public benefit proportional to the tax revenue forgone.

• Amend §29B-1-1 or any FOIA enforcement provision
• Establish penalties for incomplete or obstructed responses
• Require agencies to certify the completeness of FOIA productions
• Mandate delivery of records in accessible, non-restricted formats
• Provide remedies when agencies supply broken links or inaccessible files

• Missing enforcement records, including WVDEP inspection reports and consent or compliance orders tied to permit exceedances
• Incomplete disclosures, where responsive documents were acknowledged but not produced
• Inaccessible records, including contract addenda and bid materials provided only through restricted or nonfunctional links
• Omission of environmental review documents, such as Environmental Assessments or Findings of No Significant Impact for projects receiving state and federal funds
• Lack of proactive public notice regarding repeated wastewater permit exceedances and untreated discharge events

• Administrative decision-making without public oversight
• Post-hoc disclosure rather than contemporaneous public access
• Increased barriers for citizens seeking records related to environmental, health, or fiscal impacts
• Erosion of public trust in state agencies

• Environmental compliance
• Public infrastructure
• Water quality
• Wastewater treatment
• State and federal funding

• Strengthened FOIA enforcement provisions
• Clear requirements for accessible record delivery
• Mandatory disclosure of environmental and compliance records
• Accountability mechanisms when agencies fail to comply with FOIA

• proportional penalty caps tied to property value or owner income,
• guaranteed remediation assistance or cleanup funding,
• independent oversight to prevent selective or retaliatory enforcement,
• and robust procedural safeguards before liens or continued penalties attach.

• cap penalties,
• ensure meaningful opportunity to cure,
• provide cleanup assistance,
• apply standards equally to industrial actors,
• and protect private property owners from indirect or constructive takings.

• WV Code §22-1-1 establishes that it is the public policy of the state to conserve natural resources and protect the environment for the benefit of present and future generations.
• WV Code §22-11-1 (Water Pollution Control Act) acknowledges that environmental harm is cumulative and directly impacts public welfare, ecosystems, and economic stability.
• WV Code §19-12-1 et seq. recognizes the importance of forests and forestlands to soil conservation, water regulation, wildlife habitat, and climate moderation.

• Deforestation and conversion of farmland for industrial and commercial development
• Habitat loss affecting native flora and fauna
• Increased flooding, erosion, and landslides tied to land disturbance
• Altered local temperature and moisture patterns caused by loss of forest canopy

• Regulating surface and groundwater flow
• Reducing flood damage to roads and communities
• Stabilizing soil and preventing landslides
• Supporting biodiversity and pollinators critical to agriculture

1. Preservation of forests and farmland
2. Clear statutory distinctions between environmental harm and sustainable infrastructure
3. Alignment with existing conservation and environmental protection statutes

• The Division of Highways and road maintenance
• Public education
• Emergency services
• Environmental oversight and public health
• State agencies tasked with regulatory enforcement

• Less funding for infrastructure
• Deferred maintenance and safety risks
• Increased burden shifted onto residents through fees, regressive taxes, or service cuts
• Greater instability in agency budgets that already struggle to meet statutory obligations

1. How essential public programs will be funded long-term
2. Which services will be reduced or eliminated
3. Why residents should expect improved outcomes with fewer resources

• Residents can be billed for unsafe or unusable water
• Emergency declarations do not automatically trigger billing relief
• Agencies acknowledge contamination while disclaiming authority over financial harm
• The burden is placed on individual residents to navigate multiple systems rather than on the state to coordinate a unified response

• Clear limits on how sensitive personal data may be used beyond opt-out mechanisms
• Mandatory risk or impact assessments for high-risk data processing
• A dedicated, independent privacy enforcement agency with rulemaking authority

• Create enforceable limits on the use of sensitive personal information
• Require risk assessments for high-risk data practices
• Strengthen transparency, portability, and enforcement mechanisms
• Bring West Virginia’s consumer privacy protections in line with leading state standards such as California’s

1. West Virginia already operates below national protective standards. West Virginia has historically adopted less stringent enforcement and higher allowable parts-per-million (ppm) thresholds for certain pollutants compared to national benchmarks and peer states. This regulatory weakening has not reduced harm; instead, it has coincided with higher rates of respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and pollution-linked health conditions relative to national averages.
2. Higher allowable ppm correlates with higher incidence rates. Public health and environmental data consistently show that increasing allowable pollutant concentrations does not eliminate harm — it increases exposure. Even small increases in ambient pollutant levels (including PM2.5, ozone precursors, and co-pollutants associated with combustion) are associated with measurable increases in emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and chronic disease burden. West Virginia’s outcomes already reflect this trend.
3. Deregulation compounds existing weaknesses. HB 5039 proposes repealing West Virginia’s Air Pollution Control framework (WV Code §22-5-1 et seq.) without replacing it with enforceable monitoring, permitting, or compliance mechanisms. Removing state-level oversight further weakens an already diluted system, increasing the likelihood of delayed detection, underreporting, and cumulative exposure.
4. Federal standards still apply, but costs shift to the state. Even if state statutes are repealed or weakened, federal Clean Air Act requirements remain enforceable through the EPA. However, when states reduce their own enforcement capacity, compliance failures are more likely — resulting in higher remediation costs, federal intervention, legal exposure, and loss of state control, all of which increase costs borne by taxpayers rather than regulated entities.
5. Documented costs rise when oversight is reduced. When pollution controls are weakened, costs do not disappear — they reappear as Medicaid expenditures, infrastructure remediation, emergency response costs, insurance premium increases, and long-term public health liabilities. These costs are consistently higher than the cost of prevention and enforcement.

• Does not establish withdrawal limits,
• Does not require corrective action when over-withdrawal occurs,
• Does not trigger enforcement, penalties, or permit suspension,
• Does not require public disclosure in accessible formats.

• industrial expansion,
• large-scale infrastructure projects,
• data centers and energy-intensive development.

• Prioritizes commercial and industrial extraction in growth zones,
• Provides less protection for rural and environmental justice communities outside those counties,
• Treats groundwater as an economic input rather than a shared public resource.

• PFAS contamination,
• disinfection byproducts (TTHMs/HAAs),
• chromium-6,
• nitrate loading,
• cumulative or chronic exposure risks.

• notice to residents whose wells or aquifers may be affected,
• public posting of extraction data,
• FOIA-ready or machine-readable reporting formats,
• disclosure of enforcement actions or violations.

• long-term aquifer sustainability,
• protection of private wells,
• intergenerational equity,
• or meaningful public participation.

• enforceable withdrawal limits,
• mandatory public disclosure,
• health-based standards,
• cumulative impact analysis,
• and clear enforcement triggers.

I strongly support House Bill 4038 because it provides a necessary check on unchecked wind development and addresses real-world reliability challenges. Wind energy is intermittent and weather-dependent, often producing little or no electricity during calm periods, making it difficult to rely on as a primary power source without extensive backup. Wind facilities frequently operate at much lower capacity than firm sources like coal, requiring far more installed capacity to match reliable output.

Practical experience from other regions highlights these challenges: turbines in Europe, the U.S., and Australia have suffered mechanical failures, including blade and bearing issues, forcing them offline for extended periods. Projects like these experienced catastrophic blade failures, and extreme weather can dramatically reduce output when meeting demand is most critical.

Equally concerning is the type of companies that bring these projects to West Virginia. These corporations are focused on short-term profit rather than investing in our future and long-term energy independence. When profit-driven developers dominate wind infrastructure, local taxpayers and landowners bear the risks, while financial benefits flow elsewhere.

West Virginia is rich in natural resources, which is already a foundation for a strong energy future. Responsible development of these existing capabilities supports high-paying local jobs, strengthens rural economies, and generates critical tax revenue for schools, infrastructure, and public services. By carefully limiting wind expansion while investing in these proven energy resources, the state can ensure a reliable, resilient, and economically balanced energy future for all West Virginians.

HB4038 allows West Virginia to retain control over our energy resources, protect rural communities, and ensure reliable integration with the grid before committing to wind projects. I urge Delegates to support this bill to promote a balanced and resilient energy future for our state. Thank you!

I am in favor of HB4509. Efforts for economic growth must not undermine the communities that will shoulder the burden of large data centers. Local municipal authority is essential for transparency among citizens and surrounding industries.

• Require public disclosure of mine safety program standards, approval criteria, or compliance findings;
• Mandate independent or third-party review of safety programs;
• Provide clear worker participation or whistleblower protections in the approval process;
• Specify enforcement benchmarks, penalties, or corrective timelines for unsafe conditions.

As a WV native and Tucker County resident, I urge you to give back local control in HB2014.  We have a right to have a say in industries that are wanting to build in our towns and back yards.

HB4509 needs to become law. The burdens connected with data centres that the existing legislation places on communities are extreme.  Water and power demands will leave communities struggling through scarcity or expense under the current law.

I oppose House Bill 4038.

This bill limits the rights of rural landowners to use their own property by arbitrarily restricting wind power development. Many landowners choose wind projects because they provide steady lease income that helps keep farms intact, pay property taxes, and support family land that has been held for generations.

Capping wind permits and discouraging new projects reduces local tax revenue and economic activity in rural counties that already struggle to fund schools, roads, and emergency services. These projects bring construction jobs, long-term operations work, and dependable income without extracting or degrading the land.

The provision that reduces coal severance taxes for each new wind project further destabilizes county and municipal budgets by tying local revenue to political decisions instead of predictable tax policy.

West Virginians should not be forced to choose between energy industries. Rural communities deserve the freedom to pursue economic opportunities that work for their land, their families, and their counties.

I urge lawmakers to reject HB 4038.