RogerZ and bawalker will love this one-

Snowshoe Sewer Plant and eminent domain...the painful price of growth

This article briefly discusses what has been brewing for about the last two years. Snowshoe and the county are trying to use eminent domain to take away a family's land and pop a sewer plant on it. If memory serves me correctly, the fourth generation of family still resides on the property. They also have a bed and breakfast and country store on the property- imagine what a sewer plant will do to THEIR family economy and land values.

This family spent tons of time and cash last year sending out letters to all Snowshoe property owners, WV politicians, and just about every resident in Pocahontas County in order to gain support in stopping the sewer encroachment on their land. The family also says the sewer plant is in a flood plain near one of the rivers- what a potential mess that could be. Several different sites were reviewed and for whatever reason they chose this one. Thousands of acres of undeveloped land in them thar hills and they want to destroy one family's land.

I am a SS property owner and huge fan of the resort, but they seem way off base on this one. It also looks like our tax dollars arent going to cover the project as the HOA's are looking to jack up the HOA fees yet again as Snowshoe is increasing water and sewer rates to pay for the project.

http://www.spocnews.com/index.php?action...om41940a897e943

If the state Supreme Court rules in favor of using eminent domain for this facility, Brad's fight to stop the dams in Wardensville will get a whole lot tougher.

Have they agreed to hear the case? I would be surprised since the US Supreme Court ruled a year or two ago that local government can take whatever they want if it's for the "betterment" of the community. In that case, if I remember right, they said a NH local government could take a family farm so that a hotel (or was it a shopping mall?)could be built so as to increase the tax base.

Unfortunately, the subsequent petition drive to get David Souter's house taken in the same way failed.

Clay

That's not what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year. Actually, the only thing the U.S. Supreme Court did last year was reaffirm a ruling they made in 1952, which was that the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution can be used for both public "use" (the strict interpretation- land can only be taken if the federal government will hold it, basically) and public purpose (a much looser definition that so long as there is public benefit, eminent domain can be used). The Supreme Court made very explicit in its ruling that states were free to adopt a stricter interpretation if they so chose (or if the state constitution so mandated).

I'm frankly surprised at the amount of misinterpretation out there about the Supreme Court ruling. A week after the ruling my step-dad told me that the government was now free to take his house for pennies, and I heard similar interpretations from dozens of people up and down the income, class, race, intellectual etc. spectrums. Now, I don't like the "public purpose" definition and would like to see states tighten down significantly, but let's be clear about what was ruled.

The problem that the State Supreme Court faces is determing whether a) West Virginia law currently permits "public purpose" takings (which it probably does) and b) whether there is a "public purpose" in this particular taking. Frankly, public purpose is broad but I don't see how this can fall under that definition- the sole beneficiary as has practically been admitted by the litigant is... the litigant. This is not a sewer system for the town. It is specifically for a resort and its patrons. The taking is being contemplated to balance off Snowshoe's already bad behavior (in terms of building an insufficient sewage system on its own site). This would be the equivalent of the power plant in Alexandria getting to use eminent domain to seize private property around it in order to mitigate the impact of its pollution. In other words, it'd say that you could use eminent domain for the "public purpose" of remedying your own negative externality. That would be, to put it mildly, quite perverse, and would provide no incentive for businesses to engage in environmentally or infrastructurally sound investments.

So if the Supreme Court says that there is a public purpose that justifies the taking, then short of a new state law Brad is going to be facing a HUGE uphill fight to stop those dams. The dams, after all, ostensibly have the purpose of flood control for Moorefield, which is a far greater "public purpose" then dealing with a bunch of condo owner's crap (literally).

Actually, you just said what I said in a different way - The state can take your property if they feel it is for "the common good" (which could mean an increase in the tax base if, for example, SS could add more condos because of a better sewage system).

Also, while we're being clear, I will just point out that I never said anything about "pennies on the dollar".

Here is WV's eminent domain statute.

I'm not a lawyer, but I read the phrase "including the purpose of promoting, developing and advancing the business prosperity and economic welfare of the county" as being broad enough to cover this situation. However farther down, it says "are performing essential public purposes; that the performance of such essential public purposes". The lawyers may argue that the sewage plant is not an essential public purpose...

Clay

So snowshoe is actually saying the time and energy & money spent in court on this one (and in "court" of public opinion), is ACTUALLY CHEAPER than just buying someone's property at a reasonable market price that IS WILLING to sell to them for this purpose?

Now I AM HOPING the new intrawest owners do step in and knock some sense into their head.

Snowshoe wanted to build the sewage treatment center on it's own property several years ago. Non-Snowshoe developers in the area took that notion to court and forced it into the public arena (because they wanted a piece of the action). Then the PSC had to find a more neutral location so that the system could service communities outside Snowshoe (whether they wanted it or not). Six locations were evaluated including public land and private land. Because of the centralized location requirement (in order to serve the public good beyond SS) and the tricky karst geography in the area (not to mention the lack of flat land) the Sharp farm became the target. The other requirement is that the ultimate rate needs to be affordable for the average homeowner. Most of the other locations evaluated would increase costs significantly due to the need for bridges, longer distances to run lines, etc. It's not as simple as buying land from a willing seller (of flat, non-flood-plain, non-karst, centrally located) land. In fact, the owner of the Sharp Farm land in question was a willing seller early on until the rest of the family jumped in.

DWW is right, the surrounding community and developments are also included on the system whether they like it or not. the lawyers may spin this as benefiting the overall community in order to get the plant.

Thank you flanaryb for the post on the Snowshoe Sewer Project. DWW left a post that is complete hogwash. If you will allow me.

"Snowshoe wanted to build the sewage treatment center on it's own property several years ago"

This SPIN comes right out of the mouth of Snowshoe execs and project planners. Snowshoe did want to build a sewage treatment plant on its own property, but a very important part of the story is not addressed in this definitive statement. Although Snowshoe, in 2003, was in the middle of a lawsuit filed by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection for hundreds of violations of their NPDES discharge permits with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fines, they (incredibly) filed an application for permission to build a plant at the base of the mountain to serve their new valley development only; Hawthorne! This plant had nothing to do with solving the problems of failing infrastructure and failing treatment plants at Silvercreek and Snowshoe Village on top of the mountain.

Snowshoe requested the grand amount of 90,000 gallons per day (GPD) wasteload allocation, a tiny amount equivalent to a teaspoon into the river. In the application, Snowshoe claimed 90% of that allocation for their Hawthorne Village and brokered the remaining 10% to a private entity (one family). If Hawthorne Village exceeded expectations of growth, Snowshoe even reserved the right to take the remaining 10%.

Why a request for such a tiny wasteload allocation? Could it be that by asking for a small allocation, Snowshoe could claim need for all of it and not be required to share with those pesky neighbors as all utilities are 'encouraged' to do by the state?

"Non-Snowshoe developers in the area took that notion to court and forced it into the public arena (because they wanted a piece of the action)."

Snowshoe's application for the tiny Hawthorne plant was presented to the West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC). About a dozen intervenors filed protests for the Hawthorne plant. Approximately half did not show up for the PSC hearing and were dismissed. Several of the remaining intervenors were residents at Snowshoe Village at the top of the mountain. Their argument was that they should not be forced to pay for a new treatment plant at the bottom of the mountain (Hawthorne) that would not solve the mess up at the top of the mountain (Silvercreek Village and Snowshoe Village). The few intervenors left over were neighboring developers using the incorrect or mistaken premise that Snowshoe was taking all of the available wasteload allocation in the area by being the first to ask for it and then claiming all of it.

"Then the PSC had to find a more neutral location so that the system could service communities outside Snowshoe (whether they wanted it or not)."

The PSC had to do nothing of the kind. Why? Because the premise of these intervenors was false. In fact, the DEP sent letters to Snowshoe offering them up to one million GPD wasteload allocation. This would have enabled Snowshoe to build a plant large enough to solve the mess at the top of the mountain, provide service to their new Hawthorne development at the base of the mountain, and SHARE with their neighbors. Curiously, Snowshoe withdrew their application to build the Hawthorne plant and presently pumps the sewage out of the ground and hauls it away.

The argument of those handful of intervening developers that wasteload allocation was being taken, all, by Snowshoe since they asked 'first' is hogwash. Even if Snowshoe managed to slide by with putting a treatment plant to serve only their Hawthorne community at the base of the mountain, they would only have been taking 90,000 GPD out of an available one million GPD! Could it be the real concern of the developers was that they might have to finance the planning, construction and operation of their own treatment plant?

Using the myth that Snowshoe tried to build their own plant (the mythmakers hoping no one will delve too deeply into that statement, the connotation being that Snowshoe actually endeavored to build a plant and fix its aging and inadequate infrastructure to solve all of its problems plus share with its neighbors to boot!) somehow the unsuspecting residents of the valley were 'TOLD' they had asked for a 'regional' sewer project. No one asked for a regional plant. Neighboring developers just wanted a piece of the (treatment plant) pie. Snowshoe solved that problem by simply not building ANY plant.

"Six locations were evaluated including public land and private land. Because of the centralized location requirement (in order to serve the public good beyond SS) and the tricky karst geography in the area (not to mention the lack of flat land) the Sharp farm became the target"

Does DWW have it wrong? No. To have something 'wrong' means that an individual is mistaken. There are so many hidden facts in the 'six locations were evaluated, including public land.." DWW fails to mention that the application for this project (Facilities Plan) included not one public land. In fact, the engineer responsible for choosing the treatment site location, during sworn deposition testimony, said she never looked at public land, assuming that one agency of government could not condemn the land of another. She also testified that the assumed location of the sewer treatment plant would be at the bottom of the drainage basin on the Elk River. Another sworn fact?..that the site at the Elk River was not chosen because of an 'agreement' between the head of the project and a powerful landowner.

The Sharp farm site is NOT a centralized location. Snowshoe is smack dab in the middle of the planned four-phase project. The Sharp farm site is almost at the far west end of the proposed project.

How does all of this site 'evaluation' business stack up? Projects such as this are financed (by the way, Intrawest pays not a dime for this project. Instead, the taxpayers are financing the construction, the repairs to failing infrastructure and the DEP mandated cleanup of their utilities at the top of the mountain) in phases. This project has four ostensible phases. Phase 1 would be financed up to a certain level where the ratepayers would pay the debt down to a point where more money could be released to build the next phase and so on. Certain requirements from one funding agency calls for the evaluation of three sites with the option of 'no site'. Another requirement is for the most 'cost effective' decisions. (project officials will swear to anyone who will listen that this means the cheapest. This concept is very important as you read further. Remember, we must have the cheapest site) Here is where it gets very 'interesting'.

Back to Phase 1. Phase 1 is a huge geographic area. It includes Snowshoe with almost 2000 customers (who already have a sewer plant) and goes all the way down a bucolic valley along Scenic Route 55/219 five miles down to the Sharp farm to add a grand total of about 20 new customers who are not already served by Snowshoe or state sanctioned package plant at the base of the mountain. One might ask if it would not make more sense to add service to Slatyfork as needed and pump the sewage to Snowshoe. Project leaders say they couldn't possibly do that. "It is very dangerous to pump sewage uphill!" They used this excuse for months in an effort to thwart growing concern over their decision. Lo and behold, we find that the 'gravity' system which they claimed in the original Facilities Plan (to the PSC) as the reason for picking the Sharp farm site.....is not a gravity system at all! How can that be? The addition of Silvercreek. You see, Silvercreek was not to be part of this 'regional project'. In fact, their application made a blanket statement about the fact that Silvercreek was in a completely different watershed and, therefore, will not be part of the project. Curiously, Silvercreek was added (rumor has it against their wishes) months into the project. Why is that important? Because it means pumps. Pumps? Yes, pumps. To do what? To pump the raw sewage UPHILL - up and over Cheat Mountain at great additional cost. What is the big deal about the additional cost? Curiously, this is the reason the project officials say they could not possibly move the plant because they say it would mean, get this, adding pipes into an area not previously planned. (As Yogi said, deja vu all over again) But, no - you say there are more pumps? Yes. A $400,000.00 pump has to be installed about 4 1/2 mile down Scenic Route 55/219 to get over two ridges. Well that's got to be done, right? Guess how many additional customers will be served by that $400,000.00 pump? 2. (yes, two) But, that DOES let them get to that Sharp farm!

And what about that tricky karst geography and lack of flat land? Well folks, there are thousands of acres of flat land in hollows off of state owned away from the Scenic Highway, businesses and homes. And that darned karst. (fissured limestone with underground water channels, caves, conduits and sinkholes) DWW forgot to mention that one (1) (yes, that's right, one) entire study point was performed under the headworks building (raw sewage) or SBR tanks (open vats with millions of gallons of sewage)on the proposed sitee and it found a VOID! (This void was the same size found on another infamous site, looked at belatedly in the scheme of things, which the project leaders announced they couldn't possibly build a plant there due to its presence)

They found voids all over the Sharp farm site. Microgravity studies were ordered (kind of like ground x-rays) and, guess what, voids were found. The county's own consultant ordered core drillings to see if the 'soundings' on the microgravity report indicated a cave. Only two new core drillings were done and they were not underneath the proposed site of the headworks or SBR tanks. The consultant contacted the Sharps and shared his concern that the project officials chose to not share the core information with him nor was he asked to evaluate that information. Would you be surprised to learn that the two new core samples found voids? One sample found seven stacked voids on top of each other. Why is this important?

Karst is ever changing. The force of underground water flow and pressure eats away at the limestone and causes a dynamic, ever changing landscape - above and underneath the ground. Case in point. Just feet away from the proposed site an area that was once a cornfield is now a miniature Yellowstone. It is riddled with water channels spewing water like geysers. Large sinkholes have appeared in the last decade with water rushing out, forming new streambeds. The point being, what was once stable land is not now. Could that possibly happen under the buildings housing raw sewage? Of course! The Sharp farm is full of ancient and current sinkholes. On November 30, 2005, a 20-foot deep, 30-foot wide chasm opened up. A river of water could be seen rushing under the recently exposed boulders in the depths of the hole. Even if the officials claim to be able to find four corners of the karst for each building to rest on, those four corners may not be there tomorrow. Couldn't happen again? Wellllll, not exactly. Just last week a tractor sank into a hole 100 feet from the proposed site and had to be pulled out with heavy equipment.

The other issue of karst is the fact that is so porous. One of the county hired consultants actually warned project officials that the Sharp farm site was the most dangerous due to the close proximity of the karst to an important aquatic habitat on the Big Spring Fork. (the rare host of three naturally reproducing trout and an imperiled endemic crayfish, Cambarus Elkensis) and that any spill, accident or overflow would immediately be spirited away into the groundwater. What about our wells and springs? Good question.

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection's own geology department filed a 21-page 'trip-study' with its own agency warning about the dangers of a treatment plant and discharge at the Sharp farm.

The most amazing thing is that every karst expert in the world warned against the Sharp farm site. Several local karst experts (known worldwide) suggest that a karst-free site is less than 1/2 mile away. It happens to be on state land. And do you know, that Governor Manchin has offered ANY suitable state owned land to the project leaders for a transfer fee of $1.00? But here is where it gets really twisted. The officials say we couldn't possibly burden the future ratepayers with the added cost to go down that whole 1/2 mile (and, well-uh, Snowshoe can't afford the delay).

What is this all about? It was ok to add Silvercreek. The DEP now requires up to $2 million of changes to the treatment plant (they forgot to plan for the Native Brook Trout and other precious life) but it seems an increase is ok for that....but not ok to move the plant to a safe place off the karst.

Why would it be more money to move the plant to the very place it was supposed to go in the first place? Well, back to those 'PHASES'. Phase 1, curiously, ended just short of the bottom of the drainage basin (at the Sharp farm) the huge geographic area of Phase 1 is, oddly, next to the bottom of the drainage basin in Phase 4. Phase 4? Why would phase 4 be next to phase 1? And why would Phase 4 be a tiny area with only two potential customers?

Remember WAY back at the beginning of this post? One state agency requires that 3 sites be considered (as well as no site). In the official Facilities Plan they list 3 sites. Guess how many were in Phase 1, the phase they are going to build? (in this century) 1 (yes, one....again) Would you be surprised to learn that one and only site was on the Sharp farm? How does that tie in with cost? Well, if they looked at 3 sites within the phase to be constructed the Sharp farm is the furthest point west at the border of Phase 1. If they looked at 2 other sites in Phase 1, the Sharp farm site would, by far, be the costliest because it is the furthest away from Snwoshoe. But no, the officials claim (despite millions spent in legal wrangling to take the farm via eminent domain) the Sharp farm site it the most, well let's just say it, the CHEAPEST! Why is it the cheapest. What if they put the plant down where the experts recommend and where it was supposed to go? "We weren't planning to go down there so we just can't afford to tax those ratepayers for those extra pipes". After all, that area is in Phase 4. Now the light bulb goes off. Consider one site in Phase 1 (the one you are actually going to build) and the other two in Phase 4 (the one that is the least likely to every be built) and you can come up with excuses all day! You will never hear the officials suggest meeting to possibly reconfigure Phase 1 to exclude some Snowshoe customers this go around (after all, Snowshoe and the officials claim this is a 'regional plant' and not Snowshoe's plant) and add them in during the second phase so that the project can move the plant to a safe place and the cost can remain the same and thus not raise the rates.

"The other requirement is that the ultimate rate needs to be affordable for the average homeowner. Most of the other locations evaluated would increase costs significantly due to the need for bridges, longer distances to run lines, etc. "

West Virginia University offered to build this bridge for free with a $500,000.00 grant.

" It's not as simple as buying land from a willing seller (of flat, non-flood-plain, non-karst, centrally located) land. " DWW seems to have been told or has forgotten that the Sharp farm site is actually ALLUVIUM (flood deposits) over KARST. The proposed site was created by flooding. It is called an alluvial fan. And yes, it is flat. So flat that more than half of it is in the official FEMA 100-year floodplain. The buildings are being scrunched up against the Scenic highway to get them in an area 'safe' from flooding.

Too bad they had the adjacent Middle Mountain stream declared 'non-existent' (bodies of water under the jurisdiction of the Army Corp of Engineers require bothersome environmental studies) because the stream, which created the very site, still floods onto it like a monster during heavy downpours and sudden snowmelts. Where does it enter? Right at the spot of the headworks building and SBR tanks. Ouch! The Big Spring Fork above the site was straightened to accommodate the highway, so the water gains a tremendous velocity as it approaches the site. Since the alluvial fan (the site) is in the direct path of the Big Spring Fork, it is forced to negotiate a sharp left hand turn to get around. Does it always manage this? No. In severe flooding, the river jumps its banks and flows over the (somewhat) higher part of the site right along the highway (and where the buildings will be).

"In fact, the owner of the Sharp Farm land in question was a willing seller early on until the rest of the family jumped in. " Well, since DWW is from Cincinnati he or she couldn't possibly actually know that this is a LIE! By the way, do you know how the Sharp family found out about the fact that their land would be taken? In a newspaper report. Lovely. The family member soon, thereafter, received a letter about eminent domain. I am happy to share a copy of the reply sent to WD Smith, project manager. Could it possibly have begged him to not take the precious land? Could it have informed him of the geological anomalies on the site? Yes? Yes. No wiling seller, folks. Why would the Sharp family allow this land to be taken? It is part of an 8 generation Pocahontas County heritage. It is land that has been kept in the family at great expense and sacrifice. The situation of a sewer treatment plant next to the Sharp's Country Store, established in 1884, and the recently restored 1900's farmhouse B&B will spell ruination. Loss of livelihood means loss of farm.

Trout Unlimited, The Isaak Walton League, The National Speleological Association, Friends of Elk, The Elk Headwaters Watershed Association, The West Virginia Outdoor Sportsmen Association, The Mid-Atlantic Fly-Fishermen Association, the Sierra Club, countless experts in biology, hydrology and karst have filed letters of protest about the Sharp farm site selection.

Did I mention that two graves of historic Sharp family pioneers (one a Civil War casualty) will be bulldozed? Oh, they can't do that. Wanna bet? Less than 100 feet above the site is a hill with the family cemetery with the founders of the community buried. Mourners will look down upon 2.25 million gallons of human waste in open vats. One project leader (by the way, a Snowshoe exec) asked, "Will they smell it? The dead people. Will they smell it up there?'

Why on earth is the State of West Virginia determined to ruin the Sharp's hopes and dreams and way of life, endanger the aquatic life, and threaten the underground water supply when FREE state land is about 1/4 mile away? This site has 1 million gallons per day higher available wasteload allocation than the Sharp farm site. Snowshoe could build Disneyland up there with that allocation.

Lastly, permit me one 'emotional', 'sentimental' moment. Evva Shelton. Who is she? Well, she did what we all strive to do. Raise a family (3 girls) provide for them and live life in peace and not bother anyone. Evva did this all by herself. Her husband died soon after her twins were born. She has lived on the Sharp farm (just feet from the proposed site) for 66 years. She is 94 years young. Ladies and gentlemen, she was sent her very own eminent domain letter!

Eminent domain in a rural setting with thousand of offered state owned acres available is ludicrous. We are not in Manhattan, folks. Please move this plant! Please call the governor's office at Toll-Free: 1-888-438-2731
E-mail: Governor@WVGov.org / ask for his executive assistant, Joe Martin.

Please call Bill Rock, general manager of Snowshoe at 304-572-INFO.

Please call the soon to be new owners of Snowshoe, FORTRESS INVESTMENTS (Wesley R. Edens) 212-798-6100 and ask them to do the right thing.

Tell them you want to ski, but not on the backs of the Sharp family and the communities heritage. You might mention the fact that hundreds of Snowshoe property owners sent letter with individually signed petitions asking officials to move the plant. Over a thousand local residents likewise signed. The peition doesn't ask to stop Snowshoe, stop economic development or stop anything. It merely asks to move the sewer treatment plant away from the Scenic Highway, off the Sharp farm and onto safe land.

Thank you.

Please visit http://www.savethesharpfarm.com

sharp,

whats the latest on the state supreme court hearing your case? i was in elk river touring center last week and heard that they had turned down the request to hear the case.

how about Robert Byrd? any luck from his office?
have you contacted some of the national news outlets in DC?
the only way to save your farm will come from a mass public backlash- try FOX or some of the other national players.

This is ridiculous. I'd love to know what local government or regulatory official(s) are allowing Snowshoe to continue with this. As I've said many times, private companies and developers run amok are the real threat to the WV highlands, not the land preservation movement. These things screw over local residents and second homeowners alike.

how about the 'farmland protection' program?
http://home.sunlitsurf.com/~pocahontascc/farmland.html

Thank you Sharp1 for the extensive write up on this issue. Clearly there is much information, interpretation, and mis-information floating around on this issue. I appologize for spreading anything that is not factual. Clearly I am not on the front line of this issue. It does still seem to me that there are multiple parties to "blame" for this mess - Snowshoe, PSC, engineers and consultants, local politicians, state politicians, non-Snowshoe developers, etc., etc. I don't believe it was Snowshoe's original intention to take private property from an unwilling seller, as is portrayed by some. It does seem that this took a life of its own, and SS could have done more to help manage the process for everyones benefit. For the record, I am against eminent domain and did sign the petition against it that the Sharp family circulated. I would just like to see the community (and yes I believe SS is a part of the greater community) come to a long term solution that benefits everyone - local residents, businesses, vacation home owners, guests, environment. I don't think it should be an us vs. them position - all can benefit if done properly. Hopefully the new owners at Fortress will pony up and help make it work.

The chairman of the Pocahontas County Public Service District resigned recently. In a letter to the community printed in the Pocahontas Times, he indicated the reason they took on this $17 million project (the board is comprised of three members, all from a hamlet called Durbin, 40 miles away. Their duties up until this time was to look after the Durbin water supply. An example of their skill in this endeavor; a hydrant in town has been leaking for two years.) because they were in debt. The officials told them that money coming in on this project would put them in the clear. The board members make $50.00 a month. Some have not been paid for over 1 1/2 years.
Pocahontas County actually took on this project so the PSD board members could get themselves out of debt, you ask? Apparently so....it is in the letter.

He continues on saying that meetings were held behind closed doors....you know, I think I'll just post his letter and you can see for yourselves:

Thursday August 3, 2006
The Pocahontas Times
Calvin Hill's Resignation Letter

I am writing this letter because I want to do the right thing and be fair with the people. I recently resigned as chairman of the Public Service District after serving for a good while. I have had some things on my mind that concern me that I want to share with you.

The PSD was having trouble paying its bills so we agreed to take on Snowshoe's sewer customers because we were told it was a way of getting out of debt. However, I am unhappy with recent developments. I feel like there were very important issues that should have been brought to our attention that were decided behind closed doors without my knowledge. Meetings were held in Charleston and elsewhere that we were not invited to or informed about. I don't like the way things have been going on behind our backs. The attorney, Tom Michael, seems to be running the show.

Our plant manager, who is not a member of the PSD board, was sent last week by Mr. Michael to my house to discuss the water plant and to sign checks.

I felt uncomfortable making decisions about the water plant without the other board members present. In my mind, a special meeting should have taken place with the entire board.

The county commission should be working with us so we can all pull together to make the right decisions for the community, but this is not happening. I am receiving lots of letters from citizens expressing their opposition to the location of the sewer plant and the use of eminent domain. These are also some of my concerns and have been weighing heavily on my mind.

I am not happy about how information was withheld from us during our decision making. The proper information at the right time would have allowed us to make the best decisions. In all good conscience, I believe Snowshoe should stand on its own two feet and take care of the sewer itself.

I am proud to have served on the PSD.

I am asking Joel Callison to reconsider his stance on eminent domain for the Sharp Farm. He has been dedicated to the citizens of Pocahontas County. He will regain their much-deserved support if he listens to the people and does the right thing. He has been a great supporter of growth of tourism that has steadily increased. He has increased jobs and new businesses for our county. Joel is also a member of the Pocahontas County Farm Bureau and helped create the local Farmland Protection program ensuring that future generations would have farmland in our county.

Let's help save the Sharp Farm, as well, for future generations.

Sincerely,
Calvin Hill
Durbin

Now, for the Farmland protection question. To understand this issue one needs to understand the dynamics of the politics over this project. Pocahontas County is ruled by a three member county commission. President Joel Callison co-owns a company named Greenbrier Investments, LLC. They buy, sell and rent property at Snowshoe. Reta Griffith's husband is the CPA for Snowshoe. James Carpenter's son works for the law firm working on bonding the project.

Mr. Callison, a 12-year incumbent democrat (basically loved and respected in this community) campaigned on taking the Sharp farm via Eminent Domain for the good of Snowshoe and progress. He was soundly defeated....winning only one precinct (his own town) by a couple of votes.

During a special county commission meeting on Farmland Protection a proposal was made to donate the Sharp farm to the program. Well, it seems that Mr. Callison is on the Farmland Protection Board. His comment? "I will not accept the application"

It is so odd that this special meeting, where they voted to levy a special tax on transfers of property, was all about saving farmland to retain the open vistas and land for future generations. An opportunity to preserve historic farmland was refused.

The community and the Sharp family need your help. If you read this thread and are of the opinion that this just should not be, please call, write and show up at public venues to confront those elected to serve the people. If you are a Snowshoe customer, no one is trying to stop Snowshoe or cause them any harm. It is just a matter of what is safe, what is right and what is fair. The next time you are up on the mountain, stop by Mr. Rock's office and ask him to reconsider his decision for the good of all involved, including Snowshoe.

Thank you.

To DWW. Pardon my numerous postings on this subject but I have to THANK DWW for a most responsible, respectful and rational response. If you are ever on the wrong side of an eminent domain action you will know how excruciatingly difficult it is to hear some of the things said in his previous post as 'fact'. That is why I felt it necessary to share the 'long version' of this project with this group.

To DWW's credit, the reply was not defensive. The information DWW posted was almost verbatim the language of the project officials, so I assumed this was another attempt on their part to quell the protests. It demonstrates the effectiveness of their 'spin'.

I absolutely agree that Snowshoe is not totally responsible for this mess. That being said, they built a village up on the mountain without the proper attention to infrastructure. Even though they are well aware of every detail of this fiasco, they choose to still support the taking of the Sharp farm. It turns out that they are even guaranteeing the loan to the PSD that may be used to take the farm.

Again, thank you DWW for your wise words. We can only hope that someone in power could have half the integrity and willingness to have a hard look at all the facts as you have demonstrated in your post.

Sharp1 - Do you have any idea how Snowshoe can continue to get building permits for condos (Soaring Eagle, Expedition Station, Eight Rivers) when thier existing sewage system is out of compliance and any solution is years away?

If the field in question is as unstable as you say, how can the DEP/EPA possibly approve a permit for that location?

Thanks

Very good question? Any ideas? I see by other posts you have made that you have a place nearby. Perhaps you know something? Snowshoe's violations are on file with the DEP and are available from the DEP through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

As for the DEP/EPA, they have not issued the discharge permit. Hearings are to come. The DEP admits they may have never tackled discharging effluent into a dry riverbed in karst before. Perhaps they are experimenting?

The quick & dirty answer is a 'box for a box', at least for the condos. iirc T'line becomes Expedition, Spruce becomes 8 Rivers, Shavers becomes new convention center, etc. etc.
Its one of those techinicality things that came down to 'room count'- 100 rooms in spruce in exchange for 100 in 8 rivers, etc. No encroachment and no new environmental impact studies, probably similar to trading 'pollution credits'.

sharp, not sure if u saw my earlier post- what happened to the state supreme court hearing your case earlier this month?

Flanary - here's the write up on the supreme court ruling in the Pocahonatas Times:

Supreme Court declines to hear sewer appeal
Drew Tanner
Staff Writer
In a 5-0 decision September 6, the justices of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal regarding the sewage treatment plant proposed for Snowshoe and Slaty Fork.
Attorney Deirdre Purdy, representing Tom Shipley, said the court's decision was not a strike against the merits of the case, but simply meant the court did not want to hear the appeal.
"It doesn't go to our underlying questions at all, or the site or the sewage treatment plant itself," said Purdy. "If it tells us anything indirectly, it tells us we should go to the DEP."
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection is expected to issue a permit for the proposed plant to discharge into the Big Spring Fork of the Elk River in the near future.
Shipley-who represents the fourth generation of his family to operate Sharp's Country Store and Bed and Breakfast-has steadfastly argued that the site chosen by project planners and owned by his aunt Barbara Sharp Smith, of Texas, is the wrong place to put the plant.
Shipley and his legal team have argued that the location of the plant would be devastating to his business and to the health of the Big Spring Fork, which is a native trout stream.
Local and state conservation groups have weighed in with their own concerns about the project and its impact on the stream.
In the marble chambers of the Supreme Court Wednesday morning, Purdy argued that the West Virginia Public Service Commission had not followed its own regulations when it granted a Certificate of Necessity for the sewage treatment plant.
Purdy pointed out that the PSC requires a project to have all the necessary permits or to show good cause as to why the permits are not available.
In this particular case, Purdy said, the PSC is now arguing that the law prevents the permits from being available or even applied for.
Purdy also argued the PSC had failed to address the fact the record shows the plant will be too small to serve the area in just 10-to-15 years.
The regulations of the Bureau of Public Health and DEP require that plants be designed to handle at least 20 years of population growth and development.
While the PSC can't enforce the regulations of another state agency, Purdy said the PSC has considered whether other projects meet BPH and DEP standards.
It is part of the PSC's job to decide whether or not a project is adequate, reliable, well planned and balances the needs of present and future customers, Purdy said.
From the bench, Justice Larry Starcher asked Purdy if the people who would be served by the plant actually wanted it.
Purdy replied that there were "numerous petitions" on record with the PSC against the project, both from residents in the Slaty Fork area and Snowshoe property owners.
Starcher also asked how many households the project would serve off the mountain.
Purdy replied that the number was 164-about 8 percent of the total customer base-and that "most say they don't want it."
Tom Michael, representing the Pocahontas County Public Service District said the protests lodged with the PSC represented a small number of the 1,981 potential customers.
Michael also told the court that 57 of the 65 easements needed for sewer lines between Snowshoe Mountain and the Sharp property had been donated, indicating support for the project.
Michael was joined by PSC attorney Cassius Toon in saying that Shipley's argument was with the DEP, and not the PSC.
Toon added that the certificate from the PSC would be invalid if the necessary permits did not come through.
While permit details were being argued in Charleston, the DEP responded to a citizen complaint of a possible sewage spill in the Slaty Fork area that same morning.
DEP spokesperson Jessica Greathouse said inspector Robin Dolly traveled to Slaty Fork to investigate.
"This area is approximately 10 miles from the Snowshoe Resort sewage treatment system," said Greathouse. "As of [Thursday] morning, Inspector Dolly had no evidence that a sewage spill had occurred from any sewage system."

DWW. Just found out the reason Snowshoe can build and build without control is that there are no building permits required in Pocahontas County, except in Marlinton. The DEP would be the only entity that could put a moratorium on building until they solved their infrastructure and treatment problems.

they can build, but not without control. not sure about the building permits piece (theres got to be some kind of permit process- but then again its wv so who knows- kinda like dc, it all depends on who u know and its a major good ol boy network, aka country style lobbying).

theres all kinds of paperwork, permits, and govt red tape to expand on either the slopes or new big boxes (unless its the box for box approach). environmental impact studies have to be done and fed permits have to be issued since the land is in national forest (just like out west- vail, etc). pretty sure its filed thru national forest service, dept. of interior. dont have links but know there are some posted on these pages if u run a search.

then theres dealing with the environmental wackos and tree huggers. the elusive flying tree squirrel (which my jack russell loves to terrorize regardless of subspecies) and the spotted salamander, both proclaimed endangered species. im all for helping our 'furry little friends, etc' but theres millions of acres for them to play on and the nutjobs, lawyers, and the govt make it hell to cut down a single tree that may be threatening to fall on your digs in the name of protection. (makes about as much sense as destroying a man's land and dumping a giant turd floater project on it when theres millions of acres up in them thar hills that would be viable entities).

the private projects on 'new turf' are probably subject to the same show (l'run, s'mill, s'eagle). individual owners on west ridge have to call out the professor to determine if the buggers are on their property before building or cutting a branch. check the listings- land that is deemed 'bugger free' carries a much higher price tag.

Yes that is true. My understanding is that when we build eventually, no building permit is required. Although, we will need to get a health department approval for the location and type, etc. of septic system. If the health department is worried about a single home, I can't imagine why they wouldn't be concerned about new condo buildings. Some priorities are certainly screwed up. You can't take a salamanders home, but you can take a families property.

animals are incredibly versatile, resilient and not stupid. they dont like us on their turf and they move on about their biz. the whole spotted owl issue is butkus, but makes the wackos FEEL good, and drives up the lumber prices.

just this week- an 'artic' seal here in good ol nc;
http://dwb.newsobserver.com/news/ncwire_news/story/3010476p-9431740c.html
the nutjobs would have u beleive that an animal cant survive out of its 'normal pristine habitat'. why kill the poor guy - why not the handler for not taking proper precautions around a wild animal?

the anwar alaska deal is the same. we cant hurt the caribou- other environments have shown that they thrive with an oil pipeline. theyre found huddling around the warm pipes and population increases due to increased 'networking' opportunities. it sure as **** doesnt FEEL good to me, or probably u, to pay $3+/gal with proved petro deposits sitting in our backyard. common sense has long left the plantation.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... wha?

Oh, another one of these posts.

Except that every species is adapted to a niche, and if the niche changes enough, the species won't make it. That's the real issue.

Well the real issue is whether that's important or not, after all species have come and gone for millenia... including our own.

Of course it would be height of irony if we were the first species in earth history to do ourselves in, now that would be a gas.

im not talking about dumping toxic sludge or the potential to drop a nuke on ourselves- im a defender of the environment. when a man (an animal) cant build a home b/c of loony rules, something is wrong. look at a usgs satellite shot to realize the microcosm of a house footprint, etc to the overall scope of things. some of the worst offenders of the environment are the ones that claim to help it- look at the oodles of trash left behind on the mall next 'earth day' (it makes the bears projects look civil).

a killer book on this controversy, regardless of viewpoint, is crichton's 'state of fear'.